The comparison is not between the two careers you insufferable, babbling ass. It's between a product that will please devoted plans and products that continually comes up short on same. End of.
Queen = 16 album releases but could've been more (although enough for a band who toured relentlessly for large spells of their existence) and the majority of these releases were packed full of gems - so quality over quantity. (Most) material released when albums came out, but still demos, jams and great quality live stuff unreleased that we crave. If this stuff came out, we would not be disappointed but that would be it - everything would be out.
Springsteen = tonnes of output for one man when compared to the output of lots of bands, but the majority of it, to be fair, is shit. There are only a handful of albums worth bothering with and, out of these, maybe just a handful of tracks. So quality loses out to quantity. As for his unreleased stuff, surely this would just be more disappointing shit if he's released the stuff he thinks is worth releasing?
So springsteen may have lots of stuff in the archives we've yet to hear, but it's fair to say he was guilty of mass producing material of lesser quality - Queen definitely went for content over bulk.
duplicate post, ignore...
