I think I’d compare them based on years as a band. But I could listen to someone measure out how many studio songs it takes for each band to jump the shark or dip significantly.
sorry, I totally respect their influence but I find them largely quite boring. tried again recently, too
REM is a solid answer for best American rock band. Maybe not my pick, but one that comes up occasionally and i like hearing.
If I’m not mistaken, they didn’t disband sooner because they were employing a lot of people by existing as a band. I grade their last handful of albums on a softer scale knowing that they could have quit after Bill Berry left with a near perfect rock catalogue but decided to be good humans for another decade.
R.E.M. did this in their first decade of recorded output: Chronic Town (1982) Murmur (1983) Reckoning (1984) Fables of the Reconstruction (1985) Lifes Rich Pageant (1986) Document (1987) Green (1988) Out of Time (1991) Automatic for the People (1992) Very, very few bands in history have a first 10 years that great or groundbreaking, let alone a band who (sorry) took until their third time out to make a great record. I like The National, but come on.
If you grade their albums against their own career, the National have maintained the National’s high level of quality longer than R.E.M. maintained R.E.M.’s high level of quality. More specifically, the National have made it to almost 20 years since Alligator without having the drop off that R.E.M. experienced. I’m a giant R.E.M. fan and I like the last few records but they are a huge drop off in quality and consistency and growth and the National haven’t hit that yet.
the level of quality and public reach/crossover that REM had in their peak, even if it's shorter than the national's while still being a decade+, is still higher than the national's also I feel pretty safe arguing that this album marked the drop off of the national
Yeah, I think I'd give The National 2005 to 2017 on their streak, which is still shorter than R.E.M., who made very good to perfect albums from 1983 to 1996. And R.E.M. made 10 LPs in that stretch, versus five in The National's hot streak.
I think it’s their best written/performed album. It’s just too long and I think tying it to a short film with crossover interludes was not the best choice.
I really wish I enjoyed this album more. I think it's got 5-6 really good songs and find the rest a complete snooze. I also just think they went a little overboard with the guest vocalists. Bringing in a bunch of female voices was a cool idea, and there are points where it really works well, but there's so much of it that the album ends up not really feeling like a National record to me. I recall Matt saying something like "I don't miss me at all," but I miss him.
As far as R.E.M. being one of the biggest bands on Earth, they definitely win the crown for that. The National are nowhere near the top of that list.
I can see National fans being disappointed depending on what they expect from the National. I think SWB is their best record and enjoy their current phase, even if there is no Bloodbuzz Ohio or England anywhere in sight.
I adore Boxer, High Violet, Trouble, and Beast for very different reasons. I’m personally a little less fond of Alligator, but see what’s to love there. I could take or leave the other three.
I was not aware that people didn’t like the latest record as much as the others. i love everything they’ve done, but I thought IAETF was a home run. I love it.