But are now bloody awful? Which bands have started off great, then applied the law of diminishing returns until they’re just churning out the same rehashed, formulaic drivel.

They’ve just played the new Primal Scream track. Meh. It sounds like everything else they’ve recorded since Exterminator. Only lazier, and worse, as I’ve heard it so many times before.

Your nominations please?

They have had to have produced at least 2 decent albums before the rot set in. So no Coldplay…..

EDIT: I’ve just dug up this review of one of their previous efforts. Genius! 😆

Metallica

Red Hot Chilli Peppers

and of course U2 FTW

Killers

Going back a bit, but Marillion.

Script For A Jester’s Tear 1983
Fugazi 1984

They then did a couple of borderline-goodish albums (Misplaced Childhood and Clutching At Straws) and then Fish left.

Everything they did since was awful. Just awful.

Coldplay 🙂

Kings of Leon

EDIT the rot set in after 1 album so I suppose they don’t meet the criteria.

Guns n Roses.

Van Halen

311. Peaked at their second album before dramatically nosediving. Their music now resides somewhere near the Titanic.

Jamiroquai. First album good, second album had some good tracks, third album vaguely passable but the nosedive was probably unrecoverable at this point.

Metallica. Everything after ….And Justice For All is – well – a bit pants, quite frankly. Yes, that includes the ‘black album’.

Chilis.

Muse
Biffy Clyro
Definitely Kings of Leon, their first couple of albums were great.
Queens of the Stone Age

I have a theory that most bands will either produce a great 1st album, and then go downhill, or peak around album 3.

Alice in chains – but there’s a fairly obvious reason for that

Oasis

Iron Maiden

Not a band but Van Morrison – 70s albums are amazing, everything I’ve heard from 80s onwards is awful.

Something awful happened to Stevie Wonder around the time of ebony and ivory and I just called to say I love you

Michael Jackson – the ultimate descent from genius to utter awfulness

REM just got really boring and samey

To be honest I like it when bands split up – it’s very hard to stay good without descending into a lazy parody of yourself

Agree with andeh..

Biffy used to be amazing, first 3 albums were inventive and awesome.. now just a bland Foo Fighters tribute act.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBtaBkDXQZE[/video]

Same with Muse, Origin of Symmetry was amazing, turned into a Queen tribute act recently.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHUKVoYbdc[/video]

Guns n Roses.

Which band do you currently consider to actually BE Guns n Roses, the one bearing the name (Guns n Roses) or the one with all the band members (Velvet Revolver)? 🙂

Almost any band after their first few albums really

Which ones remained good is probably a better question

So many recent bands trot out one good album that they spent the first 20 years of their life writing, the angst of first love etc

Then they have 2 years to write a second album whist they have made it potentially. Its never going to be as good is it!

Morrisey even his fans accept he was rubbish. I always.disliked the smiths due to mozza
rolling stones cannot do good covers of their own hits nevermind do a good new lot.

Oh definitely Oasis – they were a breath of fresh air when first came out, then quickly became stale old lad’s rock.

Chili Peppers seem to be a different band from the Fight Like a Brave days. Blander than a bland thing.

Very few bands remain good during their rise into popularity IMO.

Radiohead, Arcade Fire and Yeah Yeah Yeahs have all managed it (again IMO)

A lot of bands seem to leave their indie label and sign for a major, then get pushed into producing something with mass appeal.

If Biffy hadn’t changed like they did, they’d have probably gone the way of Reuben, Hundred Reasons, Hell is for Heroes etc.

Biffy used to be amazing, first 3 albums were inventive and awesome.. now just a bland Foo Fighters tribute act.

Cool, from a Nirvana tribute act to a Foo Fighters tribute act. That’s progression! 😉

Very few bands remain good during their rise into popularity IMO.

Radiohead, Arcade Fire and Yeah Yeah Yeahs have all managed it

+ Underworld, Chemical Brothers… Foals 3rd album is a cracker too.

Radiohead, Arcade Fire and Yeah Yeah Yeahs have all managed it

hmmmmmmmmmmm

Nah I wouldn’t say Biffy were a Nirvana tribute act (even though Simon has an In Utero tatt).. some of their stuff was a bit grungey, but the majority of their early output didn’t really resemble like Nirvana.. asides from being a hairy 3 piece that is..

alex222: what I meant was that those three bands have managed to produce decent music, and evolved with each album, without really selling out IMO

what I meant was that those three bands have managed to produce decent music, and evolved with each album, without really selling out IMO

Okay I will concede to that.

All of those mentioned above, apart from Oasis & Metallica who were both turgid, boring, unimaginative pastiches of far better bands & never any good in the first place.

I think its hard for bands to maintain the youthful angst that produces so many great albums.

Thats no excuse for the decline of Kings of Leon though. Worse with every album 🙂

All of those mentioned above, apart from Oasis & Metallica who were both turgid, boring, unimaginative pastiches of far better bands & never any good in the first place.

It’s amazing how many people claim to have never liked Oasis…

Kings of Leon is a good shout, but I think they did a storming debut album, and not much else.

This is always going to be the default pattern, songwriters in bands usually seem to have one or two albums worth of great stuff with a maybe a smattering left for the third album. Successful bands have long moved on from the all-living-together-in-a-rehearsal-room camaraderie and are brought to the studio in their separate limos, the coke that made the early tours such fun and fuelled those legendary all-night sessions on the second album is now an obstacle that hampers creativity etc…

Be easier to think of bands who either managed to keep the quality high for a longer period (Beatles, Stones, The Who, Pink Floyd, Kinks, Zepp, arguably New Order) or either started off a bit rubbish and did their best work a few albums in (U2 being the obvious example, maybe Floyd in this category).

That said, my list of the most heinous offenders of the OP’s premise would be:

Red Hot Chili Peppers
Jane’s Addiction
QOTSA
Metallica

on the basis that it is, in all the above cases, quite hard to listen to their latest albums and hear how much the vibe of their early work, that made them great, has entirely gone.

I wonder what the thoughts are about bands who may not have hit the big time initially, but then did some way down the line, usually with diehard fans complaining that they’ve “sold out” and that their new stuff isn’t a patch on the old stuff. Bands I’m thinking of here include:

Simple Minds – Honestly, their early stuff is, IMHO, a million times better than the “Don’t You Forget About Me” era stadium landfill.

Black Keys – Hugely massiver then they have ever been, but I’m not alone in preferring them when they were like the White Stripes with a competent drummer.

Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark – representing the well worn path from artistic, creative iconoclasm on early records to “you know what, some massive hit singles might be nice” pop success.

However, all in all the award for “band formerly most brilliant and now most rubbish having jettisoned everything that made them great” surely can only go to the Chili Peppers?

Interpol

Turn On The Brights Lights was brilliant. Antics was pretty good. Then it all sunk into endless disappointments

Fogarino is an awesome drummer though

It’s amazing how many people claim to have never liked Oasis…

Never noticed it myself. 🙂
I’ve been slagged off on here for the past seven years for saying it, though, which has amused me greatly.
I said from the start that they were awful and history would remember them as a musical lowpoint.

I was right. 😀

Morrisey even his fans accept he was rubbish. I always.disliked the smiths due to mozza

It’s not a thread about people who you’ve never liked.

There have always been lots and lots of people hating Oasis.

Me, I’m ambivalent. I can take them as a singles band – if I hear one of their hits on the radio, it’s fine, but I’ve never managed to get through a whole album in one sitting.

Interpol

For the genius that is Evil, they can be excused any subsequent failures.

Okay, I’ve got a possibly controversial one for the original premise of the thread:

The Clash

Discuss….

Muse… Their albums were always flaky but they used to be an incredible live band, even in massive venues… hard to believe these days 🙁

ransos – Member
All of those mentioned above, apart from Oasis & Metallica who were both turgid, boring, unimaginative pastiches of far better bands & never any good in the first place.
It’s amazing how many people claim to have never liked Oasis…

I can honestly claim to have never liked Oasis, or any other Manc/’baggy’ bands from around that period.
I think there might be a cover track by Oasis from a compilation in my iTunes library, but that’s it.
And don’t get me started on the Manic Bloody Street Bloody Preachers!

Yeah I think the Clash ran out of ideas and Toppers drug habit did for them. Strummer has said that with out him it wasn’t the same.

Cut the Crap is poor in Clash standards but maybe because its predecessors were so brilliant.