I can't think of any examples of major bands ever recovering after starting to head south. Here's a timeline most successful bands seem to follow:
1) a very good 1st album
2) a slightly weaker, but still good 2nd album
3) a few truly amazing albums
4) an album that's not outright terrible but still weaker than all preceding albums
At this point most bands either
A) break up
or
B) continue releasing mediocre material, that has a few good songs here and there (sometimes even very good ones), but the albums are riddled with songs that make you reach for the "next track" button. The bands are still amazing live and sell out shows for many years on the strength of their glory days (e.g. The Rolling Stones).
Take Pink Floyd, for example:
1) Piper at the Gates
2) Relics
3) Animals, Wish, Darkside, The Wall
4) The Final Cut
5) A - Pink Floyd, the band, breaks up
B - Roger Waters continues releasing mediocre albums
Many less talented bands have an abbreviated version of the above timeline. Take Coldplay, for instance:
1) [SIZE=-1]Parachutes
2) (skipped to 3)
3) [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]A Rush of Blood[/SIZE] (no other albums here, alas)
[SIZE=-1]4) X&Y (the weaker album)
5) seems to be headed in the direction of B - mediocre albums with occasional good songs in there, but lots of cringe-worthy lyrics "for some reason I can't explain I know Saint Peter will [or won't] call my name", etc.
*****
Now the important question: has any band ever released a single album that was every bit as good as the albums during their "golden age" after a string of mediocre albums? *Every bit as good* is the main criteria here. "Pretty good" doesn't cut it.
*****
I'm a huge U2 fan (attended 12 live shows). I fell in love with U2 in 1997, in high school. I loved every single album released up to that point, inluding Pop. I was a super fan in every sense of the word. I used to visit this forum a lot back in the day under alias "EdgeZTV" (but I forgot my password, and don't have the same email address, so I had to create this new account).
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Now the controversial part - U2:
1) Boy
2) October
3) War ... Pop
4) ATYCLB
5) trending towards trajectory B - a string of mediocre albums ([/SIZE][SIZE=-1]HTDAAB, NLOTH)
Don't get me wrong, these albums have some good songs on them, but does anyone who became a U2 fan before year 2000 honestly think any of their post-2000 albums every bit as good as any of their golden age albums?
In 2001 I hoped ATYCLB was a fluke, and the band would recover. I attended many shows on the Elevation tour and I loved them. However, after hearing [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]HTDAAB, I knew, but didn't want to admit, that U2 has entered that irreversible trend of releasing almost-good but really mediocre material compared to their golden age. While waiting for NLOTH to come out, my expectations were very low. On first listen, I was pleasantly surprised by the first two tracks - they reminded me of the AB+Zooropa material - and for a second I thought the band might be on the road to recovery. The third track wasn't too bad, it reminded me of Wild Irish Rose. The fourth was good, but had a few cringe-worthy moments. The rest of the album is a mixed bag of both amazing and cringe-worthy song fragments.
Even you like the post-2000 albums, you can't disagree that they are different from the previous 20 years. I can even prove it empirically: sum up all the chart positions and grammy awards for the two eras and compare them. There's no comparison. The number of awards U2 have received in the 2000's for just 2 albums outweights all the awards they've received in the prior 2 decades for 9 albums. There's no denying the change. U2 have gone mainstream by losing that "spark that set the flame" that all their previous work had but the masses couldn't see at the time. Now all people of all ages know about U2 (in contrast to 1997), and many of these newly exposed people even *like* their new material. But no one truly *loves* it. So unfortunately, they (most likely unintentionally) went from recording music that a few million people really loved to releasing music that a few hundred million like but no one loves.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
The weakest link in U2 post-2000 albums is the lyrics. Much of the lyrics simply make me cringe. The melodies are still good, the musicians are still amazing, but unfortunatelly rock 'n' roll is the art of song, not music, and the art of song is mostly lyrics, and U2's lyrics in the new millenium are mostly bad. "This is a song [/SIZE]called[SIZE=-1] that's Bad"
I'm still looking forward to the tour (got Foxboro GA's through the u2.com membership presale), I can't wait to hear NLOTH live, I still love U2, and always will. But after three albums consistently on trend B, I'm now certain that they will never again have that "spark that set the flame."
[/SIZE]
1) a very good 1st album
2) a slightly weaker, but still good 2nd album
3) a few truly amazing albums
4) an album that's not outright terrible but still weaker than all preceding albums
At this point most bands either
A) break up
or
B) continue releasing mediocre material, that has a few good songs here and there (sometimes even very good ones), but the albums are riddled with songs that make you reach for the "next track" button. The bands are still amazing live and sell out shows for many years on the strength of their glory days (e.g. The Rolling Stones).
Take Pink Floyd, for example:
1) Piper at the Gates
2) Relics
3) Animals, Wish, Darkside, The Wall
4) The Final Cut
5) A - Pink Floyd, the band, breaks up
B - Roger Waters continues releasing mediocre albums
Many less talented bands have an abbreviated version of the above timeline. Take Coldplay, for instance:
1) [SIZE=-1]Parachutes
2) (skipped to 3)
3) [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]A Rush of Blood[/SIZE] (no other albums here, alas)
[SIZE=-1]4) X&Y (the weaker album)
5) seems to be headed in the direction of B - mediocre albums with occasional good songs in there, but lots of cringe-worthy lyrics "for some reason I can't explain I know Saint Peter will [or won't] call my name", etc.
*****
Now the important question: has any band ever released a single album that was every bit as good as the albums during their "golden age" after a string of mediocre albums? *Every bit as good* is the main criteria here. "Pretty good" doesn't cut it.
*****
I'm a huge U2 fan (attended 12 live shows). I fell in love with U2 in 1997, in high school. I loved every single album released up to that point, inluding Pop. I was a super fan in every sense of the word. I used to visit this forum a lot back in the day under alias "EdgeZTV" (but I forgot my password, and don't have the same email address, so I had to create this new account).
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Now the controversial part - U2:
1) Boy
2) October
3) War ... Pop
4) ATYCLB
5) trending towards trajectory B - a string of mediocre albums ([/SIZE][SIZE=-1]HTDAAB, NLOTH)
Don't get me wrong, these albums have some good songs on them, but does anyone who became a U2 fan before year 2000 honestly think any of their post-2000 albums every bit as good as any of their golden age albums?
In 2001 I hoped ATYCLB was a fluke, and the band would recover. I attended many shows on the Elevation tour and I loved them. However, after hearing [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]HTDAAB, I knew, but didn't want to admit, that U2 has entered that irreversible trend of releasing almost-good but really mediocre material compared to their golden age. While waiting for NLOTH to come out, my expectations were very low. On first listen, I was pleasantly surprised by the first two tracks - they reminded me of the AB+Zooropa material - and for a second I thought the band might be on the road to recovery. The third track wasn't too bad, it reminded me of Wild Irish Rose. The fourth was good, but had a few cringe-worthy moments. The rest of the album is a mixed bag of both amazing and cringe-worthy song fragments.
Even you like the post-2000 albums, you can't disagree that they are different from the previous 20 years. I can even prove it empirically: sum up all the chart positions and grammy awards for the two eras and compare them. There's no comparison. The number of awards U2 have received in the 2000's for just 2 albums outweights all the awards they've received in the prior 2 decades for 9 albums. There's no denying the change. U2 have gone mainstream by losing that "spark that set the flame" that all their previous work had but the masses couldn't see at the time. Now all people of all ages know about U2 (in contrast to 1997), and many of these newly exposed people even *like* their new material. But no one truly *loves* it. So unfortunately, they (most likely unintentionally) went from recording music that a few million people really loved to releasing music that a few hundred million like but no one loves.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
The weakest link in U2 post-2000 albums is the lyrics. Much of the lyrics simply make me cringe. The melodies are still good, the musicians are still amazing, but unfortunatelly rock 'n' roll is the art of song, not music, and the art of song is mostly lyrics, and U2's lyrics in the new millenium are mostly bad. "This is a song [/SIZE]
I'm still looking forward to the tour (got Foxboro GA's through the u2.com membership presale), I can't wait to hear NLOTH live, I still love U2, and always will. But after three albums consistently on trend B, I'm now certain that they will never again have that "spark that set the flame."
[/SIZE]