Difficult Second Album Syndrome

loveissucide

I'm questioning whether or not it actually exists. I think any band with a degree of longevity should be able to develop from the record beforehand ie Radiohead, Blur, Smiths, Smashing Pumpkins, The National, Wilco.
Agree or disagree?

The Hustler

Agree- there's nothing 'difficult' about it - it's just generally sh*te indie bands that moan about it

loveissucide

NME Syndrome strikes again.

Xavi6

It's a term used for bands who have a collection of 10 or 12 cracking songs then run out of ideas and disappear off the radar.

Eire-Dearg

Kasabian's second album for me was quite a disappointed, but they redeemed themselves thoroughly with WRPLA.

deisedude

Well alot of bands have had all their lives to write the songs for the first album but then struggle to find the time to write songs for the second album with touring and whatnot. I think there is a lot of pressure on bands to deliver after a succesful first album and inevitably alot of them come up short the second time around. So ya i think there is some truth to second album syndrome in a lot of cases but as you said for the best bands its not an issue

P.s what does atari jaguar mean?

The Hustler

Some of my favourite albums have been 2nd albums by the respective bands - Muse' 'Origin of Symmetry', Joy Divisions 'Closer', Mansuns 'Six', Nirvana's 'Nevermind', Suede's 'Dog Man Star' and Smashing Pumpkins 'Siamese Dream'.

Ash are a good example of a band who had a dodgy 2nd album ('Nu Clear Sounds') but returned to form with 3rd release 'Free All Angels'

Thundercats Ho

Bloc Party - Weekend in the city
Oasis - Whats the story
Radiohead - The Bends
The Raconteurs - Consolers of the lonely

To name just a few.
Its a myth. Bands that say it, are either being rushed by the record company (can have a poor 2nd album, but recover with a cracking 3rd), or just dont have enough talent to replicate the 1st offering.

Dan Dare

Pink Floyd's second album A Saucerful of Secrets was completed with a malfunctioning Syd Barrett and is a very fine album indeed.

seachto7

on the other hand, what about years ago, when bands put out an average first album, then delivered a cracking second album. you could argue Oasis or Blur are one of those bands...??

If you release a dodgy first album these days, that's it. game over. There's no such thing as developing a band or artist anymore...

mosstin

Thundercats Ho wrote: »

Bloc Party - Weekend in the city
Oasis - Whats the story
Radiohead - The Bends
The Raconteurs - Consolers of the lonely

To name just a few.
Its a myth. Bands that say it, are either being rushed by the record company (can have a poor 2nd album, but recover with a cracking 3rd), or just dont have enough talent to replicate the 1st offering.

The La's, Avalanches, My Bloody Valentine and The Stone Roses would all beg to differ.

http://onfirelive.blogspot.com

bottlerocket

I can remember when it was difficult third album syndrome. Changing times. Bands aren't allowed develop anymore.

Its tough for bands who have to write their second album on tour and are under pressure to come up with the goods. Its even worse for their future career when they fail, in terms of label support for future work and thats assuming they don't get dropped. There's plenty of examples though of bands that have one duff album in their first two and went on to greater things. Unfortunately thats the nature of the beast these days though it will be interesting to see if and how things change as the business model of record companies changes. In the meantime though:

Blur: Modern Life Is Rubbish
radiohead: The Bends
Suede: Dogmanstar
Belle & Sebastian: If You're Feeling Sinister
Interpol: Antics
Damien Dempsey: Seize The Day
Eels: Electro Shock Blues
Doves: The Last Broadcast
Happy Mondays: Bummed
Pavement: Crooked Rain Crooked Rain
Kings of Leon: Aha Shake Heartbreak

... all made it look easy

The Hustler

seachto7 wrote: »

on the other hand, what about years ago, when bands put out an average first album, then delivered a cracking second album. you could argue Oasis or Blur are one of those bands...??

If you release a dodgy first album these days, that's it. game over. There's no such thing as developing a band or artist anymore...

:eek::eek:

'Definitely Maybe' is an average first album?

^^^Oasis are just an average band..
although im with you on showbiz and dog man star..

The Hustler

Deleted User wrote: »

^^^Oasis are just an average band..
although im with you on showbiz and dog man star..

Definitely Maybe is widely regarded as an all time classic

MikeHoncho

Its down to hype and overexposure. I'm pretty sure MGMT's next album will be a steaming pile of turd as they were the most hyped band of last year. Bands get pushed like they are the greatest thing since sliced bread and then expectations are just too high. Its not as organic a process as it used to be even the so called "Indie" bands have massive marketting budgets behind them to raise expectations. Then when the 2nd album comes they just cant live up to it. They are also forced to rush out albums way too quickly while the buzz around them is still there rather than when they are actually creativley ready to do so. Also the amount of touring bands do these days means they can burn out very quickly. You will notice that it is only bands that get this kind of attention that have difficult second albums.

Bands like Interpol, The National, Grizzly Bear etc havent had to deal with the same pressures as they became popular in a similar way to the bands of old ie sh!t loads of talent and the word of mouth of fans rather than the hype machine of the music industry.

seachto7

The Hustler wrote: »

:eek::eek:

'Definitely Maybe' is an average first album?

Maybe it was the wrong band to use as an example

it's a good strong album, not a great one in my opinion.(I think Slide Away is the best song on the album, and one of the best songs Noel Gallagher wrote for them) Commercially I'd imagine their 2nd album was far superior, and had all the most popular hits too.

".......considered an all time classic". It's all down to taste really...

I wouldn't consider Kill Em All a great first album either. it's strong, but sounds very dated now and too like motorhead to me. I much prefer Master Of Puppets. I think it sounds superior in every way, but that's just my taste...

I could take or leave RTL as well...

jossnjuice

the two second albums that pop straight into my head are neon bible by arcade fire, and 100 midnights by the mighty stef.....IMHO i believe that both these albums are better than the debuts from the said artists. that said i voted for the longevity option.

VegetativeState

MikeHoncho wrote: »

Its down to hype and overexposure. I'm pretty sure MGMT's next album will be a steaming pile of turd as they were the most hyped band of last year. Bands get pushed like they are the greatest thing since sliced bread and then expectations are just too high. Its not as organic a process as it used to be even the so called "Indie" bands have massive marketting budgets behind them to raise expectations. Then when the 2nd album comes they just cant live up to it. They are also forced to rush out albums way too quickly while the buzz around them is still there rather than when they are actually creativley ready to do so. Also the amount of touring bands do these days means they can burn out very quickly. You will notice that it is only bands that get this kind of attention that have difficult second albums.

You're dead right about that. It's a very unnatural system at work nowadays, purely business-driven.

And you're probably right about mgmt. I actually really liked that album an awful lot though I'm pretty sick of them now, they're everywhere. I'm actually hoping the album bombs so they can give themselves a chance to develop naturally, they're still barely a band. Feck all experience, especially with live performing. What I hope's going to happen is that they take their music in a less electronic direction [which looks likely judging by the newer songs on the first album] and get dropped by the major label they're on. I can see them having some longevity if they get out of the 'machine' before they disappear up their own holes.

The Hustler

See The Klaxons have said their second album won't be out until the back end of 2010. Apparently they offered their record company a selection of 30 songs and were told they were no good!

That'll be nearly a 3 and a half yr gap between albums -which could arguably ruin the band:(

ludwit

While Dog Man Star is not a bad album it really isn't as good as Suede's first album.

And if by difficult you mean difficult I don't think there are many bands who had as difficult a 2nd album as Suede.

The Hustler

ludwit wrote: »

While Dog Man Star is not a bad album it really isn't as good as Suede's first album.

And if by difficult you mean difficult I don't think there are many bands who had as difficult a 2nd album as Suede.

Disagree, much prefer DMS to the eponymous debut but to each their own!:)

I would say Mansuns 'Six' is comparable to DMS in the difficulty stakes - to this day I don't know how they recorded something like that!

xOxSinéadxOx

MikeHoncho wrote: »

Its down to hype and overexposure. I'm pretty sure MGMT's next album will be a steaming pile of turd as they were the most hyped band of last year. Bands get pushed like they are the greatest thing since sliced bread and then expectations are just too high. Its not as organic a process as it used to be even the so called "Indie" bands have massive marketting budgets behind them to raise expectations. Then when the 2nd album comes they just cant live up to it. They are also forced to rush out albums way too quickly while the buzz around them is still there rather than when they are actually creativley ready to do so. Also the amount of touring bands do these days means they can burn out very quickly. You will notice that it is only bands that get this kind of attention that have difficult second albums.

Bands like Interpol, The National, Grizzly Bear etc havent had to deal with the same pressures as they became popular in a similar way to the bands of old ie sh!t loads of talent and the word of mouth of fans rather than the hype machine of the music industry.

yeah I agree with you, they're under a lot of pressure to get that second album out while the hype is still going. For the first album they'd have been writing the songs for it their whole life and then for the second they have **** all time and that would be hard to adjust to maybe. plus a lot of bands become really big headed and think they're great and feel like they don't have to work and so put out a ****e album and then realise what happened and get stuck in again. obviously there are bands that this doesn't happen to. and it usually doesn't happen to bands that have hyped to ****.

xOxSinéadxOx

The Hustler wrote: »

Ash are a good example of a band who had a dodgy 2nd album ('Nu Clear Sounds') but returned to form with 3rd release 'Free All Angels'

was free all angels not their 4th?

MrStuffins

The Hustler wrote: »

Ash are a good example of a band who had a dodgy 2nd album ('Nu Clear Sounds') but returned to form with 3rd release 'Free All Angels'

Ash are a really bad example, considering their 2nd album is the excellent (And utter classic IMO) 1977!

Nu Clear Sounds was in fact their 3rd album, after Trailer and 1977

ludwit

The Hustler wrote: »

Disagree, much prefer DMS to the eponymous debut but to each their own!:)

I would say Mansuns 'Six' is comparable to DMS in the difficulty stakes - to this day I don't know how they recorded something like that!

There are just so many average tunes on DMS dressed up to look like lamb whereas Suede is just a great straight up album, Animal Lover is the only weak song.

The Hustler

'Trailer' is a mini album, '1977' is the firts full length album so I'd consider that their debut, 'Nu Clear Sounds' 2nd and 'Free All Angels' their 3rd release

KnifeWRENCH

Best example I can think of is The Sugarcubes. Life's Too Good was probably one of the greatest debut albums ever. Here Today, Tomorrow, Next Week! was mainly a huge pile of sh!te. 16 songs on that album - only 5 of them are anyway decent (Regina, Pump, Water, A Day Called Zero and Planet) The rest was unlistenable.

xOxSinéadxOx

I know I defended the whole second album thing but I would like to also just say that some bands are just ****e

The Hustler

xOxSinéadxOx wrote: »

I know I defended the whole second album thing but I would like to also just say that some bands are just ****e

Succinct, and to the point!

osnola ibax

The national are a great example of a band who are really only beginning to realize their full potential, and boxer must be their 4 th album??? or that

I have always thought that "the second coming" by stone roses is underrated by many, though obviously not as good as debut, heard "tightrope" lately and it was gooood

aha shake heartbreak, is over produced and was the start of the decline for kings from raw, edgy, folk rock to stadium anthem crowd pleasers (can never understand how that happens). Bloc parties second album is unlistenable for me and I loved their first. Turned me right of them. I guess in answer to the poll I would say that for the most part, bands will never be able to live up to the standards set by a classic debut.

loveissucide

It's bizarre how KoL went from just another indie band to biggest group in the world.

dr oatker

Use your illusion albums were a bit messy compared to the rock monster that was Appetite For Destruction, they should have got rid of the filler and released one album. That was a difficult second (and third) album, and the less said about the fourth the better.

Dog Man Star is better than Suede

As for a band who dipped after the first album but came back what about the Manics?
Generation Terrorists followed by Gold Against the Soul followed by the Holy Bible
I'd also argue that Bleach is a better album than Nevermind and that In Utero is better again than Bleach

The Hustler

dr oatker wrote: »

Use your illusion albums were a bit messy compared to the rock monster that was Appetite For Destruction, they should have got rid of the filler and released one album. That was a difficult second (and third) album, and the less said about the fourth the better.

Dog Man Star is better than Suede

As for a band who dipped after the first album but came back what about the Manics?
Generation Terrorists followed by Gold Against the Soul followed by the Holy Bible
I'd also argue that Bleach is a better album than Nevermind and that In Utero is better again than Bleach

Both Generation Terrorists and Gold Against the Soul are 6 out of 10 albums though, far too much filler and only the singles really stand out, and I'm a huge Manics fan!

Bubs101

The bands that tend to qualify for second album syndrome tend to need a good first album. I'd imagine that the likes of Wilco,Nirvana,Blur, Muse and Radiohead didn't feel the pressure because for the most part (bar the likes of Too far apart, creep and muscle museum) their first albums are crap to average at best. For them, second album syndrome isn't much of an issue because there's no pressure.

For the likes of Oasis, Nine inch Nails and the Arcade Fire for example it's much harder to deliver because they have so much further to develop. When you release a great first album you instantly put pressure on yourself to repeat the trick and some bands just cannot deliver (We are Scientists or the Stone Roses for instance). Doesn't mean their crap