He's got a long long way to go before he touches Asimov, who not only has over 500 written or edited books but (according to wikipedia) has published in 9 of the 10 major categories of the Dewey Decimal System.

But why even make the jump to lit for your comparison? He has to catch some heavy hitters in pop music alone. Sinatra, for example, had 59 albums over 57 years (and would have had many more if albums had been invented when he started; I'm ignoring his wide collection of singles). Reznor, meanwhile, has 8 (as NIN; not including remix albums) over 19 years.

I of course assume you were referring to their similarly prolific natures and not their two dimensional depictions of women or unfulfilling endings.

Wow, looking into this further, Sinatra's release schedule is mega-impressive. He released more than one album in eighteen years, including three albums five times and four albums six times. Granted, his albums are totally different beasts from what Reznor's doing, but it's still rather impressive, as is the fact that people must have bought all of these or else he wouldn't be allowed to continue at such a torrid pace. I can't imagine any band or individual today releasing four albums in a year and not suffering overexposure, leading to a significant dropoff the next year. But Sinatra could do it.

Yeah, I wasn't making a career comparison, especially because Reznor has been infamously non-prolific, with 5 year gaps between The Downward Spiral, The Fragile, and With Teeth. But if the frequency of output in the past year or so (three albums, one of them a double-album) was any indication of the future, he'd reach Sinatra/Asimov levels.

we're also neglecting a pretty obvious misstep in comparison: namely, that sinatra and asimov were both, say, talented.

I think Reznor is talented, although there has indeed been a drop off in quality with the uptick in quantity. His best work of the 90's is equal to Sinatra/Asimov in their respective fields.

I haven't read much Asimov, just the first in the Foundation series. It was pretty good, but I have to wonder how consistent the quality is over all his books. Same goes for Sinatra.

You've only read Foundation? For shame! And, alas, probably too late at this point. Asimov's two dimensional characters, particularly women, and corny plots put early Stephenson to shame, but his ideas were phenomenal and really appeal to the teenage nerd mind, especially when the rest of the world seemingly doesn't care about, e.g., computers that build other computers or entire universes, etc. I wonder whether he's even relevant anymore; so much of sci-fi has penetrated into the mainstream (the last sentence's e.g. was from a short story he wrote back in the days of univac, but it sounds a lot like hitchhiker's guide, for instance) and this means actual writers who can tell stories well, so who needs a story that's pure idea?

At least Asimov never wrote an eco-thriller.

You didn't read I, Robot?

Not yet.

I've only read Childhood's End, and while it's got some obvious thin spots, it's a great story.

Probably also worth noting, in comparing the proliferations of Sinatra and Reznor (this from a not-too-huge-of-a-Reznor-fan), that Sinatra was not writing, sound-designing, arranging, playing, producing, he was singing and being Ol' Blue Eyes. I'm not the least bit knowledgeable about the man, so I can say no more, but I mean, he was essentially just a performer, right? I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if Sinatra had more of a hand in styling himself than other pop singers, but still, Reznor is much more responsible for the overall product I'd say. That's a lot more labor-intensive if you ask me.

I think Childhood's End is Arthur C. Clarke, not Asimov.

Excellent point re: Reznor.

More excellent point re: author of Childhood's End. I love when know what I'm talking about.

Everyone liked Childhood's End way more than I did. I think the shock value of devil-themed aliens must have worked a lot better back in the 1950s. Also, the end of the book is sort of similar to Children of Men in concept.

a correction: trent reznor may be talented but you wouldn't necessarily know it from, say, his music.

That's silly. He's clearly a pretty deft musician in my mind- it's really a matter of style that keeps me from listening to him these days. Just listening to a little bit of the new one, it strikes me that it's really just the sound of his voice I can't get into. The instrumental aspects have some pretty cool stuff going on.

For me, the problem is that his music in the past few years has been too technical and precise, but lacking depth. Maybe it's just that he's moved away from his "deconstruction" phase.

But you can't deny the guy has talent. This is one of my favorite tracks of his, from Still:

http://www.last.fm/music/Nine+Inch+Nails/_/Leaving+Hope

You're absolutely right- that's a very good track. I haven't heard enough of his music since downward spiral to say anything about it overall.

Does he do ambient shit like this when he performs?

je suis deny.

Ou est-ce que c'est le bibliotheque?

wow, CM, you must be in the big time now. you have your own resident soulless repetitive flamer troll.