Bands who only released albums in one decade

[Digital_Man]

I won't be too nitpicky here. If a band was formed in say 1978 released their first album in 79 then disbanded in 1990 that's close enough. I am referring to albums released while the band was still around. I don't count albums released after a band broke up. So if someone says Gentle Giant don't count because they put out albums after the break up then in my view they are posthumous releases and so don't break the rules for the purpose of this thread. Also, let's not list every one shot band. A band should have been around long enough to record at least 3 albums(including live)for the purpose of this thread.

Some well known examples:

The Beatles (60's)
Gentle Giant (70's)
Led Zeppelin (70's)(69-78 so one full decade)
Mr. Bungle (90's)
UK (late 70's)

[Halmyre]

I was going to say the Doors, but you've got the post-Morrison releases, although it's all still within a ten-year period.

Cream

[Digital_Man]

Fruupp (Irish prog band who only put out four albums in the 70's)

[trurl]

Every band that only had one album, by default...

[presdoug]

Triumvirat-formed in 1969, they released a string of studio albums from the debut ('72) to the final one ('80)

[JKL2000]

Cyan
Deyss
Chandelier

[Rarebird]

Trace
Trikolon
Tetragon

[JKL2000]

The Coenobite/Dr. Coenobite
Barrock
Red Jasper
Devil Doll (all within 1989-1996 - not sure why it would need to be within "the 70s, 80s" etc anyway, as long as it's within 10 years.

[mnprogger]

The Jimi Hendrix Experience

[JKL2000]

Egdon Heath (1987-1996)

[trurl]

Devil Doll (all within 1989-1996 - not sure why it would need to be within "the 70s, 80s" etc anyway, as long as it's within 10 years.

No, that would be "bands that only released album during an arbitrary 3,650 day period". Decades are a recognized social construct defined as a ten year period form a year ending in zero to the next. (Techno nerds realize that it's really years ending in 1 to the next but they were shouted down in the great "millennium starts in 2001" fiasco.)

[JKL2000]

No, that would be "bands that only released album during an arbitrary 3,650 day period". Decades are a recognized social construct defined as a ten year period form a year ending in zero to the next. (Techno nerds realize that it's really years ending in 1 to the next but they were shouted down in the great "millennium starts in 2001" fiasco.)

Look up the definition of Decade.

[trurl]

Look up the definition of Decade.

That's for mathematicians and lawyers

[Rarebird]

Anomaly

[Digital_Man]

The Coenobite/Dr. Coenobite
Barrock
Red Jasper
Devil Doll (all within 1989-1996 - not sure why it would need to be within "the 70s, 80s" etc anyway, as long as it's within 10 years.

Well, Devil Doll would qualify. It's more fun to do it by decade but I won't be too nitpicky about it. It is just interesting to see how certain bands are "timelocked" in a certain period(ie The Beatles, Hendrix, LZ and GG)and often they fall into one decade. If it was a band that was around from 75-85 then it kind of loses a certain romantic appeal and easy categorization(silly I know but it's my thread. :P ).

Every band that only had one album, by default...

Well I did say they should have put out at least three albums(including live albums).

[Digital_Man]

I was going to say the Doors, but you've got the post-Morrison releases, although it's all still within a ten-year period.

Cream

No, in this case I think we can include the Doors because most of their music was in the sixties not to mention within a ten year time frame. I'd even be ok with it if someone mentioned CCR.

[trurl]

Well I did say they should have put out at least three albums(including live albums).

Oh, whoops!

[JKL2000]

Well, Devil Doll would qualify. It's more fun to do it by decade but I won't be too nitpicky about it. It is just interesting to see how certain bands are "timelocked" in a certain period(ie The Beatles, Hendrix, LZ and GG)and often they fall into one decade. If it was a band that was around from 75-85 then it kind of loses a certain romantic appeal and easy categorization(silly I know but it's my thread. :P )

Well I did say they should have put out at least three albums(including live albums).

See, Trurl tries to twist the rules!

I guess I see the logic. Most bands that were around from 65-75 or 75-85 etc. went through some crazy changes.

[Digital_Man]

See, Trurl tries to twist the rules!

I guess I see the logic. Most bands that were around from 65-75 or 75-85 etc. went through some crazy changes.

Well no, not necessarily. Don't most prog bands go through crazy changes? What I mean is as long as it's a time span of approximately ten years I'm not going to split hairs about it even though it wasn't what I initially had in mind. Oh and they don't have to be prog bands either.

[mnprogger]

Galactic Cowboys more or less qualify for this. Their final album was released in 2000, but every previous record they made came out in the 90's.

[klothos]

nvm

[trurl]

What I mean is as long as it's a time span of approximately ten years I'm not going to split hairs about it even though it wasn't what I initially had in mind. Oh and they don't have to be prog bands either.

Oh dude, grow a pair!

[Digital_Man]

Why because I'm trying to be flexible?

[trurl]

I'm kidding- see, big laughy face.

[Dan Roth]

Techno nerds realize that it's really years ending in 1 to the next but they were shouted down in the great "millennium starts in 2001" fiasco.

lol You mean the folks that understood that there was no Year Zero on the calendar and get that the millennium started in 2001 were incorrect because the media went nuts with their Year 2000 nonsense? Being "shouted down" by imbeciles doesn't change the facts.