> their take on it is that to be competitive on Spotify and such, you have to produce content so regularly that quality is diluted.
I think this idea is misguided. The more music you produce, the more good music you produce. Trying to keep average quality up by restricting production is counterproductive in two separate ways; (1) it ends up causing you to produce lower-quality output than otherwise, and (2) nobody cares that you released some bad songs if you also released some good songs.
I read a fun paper documenting this very effect (the first one) in a college pottery class. One class was told the grading procedure would be as follows:
1. Over the course of the term, you make some pots. It's up to you.
2. Turn in all your pots at the end of the term.
3. The instructor will evaluate your pots for quality, and you will receive a grade accordingly.
A second class was told they'd be graded like so:
1. Over the course of the term, you make some pots. It's up to you.
2. Turn in all your pots at the end of the term.
3. The instructor will never look at your pots. They will be smashed into tiny shards, and your shards will be weighed. Your grade will be based on the weight of your accumulated pots after they are destroyed. More is better.
In fact, the pots in group two were evaluated for quality just like group one. Students in group two produced more pots. They also produced better pots.