[LebowskiRams]

If a band has a stellar debut/first few albums - like Weezer, Oasis, Interpol, The Strokes, etc. - are they doomed to have most, if not all, following releases hated? Even unfairly?

Example: Weezer's first two records are phenomenal, but everything after save for White album is almost universally dismissed.

[elo269megv]

Doomed or cursed? No. Held to a higher standard / higher expectations? Yes. Bands who release phenomenal debuts are under greater pressure to release subsequent "good" albums because they have set their own standards, which I think is a little unfair. But ultimately, good bands release good albums.

I disagree with the Weezer statement. They have more than two great records (Green, Red, White, & Make Believe are all good/decent enough). Oasis had arguably BETTER albums post-debut. Same for the Strokes, as I feel Room on Fire is on par with their debut and people forget First Impressions and Angels are solid as well (and overlooked).

Take the Stone Roses... their second album is completely overlooked.
_________________
Jeff Lynne 5th Beatle

Post-Hardcore: https://www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=52396

[RoundTheBend]

My Favorite Debuts by sethmadsen

I think less than half these artists had only one great record, yet these debuts are pretty good (in order of things with stuff).

[Fischman]

I think it depends on how big that first album was (thus generating tremendous pressure to follow up, and soon), and whether or not you'd shot your collective creative wad putting together that first album (think Boston).

[bobbyb5]

I don't know. You always hear about "the sophomore slump", where their second album isn't very good. But whenever I think about it it doesn't really seem to be true. More often a person's second or third or fourth album is better. And just as successful as their debut was.

[Tha1ChiefRocka]

I think it's more of an issue of timing and age.

A band's first album is a hit; that's great. They're young, hungry, and full of energy. Then they sign to a record label (or maybe they were already signed to a big label) and they get a huge contract to make albums until their dead.

In the case of Weezer, their 7th album for Geffen records was the pitiful Raditude. That's a band who is now in their 30s and 40s instead of their 20s, that have been working for the same record company for 15 years. That album is most likely never going to be as good as the band's first few. The odds just aren't in favor.

Artists with longevity are ones that don't get bogged down in the business side of the record industry.

Take Nick Cave for example. He's released almost all of his albums on an independent label, Mute. Mute doesn't have to have a hit from Cave, they just let him make music.

A band on a Geffen label is going to be expected to make hits after they have already proven that they're capable of doing so. And that's how you get songs like "Beverly Hills"

[craola]

I think that you have your whole life to make that first record, but once the record label, the fans, the press and the expectations show up, you’re pressured to pop that next child out of the womb fairly quickly. You’re also now busy with celebrity life, tours, interviews and whatnot, and your life is not the same. Your creative freedom is not the same. Your indefinite, undefined release dates suddenly have deadlines attached. You go from feeling like you have to prove yourself, to earn peoples' love and adoration, and once your debut is critically acclaimed, there's a temptation to buy into the idea that you deserve peoples' love and adoration, but there's a stark difference there. One is based on confidence. The other is based on arrogance. That's a major turn off with some artists, particularly bands like Oasis or U2.

I wonder if it’s not better to have the first album critically derailed a la Talk Talk and Radiohead. Heck, I generally find my favorite artists have underwhelming first outings. Cocteau Twins, Depeche Mode, Sonic Youth, et al. It makes some artists stronger for it, as though they have to prove someone wrong, oftentimes because they know the critics are right. I wonder ... perhaps if your debut album is an attempt to say, "I have merit.", and you're rejected for it, you are cursed to spend the rest of your career putting the embarrassment behind you.
_________________
follow me on the bandcamp.

[Luigii]

[RoundTheBend]

[rkm]

Some debuts are so great because the artist is working through some personal problem, and the music is a kind of catharsis for the artist as well as the audience. In making the music, the musician heals themself, and their music thereafter is forever boring. As the audience, I sometimes feel selfish wishing the artist more personal suffering, so I can have some good music.

Actually, I think this is the key. Artists who have longevity, and continue to produce interesting music, are those who learn to write well about every aspect of life, their own and others.