TS: Artists who release a record every month vs. artists who release a record every ten years

Too little quality control vs. too much? Just putting out stuff when it's "good enough" vs. meticulously working on record for years and years until you think it's absolutely perfect? Which one is more irritating? Which one makes for a better discography?

So, basically, this is "The La's vs LightSpeed Champion"?

Something in-between.

It would be great if eg Scott Walker put out somewhat less highly refined product on a more regular basis, but otoh, it does make each release AN EVENT. Artists who I start off liking who then go tossing out any old shite (hello Acid Mothers Temple), those dudes end up really pissing me off.

a single every month is great. an album, every 18 months or so is perfect.

god, neither. on the one hand you have a severe lack of quality control and on the other hand you have metallica.

I like the sixties 'model', where a single every 2 months, an e.p. for certain events, and an album after 18 months or thereabouts...

1) Single in generic sleeve: 2 new songs, both great in their way
2) e.p. of playing live someplace, or some experimental stuff, nice sleeve with pics and text
3) LP, you know.

It can't happen like that, I know. Uness you 'own' the manufacturing process.

That's also the techno model these days, a lot of artists put a regular stream of singles out and an album of largely new stuff every year or two.