ITT: flawless discographies

The smiths
vu if you don't count squeeze

Attached: the_smiths_discography_by_skotina_d4w0prk-pre.jpg (1192x670, 170K)

Revolver is far from great, at the very most it's a 6.5/10

this CANNOT be topped

Attached: sex.jpg (1500x1470, 182K)

Swans
>muh Burning World
its still great, fuck off

Attached: topsters2 (1).png (1183x1183, 458K)

What about how Greed and Holy money might as well not exist becuase Public Castration is so vastly superior to the studio versions?

there's literally two decent albums in that entire discography
there's maybe 1.5 listenable albums in that discography
that album sucks
there's only one album in this discography worth hearing more than once

The top row is just as solid as the rest of the rows. And that's why they're The Beatles. It took the Rolling Stones til their 4th album to start getting good. It took the Kinks about as many too. Simon & Garfunkel's first 2 LPs are forgettable. Same for the Beach Boys. Dylan's first is nothing to write home about. The Beatles were good right from the crack of the starter's pistol.

Attached: beatles-sgtpepper-essentials.png (830x830, 846K)

>this CANNOT be topped
Maybe it can't be topped by you, personally, but much as I like that album, it's been topped by all kinds of people.

Attached: topsters2 (3).png (1722x1722, 1.12M)

>Dylan's first is nothing to write home about
why are beatles fans so retarded?

i love them too, user, but most of the EPs from any era are disposable, and the post-MPP era is spotty at best

Modern day Ween honestly

Attached: mo.jpg (793x588, 73K)

their covers are so juicy

deerhoof

tho

the chameleons