>I mean, I think the problem is the criteria. The OP just
>happened to pick a period of time where the Roots had released
>10 distinct albums (if you're counting Come Alive and Wake
>Up). How many bands release that many records, ever, let
>alone happened to time their most productive period to fall
>within 1995-2010?

i get it that it's very arbitrary, but i think specificity was the point. it's an even 15 years of time that actually fits rather nicely from 1995 to 2010, and it speaks to how music is now, not when artists released an album or two or three a year in the vinyl days nor the commercial peak of rap, which overlaps with the 15 years, but these years also represent the ascent to and descent from that peak. the criteria could change to 10 years, or 1994 to 2009 to cut out HIGO and WU, and a lesser # of albums and still speak to some of the same strengths of the roots and their output. it's ok to salute them for their accomplishment, and it's an interesting challenge to name other artists that fit the criteria given to us.


>Radiohead is the best I can come up with, that had a pretty
>stellar (near-flawless, actually) 1995-2010 that also included
>a pretty prolific number of releases.

i agree. they're my favorite band. i don't love all the albums equally, but they released a lot of music, especially on a song basis, during this time that represents top notch artistry. that said, they haven't been as prolific at major releases as the roots. the roots don't take nearly as much--actually, take no--downtime as radiohead, which isn't a strike against either artistically, just a fact worth discussing.


>I think that 7 album stretch over this 15 year period is the
>closest any band will come to the OP's criteria.

some of us have named artists that actually released 10 major or full-length releases during the time, but it's just a question of taste and familiarity. radiohead is obviously very popular so they seem like a great answer, but they are outmatched in this conversation.