[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

ChristoGinger, guess DezB is getting at the fact that Californication was their 6th (I think) album?

They were never better than Blood Sugar anyway

Absolutely disagree with whoever mentioned the Foo's - their first three albums were good, with the odd great song on the rest of the output.

Agreed about Coldplay, but I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Kaiser Chiefs yet.

Editors - unmitigated, derivative sh*te. Any band that has the arrogance to have a front man "playing" a guitar which isn't plugged in deserves a f***ing good shoe-ing.

AC/DC - anything after Back in Black.

@ourmaininthenorth

Any band that has the arrogance to have a front man "playing" a guitar which isn't plugged in

I've not heard that before - what's the deal?

Er the Chilis (that's one l you know?!) have evolved pretty well over the years IMO though the last album ain't great and they were funkier in the early days - my fave track is probably Scar Tissue. I saw them in 1990 - most fun ever as still playing in smallish venues.

Wah! tried to get around this problem by re-naming themselves many times, but still never got near their 1st album.

Blimey, is that true re Editors? That's dead funny!

Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana, Nirvana.

Totally disagree about the Foos, Their latest album is brilliant!

Bloc Party...

Five Star

[i]Totally disagree about the Foos, Their latest album is brilliant![/i]

Totally disagree about Bloc Party, Their latest album is brilliant!

[i]ChristoGinger, guess DezB is getting at the fact that Californication was their 6th (I think) album?

They were never better than Blood Sugar anyway
[/i]

Precisely. Last album of theirs I bought was Blood Sugar.

mastiles_fanylion, are you saying Nirvana were never as good as Bleach?
I reckon In Utero is better than Nevermind.

mastiles_fanylion says Nirvana?
Bleach was good but better than Nevermind or In Utero??!! Not in my book. I actually think In Utero stands up (nearly) as well as Nevermind.

Back on topic, Ash must be a contender!

No, Ash is a band whose 'peak' was so abysmally bad that it should never have seen the light of day; never mind the repeated, regurgitated dirge that followed.

Saw the Editors supporting Franz Ferdinand* at MEN Arena (Manchester) about 3 years ago.

Apart from the sheer tedium of their music, the front man was giving it full well playing the guitar as if he was a riffing god, but it was clear that no sound was emanating from it. It clearly wasn't a kit malfunction, as he gave the same strained expression every bl**dy song.

I think it was because Edith Bowman was in the crowd watching them (wasn't one of them seeing her or something at the time).

Was quite amusing, TBH. About as entertaining as they managed all set.

*FF are another contender for bands who started brightly and faded rapidly. First album, two or three good songs; thereafter, sh*te.

Nirvana? In Utero is a masterpiece - better than Bleach by a long way. Although I love Bleach and it has some amazing tracks. It's all subjective anyway....

TWP

George Best = Ace

Tommy (Collected early singles) = Ace

Bizarro = Super Ace

Seamonsters = Dark Ace

Ukrainski Vistupi V Johna Peela = er . . . no!

Hit parade = Ace in parts

Watusi = hmmm couple of Ace songs

Saturnalia = poor

Take Fountain = nearly Ace

El Rey = Ace in parts

Oh dear. Epic fail. He's still getting it on with Bowman, they've just had a kid

REM, Coldplay, Eric Clapton too, although not a band ... should have given up long ago. 461 Ocean Boulevard ...awesome .... August, nononono

They were never better than Blood Sugar anyway

Hmmm...I find that although there are some good tracks - such as I could have lied and give it away - I listen to it less than the others.

Smashing Pumpkins.

If ever there was a band that had one good album in them...

Weezer. Well, kind of. Their debut album every track could have been a single, the follow up was equally fantastic in a different sort of way, and then they made three godawful records.

The new one is a step back up though.

Smashing Pumpkins? Which one then? Gish? Siamese Dream? or Mellon Collie?
All quality albums

Queens of the Stone Age were very very good for 3 albums, seem to be on a slow slide now. Their last two albums would be career peaks for 90% of bands, but they're not in the same street as their first one, Rated R, or songs for the deaf.

QOTSA seem to have a Bez effect going on - Josh Homme handles all the singing, songwriting, playing the instruments business. Nick covers the getting your johnson out on stage duties plus occasional bass fill in. But when Nick leaves they start going downhill.

not so much dimishing returns.. but what about Metallica, patchy since the black album.

And why do bands when promoting new albums always say it's a return to form?

[i]Sex Pistols[/i]

eh?

they only [i]did[/i] one album!

The rest was rehashed rereleased single after single after single. Talk about Flogging A Dead Horse. They weren't wrong there.

oh & black eyed peas.

Smashing pumpkins? man... their first three albums were gold (gish, siamese dream and pisces iscariot) and they peaked with Melan collie for sure... so that's four great albums in a row!

How about Sonic Youth perhaps?

U2 - A sin wave that rose sharply, peeked higher than Everest at Joshua Tree and has been falling ever since with only a few brief spikes, latest stuff sounds utter B$%£cks.

Chillis - Flatliners !! end of.

Stones Roses, Editors, Maximo, Killers I agree with most of previous posts, that is an initial peek with first albums but then OH OH !!!

I have hopes for second helpings from Vampire Weekend, The Courteners and even The View...

REM only fit in this category if your knowledge of their releases starts at Automatic for the People. Prior to this there were 6 fantastic albums, and I don't include Out of Time as this was where the downhill slide started. They managed to pull it back with Automatic but it's been an inexorable slide album wise ever since.

Stereophonics - there's a band who have never even come close to matching the songwriting on their first album. Word Gets Around is one of the few albums I still listen from start to finish, anything after that is utter carp.

+1 for U2. The Joshua Tree was stunning, lots of good stuff (and some pap) before, after? Achtung Baby was decent, not many highlights otherwise.

Anyone mentioned Prince yet?

A-ha IMO actually improved the less commercial their work became. Very introspective.

The Dickies never surpassed the Incredible Shrinking Dickies album

[i]+1 for U2. The Joshua Tree was stunning, lots of good stuff (and some pap) before, after? Achtung Baby was decent, not many highlights otherwise.[/i]

The OP was asking about bands who never surpassed their DEBUT album.. Joshua Tree was the [i]5th[/i] album!

Stereophonics - good call. I can't believe I bought Word Gets Around when I hear them now.

Don't agree with the person who said The Eels, their output since their debut has been quality.
Haven't heard albums by Kooks/ Razorlight/ Kaiser Chiefs/ Editors etc etc etc but what do you expect?! Landfill indie rubbish. They should release their possibly catchy first single then **** off from whence they came.