Best Ever Albums

Re: The 2nd album

HigherThanTheSun — Fri, 2 Mar 2012 08:28:34 GMT

Author: HigherThanTheSun

Posted: 03/02/2012 13:28

Debuts tend to be better in my opinion but this doesn't bias my opinion when I'm listening to an album, I don't care if it's their first second or fiftieth I'll still judge it by how much I enjoy it.

Debuts are when artists tend to be at their most raw and most original, these albums tend to have a greater impact also as they are sounds which haven't been heard before.

In my top 20, 11 albums are debuts which is definitely disproportionate.

I voted for 'sometimes' because they're was no option for 'more often than not'.

Re: The 2nd album

TrekkiELO — Fri, 2 Mar 2012 01:25:22 GMT

Author: TrekkiELO

Posted: 03/02/2012 06:25

It's all subjective.

Re: The 2nd album

Anonymous — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:18:24 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/19/2010 02:18

[quote="joannajewsom"]All of those factors associated with the sophomore slump exist and happen. I still don't know what you mean by asking if the sophomore slump exists. Expectations exist. Pressure and obstacles exist. Failure to meet expectations due to certain obstacles and pressure exists. It doesn't matter what people choose to name it.[/quote]

Exactly, think Interpol

Re: The 2nd album

joannajewsom — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:11:12 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 01/17/2010 23:11

All of those factors associated with the sophomore slump exist and happen. I still don't know what you mean by asking if the sophomore slump exists. Expectations exist. Pressure and obstacles exist. Failure to meet expectations due to certain obstacles and pressure exists. It doesn't matter what people choose to name it.

Re: The 2nd album

Anonymous — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:48:46 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/17/2010 22:48

Sorry, I think I explained myself poorly 😕

As maxperenchio said a few posts back about the "sophomore slump". I meant to ask if people believed that existed or not.

Here is an explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophomore_slump

Thank you for all the points raised so far 😄

Re: The 2nd album

joannajewsom — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:11:24 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 01/15/2010 03:11

I fear we're having two different conversations here. Really, what I'm talking about is determinism. When I say history, I'm talking about our personal history of listening to music, but also all of our past experiences and the psychological effects they have on us. It's impossible to not let these things affect how you view a work of art or anything in life. I think you'd have to be superhuman to dig deep enough into your psyche to purge all the effects that your past experiences have had on you, any preconceived notions that you have of music and the particular artist, and go into an album with a blank slate. You go into every album with a certain taste in music and a certain general idea of what music can and should do, all of which has been shaped by every other piece of music you have heard, and that affects how you react to what you're currently listening to. In that sense, no work can truly be autonomous. Specifically regarding second albums, if you've heard the first, your brain will naturally view it relative to what you know of the artist's work, mostly on a subconscious level, and just as you go into an album with certain expectations for music in general, you go into a 2nd album with certain expectations for the artist. I think it's something we naturally do. Maybe critics do it more, maybe they don't. It's dependent on the listener, but we're all guilty of it to some degree. At least critics try to understand how their expectations affect them and speak frankly about those effects of which they are conscious.

Re: The 2nd album

maxperenchio — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:30:16 GMT

Author: maxperenchio

Posted: 01/15/2010 02:30

joannajewsom wrote:

There really is no such thing as listening to something on its own terms, because our history with all the music we've encountered determines how we react to any new piece of music we hear. Our history with an artist's past work plays the biggest role in determining our reaction when we encounter an artist's new work. I don't see what's so profound about pointing this out. Seems obvious.

You're bringing up an age old argument here- so its obviously not that one sided. History doesn't need to have such a de facto role in criticism. Even in early literary criticism there was a considerable schism between treating a work as autonomous and treating a work as permanently rooted in tradition and therefore relative to its author's history. Its easy to see remnants of both these schools in modern music criticism. Anyone could make the argument that there can be success in attempting to "purge" all things that lie outside a work itself....

All I meant in my initial response was that I too have observed the trend (lately...as in the last decade) of sophomore albums being critical hot-zones moreso than debut or even third or fourth albums.... its just a general observation, say what you will.

Re: The 2nd album

joannajewsom — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:20:16 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 01/15/2010 01:20

No one would ever admit to doing it because no one would ever do it. If the 2nd is better, they'll say it's better. Of course the 1st album creates certain expectations for the 2nd album. The 1st and 2nd does the same for the 3rd, and so on. That's true for both fans and critics, whether they would like to admit it or not. There really is no such thing as listening to something on its own terms, because our history with all the music we've encountered determines how we react to any new piece of music we hear. Our history with an artist's past work plays the biggest role in determining our reaction when we encounter an artist's new work. I don't see what's so profound about pointing this out. Seems obvious. The poll question doesn't even make sense, so I'm not even sure what his point is, or if he even understands what the sophomore slump is. The only logical answer would be sometimes. It's all subjective would be true, but that's redundant to say on a music site.

Re: The 2nd album

maxperenchio — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:48:53 GMT

Author: maxperenchio

Posted: 01/15/2010 00:48

Well no one would ever admit to doing that... but i think an_outlaw's point is valid though- as a general trend, i think critics are often obsessed with career arcs and "album-to-catalog relativity" more so that how an album might stand by itself. I would wager that modern commercial reviews are generally slanted against album number two, especially when album number one had typically positive press.

Re: The 2nd album

joannajewsom — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:25:08 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 01/15/2010 00:25

I didn't say I've never heard of the sophomore slump. The OP said, "these days I think some critics are using this 'rule' to rate 2nd albums lower deliberately." As if some critic would go, "I like the 2nd one better but, you know what, I'm going to rate it lower anyway because of the rule that the 2nd one is always worst." Like I said, no one does that.

Re: The 2nd album

maxperenchio — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:10:06 GMT

Author: maxperenchio

Posted: 01/15/2010 00:10

Its the infamous "sophomore slump"! JJ, how can you say you've never heard of that? Critics in general these days have a field day with album number 2. The old notion of "you have your whole life to write your first album, but six months to write your second!" And its a very silly critical tight rope to walk.... if you make an album too similar, you are generally accused of being a one trick pony, or a lazy artist. If you deviate too far away from your original sound, you can be accused of being a naive band who has too much to prove, overly idealistic... i always see lines like;

"while The Flying Retards attempt to mature their craft with sonic innovations and an engaging slick production, the raw and visceral energy of their debut album is sorely missed."

Kind of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. When Arcade Fire released Neon Bible, fuck, I thought it was fantastic, but it was met with mixed critical opinions due to its sophomore status. If that was a band's first album, critics would have been raving and drooling.

Re: The 2nd album

RFNAPLES — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:05:54 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 01/14/2010 21:05

Good points chrisinillinois ❗

Re: The 2nd album

chrisinillinois — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:49:26 GMT

Author: chrisinillinois

Posted: 01/14/2010 20:49

It may be an old and outdated notion, but there was something to it back in the 60's and 70's. Generally, artists would be working in clubs for a few years and honing their set, such that by the time they were signed and in the studio they had a well-crafted bunch of songs to put on their first album. They'd then go on tour non-stop for 8 or 9 months and then, if things were successful, rushed right back into the studio to bang out another album, often with little or no rehearsal. This resulted in a lot of second albums full of first album left-overs, cover songs, and jam sessions.

A good example of this would be comparing Kiss' first self-titled album to their second, Hotter Than Hell, which is generally considered the weakest of their classic first six studio LPs. The Doors second album would be another good example.

Sometimes, the bashed out nature of second albums worked well for certain bands. For example, old blues covers and jam sessions captured Led Zeppelin perfectly on II.

Other times the band would improve so much as players during the touring between album one and album two that the bashed out extemporaneous nature of the second album simply didn't matter. Paranoid by Sabbath is a good example of that, the title track famously being written and recorded at the last minute because they didn't have enough good material to fill out a full LP.

Now days, with a lot of manufactured bands reliant on outside songwriters and producers, fewer never ending tours, and a standard 30 months between albums instead of 9 or 10, there really isn't a good reason for the "sophomore slump."

Re: The 2nd album

Charicature — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:22:02 GMT

Author: Charicature

Posted: 01/14/2010 13:22

an_outlaw wrote:

I personally think the "2nd album is worst than the first" belief to be nonsense. Of course there are bands which have recorded weak 2nd albums but there are much more bands/artists which have produced spectacular 2nd albums. These days I think some critics are using this "rule" to rate 2nd albums lower deliberately (I'm not sure why, maybe because they think they have to 😕 )

Just taking several of my favorite bands:
Jesus Jones - 1st album: very good, got them attention. 2nd album: better, spawned 2 top-10 hits including one of the top songs of the decade. 3rd album: their best by far, in my top-5 all time.

Catherine Wheel - 1st album: great debut, got them the attention they should have continued to get. 2nd album: #1 on my all-time list. The first album didn't make my top 50 as good as it is.

Grant Lee Phillips - 1st album decent. 2nd album: incredible, again in my top-10 all time albums, was their most prominent album until their 4th (and last complete one).

So no, I don't believe any myth that the second album is worse. Largely depends upon the band. Often the first album is what attracts the attention of top producers that help them create a superior second album. I also think success on a first album gives a band/artist a freer hand from the record company on its second album, lending to more creativity.

Re: The 2nd album

videoheadcleaner — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:21:20 GMT

Author: videoheadcleaner

Posted: 01/14/2010 07:21

I think the second can be better but it is subjective. Debuts do appear to make an impact and therefore stick in the minds of individuals (Arctic Monkeys, Joy Division, Kaiser Chiefs, Wire etc.). But some second albums hit the mark (Radiohead's The Bends, Bowie's Space Oddity etc). The second album stigma usually happens to those that make the initial impact and it comes down to expectations.

I personally have the third album of bands come into my favourites (Cure's Faith, Muse's Absolution, Echo & The Bunnymen's Porcupine). I guess it's the progression of an artist and finally finding their feet.

Re: The 2nd album

Anonymous — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:41:21 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/14/2010 06:41

I've never seen this in albums; it happens alot in videogames though. In fact, its hard for me to think of a popular group that doesn't grow better (eventually) or at least maintain quality.

What does happen is that publications seem to 'give more points' to debut albums because its the first time that the bands' new sound is heard; often the bands sound will grow and mature, but the debut still receives the credit because its what first exposed the world to their sound. Think Wire, Black Flag, Nirvana, etc etc.

And note, my favorite album, Closer, is a second album.

Re: The 2nd album

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:35:39 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/13/2010 21:35

joannajewsom wrote:

an_outlaw wrote:

These days I think some critics are using this "rule" to rate 2nd albums lower deliberately (I'm not sure why, maybe because they think they have to 😕 )

No one does this.

I may be looking into it too far. But most of the time when a reviewer gives a bad rating to a second album, they usually allude to the fact that its 2nd album somewhere in the interview.

I see it NME reviews sometimes, I think Pitchfork and drowned in sound do it too.

Re: The 2nd album

joannajewsom — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:25:05 GMT

Author: joannajewsom

Posted: 01/13/2010 21:25

an_outlaw wrote:

These days I think some critics are using this "rule" to rate 2nd albums lower deliberately (I'm not sure why, maybe because they think they have to 😕 )

No one does this.

The 2nd album

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:21:12 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 01/13/2010 18:21

I personally think the "2nd album is worst than the first" belief to be nonsense. Of course there are bands which have recorded weak 2nd albums but there are much more bands/artists which have produced spectacular 2nd albums. These days I think some critics are using this "rule" to rate 2nd albums lower deliberately (I'm not sure why, maybe because they think they have to 😕 )