Does a bands discography feel more cohesive if it was recorded in fewer studios?

[u/Pure_Livie]

I was listening to a band the other day and noticed how much their sound seemed to evolve with each album. Sometimes this is great it shows growth but other times it feels a bit jarring. I started thinking about how often bands change their recording environments. Does moving between many different studios perhaps with different engineers and equipment affect the overall sonic identity across a discography? Or is it more about the band's creative choices and artistic direction regardless of the recording space? What are your thoughts on this?

[u/UhhUmmmWowOkayJeezUh]

There's so many factors to this tbh. Genuinely too many variables, but assuming an artist was recording an album in multiple high quality studios with good acoustic treatment, In this case it's entirely the equipment, personnel, vibe of the studio subtly effecting the mood of those working on it, but most importantly the vision of the artist/artists working on the material.

A popular example of this is mbv's loveless, which was recorded in like 20+ different studios with numerous producers and engineers that mbv (really, just Kevin shields) burnt out and ran through. There's so many ridiculous stories that have been talked about relating to the production of that record, but despite how so many of the guitar/drums/bass/vocal tracks were recorded in different places with different personnel assisting the band, and given how cohesive the album sounds, it's very apparent that it was the bands creative choices and vision mattered more than anything else. Likewise, I'm sure there are many bands that have recorded several albums in different studios, but have a largely consistent sound, like 90s sonic youth maybe or rem.

[u/markdfig]

And another related question: do we want a band's discography to feel cohesive?

Or are sudden evolutions and revolutions and breakthroughs ... like ... awesome?