Those who have missed their mark the second time around...

Theres something about a bands first record, and when it comes time to record # two, of course theres a lot of pressure in wondering whether or not they'll be able to top themselves. Can you think of a few bands that released a promising first album, but weren't quite able to match the same level of creativity the second time around? Despite album sales, and despite the critics reviews, whats your opinion???

But It really says a lot about a band when they have a fresh start, an impressive debut record. It shows what they have in store for the next several years, and it gives you an idea of what kind of page they're on. But the only way to tell what they're all about is how they handle themselves as the years progress, and when that second record comes around, thats how you can tell if they have the right intentions as musicians. Whether or not they're in for instant success or longevity.

For a lot of bands, the temptation of instant success becomes too much for them, where they feel all thats necessary is for them follow the same narrow road the next time around for a sure deal.


But there is no sure deal in the music industry, that is if you want to keep your integrity well intact. With U2, heres a band that has done a great job when it comes to their career. Although their second record wasn't very successful in the sales department, it showed what they were all about, and thats power. I think they did a great job over the past several years, releasing one record after another that represents their personallity in more ways than one.

-Joseph

I always anticipate the second album. In the music biz they like to call that "Sophomore Jinks". Basically if you have your first album go platinum and the next record doesn't, you can almost kiss your career goodbye. Limp Bizkit is a very good example. They had a lot more singles come from their second record and made a lot of $$$. Now that they're established they don't need to spend as much money on advertising either. Once you get to that point you can pretty much do anything you want.

This isnt exactly the question but Oasis's 3rd album 'Be Here Now' was given really bad reviews and apparently nobody liked it mainly because it was totally different to the previous albums 'Definitely Maybe' and '(Whats The Story) Morning Glory'. Be Here Now was a great album by far their best in my opinion both guitar wise and musically. Noel Gallagher said it himself it took two years to write Be Here Now and WTSMG only took 2 weeks. I think the fact that they strayed away from the formula they had more or less created and made popular and tryed something new and original and the fact that it just wasnt WTSMG is why it wasnt accepted. I still say its one of my favourite albums ever.

Ill be interested to see if David Gray can follow up the success of White Ladder.

I think the reason album #2 is always so much better is that the band have toured (usually) and have got there own sound sorted out, instead of sticking to pre-written script. Two good examples are the Foo Fighters and Radiohead. The Foo Fighters first album The Foo Fighters was basicly boring, Nirvana copying grunge, but by the second The Colour and the Shape they had devoloped a totaly independent style of there own. Radiohead did the same. The first album Pablo Honey was a stright ahead, no nonsence britpop album and had nothing in it to didtinguish it from the pack. Howerver album #2 The Bends was compleatly different. They forged their own style and refused to be influensed by any one else.

P.S. If anyone out there is a huge Radiohead fan, as i am, set up a forum so we can chat.