During the week of Christmas, it seems like the world slows way down. Everyone - musicians included - goes on holiday and ceases work. To that end, there doesn't seem to be much music news right now. That's ok - we'll make our own! To that end, let's do a fun "What if" post. Today, let's speculate how our fave bands would be regarded if they were only allowed to issue one album each.
Consider that for a minute: a recording industry where bands are only allowed to release one album.
I wonder what one album Motley would have released? Too Fast for Love, or Shout at the Devil? What if it was Theatre of Pain? If that was the case, would we care as much? If Def Leppard had never released Hysteria and had only put out, say, On Through the Night, would we still love them? What if Michael Jackson had never launched a solo career? It's all a little nutty to consider.
The great thing about the arts - music, writing, painting - is that the artist can create as much (or as little) as she wants. So what if the output...was on the little side?
Think about Guns n' Roses. There's not much output by the "classic" lineup. Many say that has hurt the band's legacy. Other fans say it doesn't matter. I still think we're too close time-wise to Appetite for Destruction to really assess the GnR legacy on popular music as a whole.
I think you have to take a collective discography into account to judge a band on their impact to culture. Of course, limiting to one album each changes all that. Then again, I suppose there are bands that have only done one amazing work and have made an impact - I just can't think of any Glam acts off the top of my head.
What say you?