that's not really a lot for a dance producer desu. legowelt is much more prolific.

>>65037882
Um..... Most dance music producers?

>>65037882
every dance producer

>>65037910
>>65037951

Do what the other guy did and

name 1 techno-man

>>65037909

I can now see per discogs that you are correct-73 version-releases to RDJ's 70. I would however nitpick your "much more prolific" qualifier, unless we were to actually drill in and compare minutes of unique recorded material or somesuch.

However, even the types of recordings released by Legowelt are on a par with RDJ. About a dozen albums (once you factor in Polygon Window etc), followed by several dozen EPs, then another 1-2 dozen compilations/guest appearances, etc.

>>65038089
Grant Nelson and all his aliases/groups

>>65038276

Thx anon. I'm sure this one checks out too, and I hear what you're saying about the aliases. But even as I check through the aliases, they tend only to have put out 1-5 things each, so maybe like 100+ releases unless there's some big outlier I haven't seen.

My point being that the names that are being put up seem at a glance to be strictly correct, but I'm not seeing just like a PILE of names, which should be easy to put up per these two >>65037910 >>65037951 jokers.

i want plebs to leave

>>65039060

Once again, linking to any of Rhythm & Sound, Tikiman, or "Basic Channel" does not of itself BTFO the scale of the RDJ discography, just by way of comparison. Even somehow putting them together as in this png, we have a list of a couple dozen releases. Fine, great.

/mu/ seems to be having trouble coming up with an EP-volume artist who not merely eclipses (has been done multiple times here), but BTFO of the above volume in terms of scale, which stands any real scrutiny, thus warranting the attitude of the rest of the thread. I just keep seeing this thing of "oh this guy released several dozen things too" and then acting like it's all "cha'll of course kid".

>>65040133
anyone can spew out hundreds of records mate
what matters is how good they are, which is why basic channel>rdj

>>65040699

Ah, but but we have expressly concerned ourselves right at the beginning with the issue of QUANTITY, to which you can reply something like (he only cares about quantity). But quantity is a quality all its own. /Of course/ quality is more important, bothering to bring this obvious point is unhelpful. But you can't say that you've never compared some artist you like, with five dozen albums, with another artist who only ever released one perfect gem, and not considered the volume factor as a distinct consideration.

In short, you've basically abdicated any wish to engage with the subject of the thread - quantity of catalogue - and so have also abdicated the argument, meaning I win this point. The other anons who posted demonstrably more stuff win their respective points.

>>65040892
>>65040699

I would add to this that the fact that you (assuming this post >>65039060 is you too) first posted "a long list", as if to try to engage on the quantity issue, and then immediately playing it off, works against you. That's what's wrong with what you said, you're obviously trying to do two different things at once, and it's obviously bogus.