Most prolific artist of the 00's

[Guest Speed Racer]

it's a matter of taste.

 

Everything I've heard of him makes him sound like a snot-nosed asthmatic, short-breathed kid who has spent the decade trying to rewrite Freewheelin' and Bringin' it all Back Home, both of which he needs to stop listening to.

[embiggen]

Everything I've heard of him makes him sound like a snot-nosed asthmatic, short-breathed kid who has spent the decade trying to rewrite Freewheelin' and Bringin' it all Back Home, both of which he needs to stop listening to.

 

 

BUT HE WAS PROLIFIC!!!!!!!!!!!

[MattZ]

Will Oldham may not be as prolific as Robert Pollard was, but he did more than most of these jokers you people are suggesting.

[Guest Speed Racer]

BUT HE WAS PROLIFIC!!!!!!!!!!!

 

NOT IF IT'S NOT ART!!!!!!!!!!!

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

I don't mind a few Mystic Valley Band Conor songs, but his entire Bright Eyes catalogue reeks of trying too hard. His vocals and lyrics are such blatant attempts to be Dylan-esque, but they sound forced, which is as un-Dylan as can be.

 

I don't mind his more recent, slower songs, like Temazcal on the MoF album. But when he sings faster songs, like pretty much all his other MoF songs, I want to hit him.

[embiggen]

prolific does not equal quality.

[W(TF)]

I don't mind a few Mystic Valley Band Conor songs, but his entire Bright Eyes catalogue reeks of trying too hard. His vocals and lyrics are such blatant attempts to be Dylan-esque, but they sound forced, which is as un-Dylan as can be.

 

I don't mind his more recent, slower songs, like Temazcal on the MoF album. But when he sings faster songs, like pretty much all his other MoF songs, I want to hit him.

 

^ ^ ^ 100% agree.

[Guest Speed Racer]

prolific does not equal quality.

 

oberst does not equal art.

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

oberst does not equal art.

Nice.

[Guest Runaway Jim]

prolific does not equal quality.

 

It's my opinion that the folks that are so adamantly trying to hammer home the above statement are ruining this thread.

 

My interpretation of "prolific" certainly includes quality. Which is why I can't say that Robert Pollard is more prolific than Jeff Tweedy. Because I know nothing of the quality of his work. I'm glad he puts out a hundred albums a year, but that doesn't make him prolific in my eyes.

 

Again, I've never heard his work and am excited to hear it after all those rave reviews.

[embiggen]

wow. I guess the definition of prolific is subjective. :rolleyes

 

I never new definitions could be subjective, but ok. carry on.

[Guest Speed Racer]

My interpretation of "prolific" certainly includes quality. Which is why I can't say that Robert Pollard is more prolific than Jeff Tweedy. Because I know nothing of the quality of his work. I'm glad he puts out a hundred albums a year, but that doesn't make him prolific in my eyes.

 

I'm with you on this. I could file a ton of cases at work, getting dozens of items out the door per day, but the quality would be shoddy, a lot of them might get rejected and crap would suck for a lot of people. To be a truly prolific employee, the quality of my work would have to be good, if not excellent. Hell, I could release 8 albums in 2010, and continue on through the decade, but they would suck donkey balls and no one would really consider them art.

 

Nice.

 

I know, right? I'm so fly.

 

I never new definitions could be subjective, but ok. carry on.

 

Do you disagree that quality has to be taken into consideration? If you're not doing something correctly, satisfactorily or skillfully, can it count as a notch on the wall of productivity?

[embiggen]

after coming into this thread I don't have any idea what it means anymore. it doesn't mean what I thought it meant, obviously. (exiting the room...)

[Doug C]

Due to this thread, I have spent a ridiculously wasteful amount of time looking at several definitions of prolific to make sure that my definition of prolific was the definition of prolific. None of them said anything about quality of what was produced. The definitions only varied in synonyms for quantity. Prolific is prolific. I love the internet. Not really.

[cryptique]

Don't confuse "prolific" with "efficient."

 

"Prolific" has nothing to do with quality. It's only about abundance. It doesn't matter how you interpret the meaning of the word ... that interpretation is incorrect.

 

The most prolific artist of the decade was the artist who put out the most music. End of story.

 

Now, whether you choose to measure that output by number of songs, total playing time, number of albums, number of official releases, or whatever -- I suppose that's open to argument. You could also quibble over whether unreleased or live material should be included. But the bottom line is that this is wholly a quantitative argument, and not at all a qualitative one.

[Guest Runaway Jim]

I never new definitions could be subjective, but ok. carry on.

 

Definitions can absolutely be subjective. Now you've learned something today.

[cryptique]

Definitions can absolutely be subjective. Now you've learned something today.

But in this case, the subjective element that's being injected has absolutely nothing to support it, aside from what a few people state to be their "interpretations."

 

It's as if I decided that I wanted to interpret the word "blue" to mean "orange." I can say that blue=orange all I want, but that doesn't make it true.

[Guest Speed Racer]

The most prolific artist of the decade was the artist who put out the most music. End of story.

 

But that we can still quibble over. Jandek released a ton of albums, but a lot of people might argue about whether they qualify as music.

[Shakespeare In The Alley]

Guys, this is the internet. Everything is debatable.

[hardwood floor]

agree with the suggestions for a robert pollard / GBV starting point

 

isolation drills (GBV's most accessible full-length)

universal truths and cycles (GBV's best post-tobin era record)

from a compound eye (kind of dense - you'll need to listen 50 times before you realize you love it)

zero to 99 (his most GBV-esque post-GBV record)

maybe mag earwhig? combines the early lo-fi asthetic with some polished accessible flat-out rockers

 

i'd say that of my 100 favorite records of all-time, 30 are robert pollard records

[Guest Runaway Jim]

Say you had an apple tree, and it beared many, many apples. You'd say it's a prolific apple tree.

 

Now say you had another apple tree that also beared many, many apples, but they were all rotten and sour. You'd still say that apple tree is prolific?

 

I absolutely would not.

[Doug C]

Say you had an apple tree, and it beared many, many apples. You'd say it's a prolific apple tree.

 

Now say you had another apple tree that also beared many, many apples, but they were all rotten and sour. You'd still say that apple tree is prolific?

 

I absolutely would not.

According to the definition of prolific, you would be wrong. If the apple tree actually produced rotten and sour fruit, then it must have been bred to do that. We had some sour orange trees on our citrus grove when I was a lad but I don't think that it's possible to have a hybrid that produces fruit that are already rotten. They would have to ripen and then rot.

[cryptique]

Say you had an apple tree, and it beared many, many apples. You'd say it's a prolific apple tree.

 

Now say you had another apple tree that also beared many, many apples, but they were all rotten and sour. You'd still say that apple tree is prolific?

 

I absolutely would not.

And you would be wrong.

[W(TF)]

 

By "prolific", all I meant (as the OP) was, "did the most", "had the most impact", "was most influential", etc. How is that so tough to decipher?

[Guest Runaway Jim]

And you would be wrong.

 

No, I wouldn't.

 

What are you a fucking English professor, man?