>I'm sorry you guys, Wilco is fine and I own (and rather like)
>some of their records but they're just not as good to my ears.
> They are second tier in the contemporary landscape of bands.
>I guess I just don't see how a band that has released
>acknowledged underwhelming albums can be better than a band
>who releases something strong every time out.

Well, first of all, part of the problem here is that you obviously have standards that are 1. going largely unstated and unargued-for, and 2. are not shared by all. I almost put up a spinoff post about this very subject called "Quantity >>>>>>> Quality" (boy would THAT get some attention). I do think it's a great achievement to make a long string of very-good-to-great albums, even if the best of those albums are not as good as somebody else's strongest work. Call it the desert island test: if I was going to a desert island and had to choose one artist's discography to take with me, I'd prefer Wilco's over, say, My Bloody Valentine, because as much as I enjoy "Loveless" and to a lesser extent its predecessor, I'm going to drive myself insane if that's all I have to listen to. Give me Wilco's long run of good-to-great and I will be happier, even though it's arguable if even "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" is as good/impactful/groundbreaking/whatever of a record as "Loveless."

I think people default to the position that quality is better than quantity, because it's so obviously the "correct" choice. But if I can get quantity at a very high (but not the highest) quality, I would. Yessir. I think that conversation is worth having and more importantly, I think it NEEDS to be had for this discography comparison thing to go in any meaningful direction. Otherwise it's just people with different standards talking past each other.

Second, there's the very subjective matter of whether Wilco's highlights match those of Sonic Youth, MBV, and whoever else. That's a different set of standards that you really can't even defend, though you can describe them. I hold that a lot of people who are pop culture and indie rock enthusiasts put too much importance on albums that blew their mind, and maybe not enough on albums that are just extremely well-made and enjoyable front to back. That's why I respect what Wilco does, even though they've never blown my mind even slightly. But I respect that your standards may differ. Wilco is never going to make one single song that is a shock to the system like "Titanium Expose" was (I single that one out because it made a small dent in the mainstream - it was from SY's first major label album and it was on a soundtrack of a fuckin' Christian Slater movie!). But to me, Sonic Youth will never write a song as beautiful or indelible as any of Wilco's top ten. Maybe it's a wash. Maybe not.

Finally, who do you think hasn't made "acknowledged underwhelming albums"? What band with 8+ full-lengths has actually been awesome every time? Even most of my favorite bands have a clunker or two, or at least albums where they are less than inspired. And the bands that just do their thing over and over tend to get into a cycle of diminishing returns. Basically, it's hard to make the same album repeatedly without producing a faded photocopy-of-a-photocopy-of-a-photocopy at some point, and it's hard to continually challenge yourself and evolve without sometimes meandering down some evolutionary dead ends, or backtracking for no clear reason. I honestly can't think of a single band or solo artist I love who has made as many albums as Wilco and doesn't have at least one that I think somewhat less of compared to the rest.