Nick Cave - no duff albums in a solo career spanning about 25 years - surely a unique level of consistency?

Kate Bush albums are rare events but consistently good.

Others who usually deliver the goods - Tom Waits; Leonard Cohen.

Give this one another go if you haven't played it in a while. I did a few months ago and was surprised to find how much it has grown on me. Opinion seems to be divided between those (including me) who prefer the electric disc, 'Voltage Enhanced', and those who go for the acoustic 'Nude' disc.
It's probably the most Froomious of the several CDs resulting from RT's long dalliance with that particular producer but many of the songs are great.

...Van Morrison does REALLY bad albums, but the problem with Van is that there's an element of sameness to them, and through the 90s he churned out a fair amount of uninspired releases ('Too Long In Exile', 'How Long Has This Been Going On', 'The Healing Game'). Some might find that sameness worse than, say, the worst albums by Neil Young and Bob Dylan.

I personally enjoyed every album Led Zeppelin put out- even 'Presence' and 'In Through The Out Door' are pretty good albums, I think. If '...Out Door' had lost 'South Bound Saurez' and 'Hot Dog' and been replaced by songs from those sessions, 'Ozone Baby' and 'Wearing And Tearing', from 'Coda' it would be a hell of a lot better regarded. Compare those albums to the worst of their contemporaries (although I do have problems with calling Zeppelin just 'heavy rock') like Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Uriah Heep, there's simply no contest!

Love almost everything The Beatles put out, personally; 'Let It Be' is my least favourite but then 'Abbey Road' was recorded after it and that's my favourite of the lot. 'Let It Be' still has some blinding songs on it too.

...between their "muse" and their accountant, plus or minus the record company telling them how good they are (aka hurry up!)
Richard Thompson, however his mythical God like qualities (undoubtedly) are, has never managed one completely good record. I can think of few who have, and the proportion has become less as 80 minute CDs have become the norm, over a 40minute LP.

I have been called many things.....
Funnily enough, I had always thought myself one of his staunchest supporters, having seen him with Linda 2 or 3 times when they were an item, and then roughly once every 18/12 or so, solo and with band(s). (So, yes, I have missed some tours) I have also at least some of the songs from each and every proper release, often the whole CD (or LP), plus the odd bootleg, official or otherwise. But I am not blinkered to the degree of thinking everything that flows from him is gold. There are clunkers and there are stereotypical repeats scattered across his output. Stil will defend him to the last.
The bait? I will twist the concept and respond with The World is a wonderful Place, the (2nd) RT tribute record, which is all good and all, give or take a Marvin Etzioni co-credit, trainspotters, by yer man, even if performed, very well, by others.
In lieu of taking offence, mine is (another) large Laphroaig.

Bummer - Rufus Wainwright
Stunner - Johnny Morris

"Moondance" by Van Morrison.
That's about it.

Isn't it often about when they split - if we're talking bands? The Smiths for example, no bad albums. Solo acts are clearly different. To be blunt, perhaps if they die young - eg Nick Drake? Otherwise their judgement just seems to go - is it arrogance, losing touch with reality, too many sycophants with no one daring to speak out?

Road to Ensenada -No Duff tracks Here. Thought "My Baby Don't Tolerate" wasn't very Good
Good To see Richard Thompson get a Mention.Been a while.

Put an album out every 7 years. No clinkers in their catalogue.

RT is a god - brilliant live and brilliant on record although do concur that the odd clunker gets through. He should immediately go into the Rock and Roll hall of fame.
Blue Nile - okay they're good but the infrequency of their releases should not be reason to venerate them as a special deity. One release every 7 years may mean they struggle with their craft rather than perfect it.

Artists who do have a consistently high quality are Eels, Wilco,Alison Krauss and Lucinda Williams.

I think it is inevitable that real 24 carat gold fabbo artists get it wrong occasionally - I bow to noone in my admiration for RT, and also Little Feat, Steely Dan, Van the Man, the mighty Tull, even the Beatles etc etc name your personal faves - I love the fact that occasionally they overreach, get over ambitious or knackered, demoralised or otherwise take their eye off the ball and fuck up. This is why the vast majority of their work is so good - because some of it is below standard. I'd rather an 85% brilliant catalogue with 15% cluncker than 100% mediocrity.

He's the king of consistency. No-one can beat him in this respect, he has his own style and sticks to it. All of his records are good, if you like that jangly thing he does. I do.

A body of work that is consistently good? I nominate Talk Talk. They started off with superior synth fare, reached a pop pinnacle with their third album (The Colour Of Spring), and then created two remarkable albums of rambling, intense, sonic genius (that would be Spirit Of Eden and Laughing Stock). And then stopped.

Questions?

As far as I'm concerned the Pixies never made a record that was less than brilliant, and Talking Heads were universally wonderful right up to Naked and even that was just 'meh' rather than actually BAD.