[Kiki]

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 )

[joannajewsom]

[Kiki]

[purple]

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.

[videoheadcleaner]

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.

[Charicature]

[chrisinillinois]

It may be an old and outdated notion, but there was something to it back in the 60's and 70's. Generally, artists would be working in clubs for a few years and honing their set, such that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."

[RFNAPLES]

Good points chrisinillinois
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

[maxperenchio]

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.

[joannajewsom]

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.