[Closed] Bands and the law of diminshing returns. Who's the worst offender?

Stone Roses

Pearl Jam. Their first album was [b]so[/b] good, they never had a chance of maintaining the standard.
I don't think the following stuff was all that bad, it just never came anywhere close to Ten.

+1 on the Killers. Their first album is lush. The latest- well Human is the only 'average' track sadly 🙁

2nd Stone Roses

I'd say Oasis - Def' Maybe was brilliant, WTSMG was overblown and average, everything since has been rubbish.

Guns'n'Roses. Appetite FD is awesome, everything since is overblown and average. And before someone says 'what about November Rain?', that is exactly what I mean.

Spot the theme? Band has incredibly successful first album. Studio throws money at second album which band uses to put anything they possibly can in the production - strings, 7 minute+ tracks etc etc, which results in lack of focus and subsequent mediocrity.

I'm sure Oasis will get nominated, but in reality they went downhill fairly slowly.

...because they didn't exactly have very far to descend?

U2

[i]because they didn't exactly have very far to descend?[/i]

OUCH!

I disagree with Guns N Roses they didnt get tats up till after use your illusion 1 and 2 but then nosedived drastically.

will also nominate offspring after smash....

I heard Adelle interviewed recently she said something quite profound: "You have your whole life to write your first album, 6 months to write your second."

And I think that's the problem, bands burst into the public eye, seemingly from nowhere when in fact, they've been gigging, fine tuning and honing the sound of their first album for years.

I thought Razorlight were one of these bands, 1st album was a masterpiece, second was pretty bland with one or 2 highlights. However, they seem to have come back to form with the third - perhaps they're just getting better at their trade.

Problem with Oasis isn't really that they peaked early, they've just fallen into the trap of churning out the same old pap every year. They were never creative - good, yes, but hardly ground breaking.

Then you get bands that do it the wrong way round. Pulp's stock in trade was writing brilliant clever songs about being poor and unsuccessful for many years when brilliant, clever songs were unfashionable. Suddenly they became cool and they had a glut of work available for release, re-release etc. They did some brilliant work on soundtracks (Mile End on Trainspotting etc) and dozens of 'collectors edition' releases with amazing tracks that never made it to general release or even albums. Then they ran out of back catalogue and were bloody rich, so couldn't draw on the same creative atmosphere that inspired their good stuff. Shame really.

ooh ooh and the chili peppers!

People still buy them though...

[i]I heard Adelle interviewed recently she said something quite profound: "You have your whole life to write your first album, 6 months to write your second."[/i]

That's a very fair point.

[i]Then they ran out of back catalogue and were bloody rich, so couldn't draw on the same creative atmosphere that inspired their good stuff.[/i]

So they took the wise decision to stop. I wish U2 would do the same, have you heard their new single? Dreadful.

Status Quo.

Oh aye, the Chilli Peppers, talk about 'churning out the same old pap'.

Snigletrack makes a good point.

Absolutely disagree re Stone Roses comments

Maxximo Park are a classic case

Snowslave - you're a fan of The Second Coming then?

I think Second Coming's OK

Stone Roses' trouble wasn't the lack of quality there, it was the MASSIVE hype that surrounded them after the 1st album (yeh, it's good but they didn't change the bleedin' world)

Jesus & Mary Chain too, NME etc were beside themselves with excitement over them, when it was a "good record" plus some decent live shows (IMO)

I agree with Snigletrack about Pulp, but I saw Jarvis Cocker last year at Shepherd's Bush. He's still really good, and vastly better live than his solo album would suggest.

🙂

Oasis ... gobby opinionated Manchester ****wits ... no idea why Hora likes them anyone help? 😆

Well I actually like Sams Town, and Spaceman is an excellent track.

The clash lost something for me after give it enough rope and kosheen when they went all guitars and indians

it's the NME's fault, they plaud cr*p!

another classic example are the manic street preachers, first album was classic considering they were late teens, just listen to the guitars! second album gold against the soul was up its own a*rse but still a good few tracks, holy bible was mad then its all gone down hill!

Editors - the Back Room is one of my favourite records, an end has a start is a bit 'meh'
Maximo Park, as mentioned, Killers for sure, Pigeon Detectives second was rubbish, Bloc Party.

Can think of plenty the other way round though - Interpol are consistantly good. The Cribs, Biffy Clyro got better as records went on. Kings of Leon have adapted their sound and seem to have two sets of two albums that are different, but both good.

+1 for The Killers. Someone needs to tell Brandon Flowers that there's more than one key on his synth.

+1 for the Chilli Peppers. The blame for their demise lies with Frusciante. They've let him become the driving force behind their songwriting, probably because they're scared he'll quit again, but their output post Californication is awful which is sad because I worshipped them for years and Frusciante is a wonderful guitarist.

REM would be another nomination. Please stop releasing records.

Jesus & Mary Chain too, NME etc were beside themselves with excitement over them, when it was a "good record" plus some decent live shows (IMO)

Psychocandy was a bit more than a good record though. Lots of fans felt betrayed by Darklands being so accoustic and quiet, but I think it's a great record.

Automatic was OK, the rest of their career a bit rubbish. Quite a gradual tailing off really though, I'd say.

GN'R
Metalica
Chilli Peppers
Rage Against the Machine
Stereophonics
Snow patrol
Eels

The list goes on...

[i]REM would be another nomination. Please stop releasing records. [/i]

I kind of agree with this, but it's unfair to say after their first album everything else was mediocre. There's a back cataloge that a lot of bands would kill for, but recently it's gone pretty steeply downhill . 😕

Chilli peppers, U2, Killers.

Quite how anyone can think Razorlight's first album is a masterpiece is beyond me. A masterpiece in wasted plastic or download time.

Oh, and the Manics Holy Bible is a stunning 3rd Album, and Send Away the Tigers ain't half bad for an 8th studio album - most bands now would (and should) give their arse cheeks to be able to write and record something like that.

I kind of agree with this, but it's unfair to say after their first album everything else was mediocre. There's a back cataloge that a lot of bands would kill for, but recently it's gone pretty steeply downhill .

Aye sorry, I should've said all their work up to and including Automatic For The People is excellent. A few decent songs in the aftermath but on the whole it's been awful.

Chakaping - I don't think their (JaMC) subsequent records were shite either, that's my point; it's just that the debut was hyped to ridiculous lengths (all that crap about being transcendent etc).

It's good but not great IMO (just was VERY different to what else was around). They couldn't just have churned out the same again without being labelled formulaic (it was a bit of a one-trick album [i]really[/i])

IHN - yes, like pretty much everything they've done. Agree with scaredypants - over-hyped, but it's still a good album I can listen to today.

Scardeypants - I misunderstood you a bit, sorry. Personally I do think the Stone Roses (LP) and Psychocandy live up to the hype - but it's a matter of taste obviously.

I always respected JAMC for not trying to do Psychocandy 2, purposefully undermining all the hype.

Shame they lost their way a bit later on.

U2??? Are you seriously saying Boy is better than Joshua tree? I think not..

Back on topic, Ash must be a contender!

Terence Trent D'Arby.

Editors, Starsailor

The Kooks

The Kooks

They were never good

Idlewild have been steadily descending into mediocrity ever since 'Hope is Important'.

For the Killers, it started to go wrong after the first half of the first album. It's been downhill since then.

Agree with comments about Pearl Jam, Stone Roses, RATM. Other bands for nomination include Soul II Soul, Alice in Chains and Curiosity Killed the Cat

[i]Oh aye, the Chilli Peppers, talk about 'churning out the same old pap'.[/i]

Are you lot actually aware of the Chilli Peppers first [b]5[/b] albums??

And RATM... are you aware of Renegades??

I'd nominate, Foo Fighters, Sex Pistols, Portishead.

Sorry dezB everything after californication sounds exactly the same- (fact) 😉

its true about the chillis umpp and mm were my favourite albums, if a little childish. They hit the money with bssm, and it all went wrong after that

how come no-one has mentioned coldplay???? Their first album was fantastic, latest stuff = pap.

last two kings of leon haven't been a patch on the earlier stuff