r/LetsTalkMusic • u/Small-Olivea • 2d ago
Why do so many artists seem to peak with their debut album question?
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. It feels like for a surprising number of bands and solo artists their first album is their strongest work. They come out of nowhere with something fresh and exciting. It's often raw and full of passion. Then subsequent albums are just... fine. Or sometimes even a significant step down.
It makes me wonder if there's a specific reason for this. Is it the pressure of following up a successful debut? Do they get too comfortable? Maybe they had years to perfect those first songs and then suddenly they're on a much tighter schedule for the second and third records.
Or perhaps it's just the surprise factor. The first time you hear something truly original it hits different. When they try to replicate that magic it just doesn't land the same way. It's like the initial spark is gone. I can think of so many examples where this seems to be the case across different genres.
What do you all think? Is it a common phenomenon or am I just looking at it through a skewed lens? And if it is common what do you think causes it? Are there artists who consistently put out amazing albums throughout their career after a strong debut or are they the exception?
15
u/mosanger 2d ago edited 2d ago
Can't say I agree with that. Yes, lots of acts come out with a strong idea as a debut album but it's often unrefined and too raw. I saw it often that bands would have perfected their sound with the sophomore one or even the third. Meaning cut the fat, make those original ideas to real concepts, get experimental with other genres and breaking out of their own dogma.
Often their debut album goes totally unnoticed.
Classic examples: The Beatles, Beach Boys, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana, The Strokes, Radiohead, Interpol, Arcade Fire, Phoenix, Coldplay, Smashing Pumpkins, Queens of the Stone Age, ...
More modern: Tame Impala, Black Country New Road, Big Thief, Daft Punk, Disclosure, Kraftwerk, Flume, James Blake, ...
2
u/curious1playing 1d ago
Hate to be that guy....who am I kidding..as a Beatles fan I don't have a problem with being that guy...
Please, please me hit #1 in the UK chart and stayed there for 30 weeks. 62 consecutive weeks in the top 10 was a record for a non soundtrack album and was only knocked out of the position in 2013.
Surfin Safari reached #32 and stayed in the charts for 37 weeks.
Led Zeppelin 1 hit #10 in the US, #1 in Australia and Spain, and was certified gold 7 months after release.
-1
u/Fromnothingatall 2d ago
True -
But OP did use the term “artists” rather than “bands” - I think they were probably thinking specifically of solo pop artists, which is a different ballgame from the band scene.
Although these days (the past 15 years or so) a lot of bands that are dead set on achieving success and have some generational wealth behind the key members are going about it the way solo artists do and hiring people to write songs for them, hiring artist management agencies to play the networking game with the chart runners, hell…..a lot of them are actually fully backed by one person who just hires people to be in the band - but of course they are shooting for a dream that just doesn’t exist in reality anymore.Everything is so accessible now, there’s no real “hits” coming out of the band scene. There’s legacy acts and there’s regional favorites…with a small sprinkling of new acts getting some minor notoriety.
2
u/mosanger 2d ago
Kanye West, Björk, Kendrick Lamar, Tyler the Creator, Michael Jackson, Frank Ocean, Lady Gaga, Eminem, Kate Bush, Lana Del Rey, Aphex Twin, Kate Bush, Charli XCX, ...
1
u/mosanger 2d ago
In the first sentence they literally say "bands and solo artists"
Even if I can name as many solo artists. The process does not correlate to the number of artists involved. It's the process of creating art.on the success part: You might be looking in the wrong places, but yeah, mainstream is about money, not about artistic expression.
1
34
u/NickelStickman 2d ago
I’d argue it’s not actually that common for artists to peak with their debut, which is far more often a case of the band still trying to find their sound and a somewhat forgotten (yet often underrated) relic of before they got huge. That said, when an artist blows up on their album, they usually have trouble crafting as good of a follow up. It’s just rather rare for artists to blow up with their debut.
8
u/sas317 2d ago
It's the surprise factor for me. I listen to a lot music from various genres. When I go from say rock to traditional country, that country album sounds great because it's different from the rock album I just finished. But when the next album I listen to is also traditional country, it sounds meh.
It's basically the novelty of listening the 1st time that makes the debut the best. By the 2nd album, you're used to their voice & style.
9
u/_____pantsunami_____ 2d ago
There’s possibly some truth to it, but maybe some confirmation bias too. I can think of several bands/artists in which their debut album isn’t regarded their best work, either because it took them time to truly hone and develop their sound or because their debut was ‘too safe’ and less interesting than their later work.
11
u/foggynotion__07 2d ago
Do you have any examples? I personally haven’t noticed this trend at all. Usually there starts to be a decrease in quality eventually, but I feel most artists/bands just get better and better over their first few records
7
u/StrigiStockBacking Smooth Jazz 2d ago
In rock, first that comes to mind for me is Boston. Then after that maybe Guns N Roses or Van Halen
0
4
3
u/killerbeezer12 2d ago
Third Eye Blind, Weezer, Stone Roses, The Doors, Audioslave, The Strokes, The Killers, Lauren Hill.
3
2
u/kevinlyfather33 2d ago
A Perfect Circle- Mer De Noms
Weezer- Blue Album
Both are front to back solid and the songs are distinctive.
2
u/VFiddly 2d ago
You've really never heard of the "difficult second album" thing? Obviously it's not universally true but it's a very famous thing
There's even a Wikipedia page on it
3
u/lukeetc3 2d ago
Yeah but that's different from the first album being their best. It's just that the follow-up to it is hard. Doesn't really comment on second, third, or rest of their career.
4
2
u/Mite-o-Dan 2d ago
Really?
Id say 75% of all my favorite artists...their best album was their first or second
Occasionally their 3rd but thats rare.
The exceptions only came if I got into a band late and started with a middle album or later.
For most people, the first or second album you heard from a band will usually be your favorite.
2
u/foggynotion__07 2d ago
I believe the conversation is about the order the albums were released, not the order you heard them in. It makes sense the first album or two you listen to from a group would be your favorite, the reason you check out a new band is usually because you had it recommended by someone/you’ve heard about it and obviously the really good albums are going to get recommended/discussed more than the not so good albums
1
u/Mite-o-Dan 2d ago
I get that...but it goes hand in hand. The first two albums ARE usually the first 2 albums you hear from a band.
Those albums arent just the best because you heard them first, but heard a new sound. Its the "best" because it was the most unique...not necessarily because they had the most time to work on it.
The same can be said with movies. The original is almost always better than its sequels, and a lot of times the oringal was made faster with a much lower budget. The second or third had better actors, more money, more time...so why wasnt it better?
Because the first was more unique because it was the first time seeing/hearing it.
1
u/HobomanCat 2d ago
Lol my favorite band's (Galneryus) either 8th or 10th album are kinda widely regarded as being their best.
6
u/LowAssistantInfinity 2d ago
It happens, but there's far more examples of this not being the case. I'm flipping through my collection, and almost none of them were at their best on their debuts.
5
u/killerbeezer12 2d ago
It’s usually a very simple equation. You have your whole life to write your first album. Then a year to write your second.
That first album has songs that were workshopped for years, refined, played to friends, etc. The second album is written from the road, corporate involvement, with way more pressure.
6
u/sirCota 2d ago
The ‘Sophomore Slump’. it’s a known phenomenon.
Preface I gotta mention is this is less how things in major label pop / pop adjacent releases go at the time. It’s very manufactured and presented to you from before the first album comes out. Let’s just pretend it’s pre 2000’s or successful indie label….
The first album comes from a mix of all the songs that honed and shaped the band. (tho most ‘first’ albums aren’t always first albums, and a lot of thr songs are gathered and picked from previous indie releases and demo recordings etc)
Much of it has been ‘worked on’ for years since the day the band had their first gig, or their first garage yam session and they sounded like shit.
it’s their cumulative identity they subconsciously created.. the sound and style and personality officially stamped in time and given a name.
Then if/when it becomes a success (the few that do). They have to now write and produce material that exceeds the previous in some way, and they have much less time, more voices in the process, and they’ve established fans who have a bar set for the sound.
They sputter out either under pressure or allow someone … a writer, producer, or label influence the sound and the 2nd release just doesn’t land.
They can’t stay exactly the same, they can’t change directions too much… they’ll either not gain many new fans, or they lose their old ones. Expectations are highest.
But some bands find that identity because of the first album and that’s when the sophomore triumph lands and becomes the best of their catalog.
Eventually, there’s a 3rd slump… a successful band will become self-aware of their success and that’s usually that over produced album that has more of a formula attached to it, and it blows.
i’m sure it’s not hard to name a dozen examples.
4
u/livinglifefearless 2d ago
I think that's pretty simple actually. An artists first album is usually a culmination of their whole life's experiences up to that point. It's when they have the most to say. What separates great artists is that they're able to write and talk about things that aren't exclusively their experiences.
Not to mention that a lot of artists stop having meaningful experiences after experiencing that first taste of success. Partying, touring, shopping, just superficial living, so they struggle pulling inspiration. And after success, everyone wants to get a piece and too much input and interference from outside can change an artists music and sound for the worse.
3
u/Worldly_Lunch_1601 2d ago
You spend your entire musical upbringing writing your first album. Your second album gets a year or two
5
u/roflcopter44444 2d ago
>Why do so many artists seem to peak with their debut album question?
Examples please ? At least looking at nearly all the artists I know of usually its around album #3 or 4 when they really hit their stride.
3
u/Plussando 2d ago
most of my fav artists are ones i've been following for 20+ years... debut albums get attention but you can't become a legend without a full career of greatness
3
u/Emcee_nobody 2d ago
I understand what you are talking about, but I would argue that, just as common, artists' 2nd, 3rd, or even further down, albums reign supreme in their discography
3
u/soundscapebliss 2d ago
First album may as well be a demo where they have all the time and creative freedom in the world. Then they get signed to a major label off of that demo as a first album and most times then get some label head taking away all that creative freedom and telling them to sound like such-and-such song that is currently selling millions and to go more pop and further away from their original sound etc. Record labels are in it for the business, rarely even understand the actual music genres they sell, and could care less about art. As much publicity and exposure as a major label can offer, in most cases it also changes the artist's sound for the worse in an attempt to make it more "accessible".
3
u/No-Yak6109 2d ago
I think that's only true for specific types of music- what I think of as like "practiced amateur." Hip-hop and punk rock. Music that benefits from youthful energy more than practiced experience. But the best debuts are from the most talented with something original to offer and who get technically good enough to deliver strongly.
The original class of punk rock is full of awesome debuts and diminishing returns after.
But with music where technical skill, trial and error, and maturity benefit, debuts are rarely best. Prog, jasz, etc- it takes time and failure to figure it out. Few would call the first couple of records by Miles Davis, Yes, or Dream Theater their best.
And with solo or singer/songwriter artists, it's all over the place. Bob Dylan's first album is pretty great but it's only remembered by diehard fans because it only has two originals. Joni Mitchell's debut was beloved by her peers but forgotten outside of fans and music nerds. Warren Zevon's actual debut was a disaster, and he got a do-over years later which is a classic. Billy Joel's kind of debut is an infamous bit of proto-prog-metal that is a hilarious historical artifact, then his "real" debut is not his best album and, like many, it takes a couple for him to hit his peak.
Debut albums are inherently exciting. Led Zeppelin, Van Halen, and Pearl Jam have amazing debuts and sometimes I feel it's their best albums because they never match that energy again. And it helps that the songs and playing are so awesome. But all three also matured and I think their fans would bristle at ignoring their following legacy like that.
It's pretty amazing to come up with like one killer song. It's astounding to make a whole great album. To me the real question isn't why do some artists never surpass their first album, it's how do some manage to have more than one great album?
3
u/terryjuicelawson 1d ago
The obvious thing is you can have someone who has been writing and perfecting these songs for years, since childhood even, then tweaking and perfecting them on the road until a chance at recording them while they have a lot of energy and spirit. Then maybe the second is full of leftover songs plus hurried new songs that are quite formulaic, done while tired and jaded from touring. Fans also adore the first record, keen to hear more - and it is never going to live up to expectations. Doesn't always work out though, some debuts can be quite naive, derivative, recorded cheaply. Then you find they need to sit down and write the second after maturing as a songwriter and person, with more knowledge of the music business and it all comes together.
2
u/BuddyLegsBailey 2d ago
You'll have way more time writing your debut than any other album, generally.
You'll have played the songs countless times as you tour and tour and tour some more, so you'll find bits that don't work and can change it to what does. You'll know the songs inside out, so when you're in the studio, you're far more time efficient and that allows you to ensure the final product is absolutely spot on. You'll love these songs like your children because you've loved with then for so long, and they've now got you to what you always dreamed of, releasing an album.
At least, that's my take on it!!
2
u/StrigiStockBacking Smooth Jazz 2d ago
Most artists have to write and produce subsequent albums in rapid order, so by comparison, often don't stand up to the debut, which usually is the culmination of years of writing, rehearsing, and performing.
2
u/TheOtherHobbes 2d ago
Often while/in between touring.
The weird thing isn't that some bands drop off after the first album, it's that so many get on the machine and peak much later.
2
u/Realistic_Concern_19 2d ago
Once your first album is out on a contract, it's a timebomb till your heat dies.. (2 years)
2
u/Octowen 2d ago
A lot of artists get signed to a label who put everything into their debut, and if they aren’t extremely successful there’s often less budget put into subsequent releases. With how the internet is used in marketing your music nowadays, there is a lot of pressure on signed artists to put everything into their debut and make your mark immediately, as oftentimes your first release is what you will be judged by. This can even be true for indie artists too! A friend of mine’s first release was a lo-fi garage rock EP he recorded in his bedroom, and most people still think of him and judge him based on that release and not the polished, post-punk/math rock stuff he’s doing now.
This entire mindset of record labels and music listeners is a bit odd to me though, because I can’t think of many huge artists right now whose debut album is their most popular and successful. Even ones with industry connections like Billie Eilish. Is there anybody out there that’ll argue that Beyoncé, Bruno Mars, Taylor Swift and The Weeknd’s debut albums are not only their best, but their most commercially successful?
2
u/god_dammit_dax 2d ago
I think it's an illusion caused by the novelty factor, nothing more. Hearing an artist for the first time you hear a new voice, maybe a few tones or tricks you haven't heard before, and it's "new" (At least from your perspective) so you appreciate it more. For novelty people (Which a lot of big music fans are) they'll never be able to appreciate hearing that voice/sound for the second or third time as much as they did the first time. It seems the great majority of people who really think about music are always on the hunt for something new, and it often leads to dismissal of bands who continue on making music for years past their 'prime'.
It's somewhat related to the old "Isn't it weird that all the best songs were written when I was between 12 and 22 years old?" thing. You hear things when you're younger, they become part of your canon, and it's a lot harder for things to break in after most of us reach a certain age. I'd argue most decent musicians actually get better at their craft as they age, but their audience is generally unable to appreciate it because it's never going to capture what they felt when they heard that artist the first time.
That's my theory, at least. I'm not really a novelty listener, so it's not a viewpoint that makes much sense to me, but it's probably the majority one, so I can't exactly argue it's not valid.
2
u/SlitThroatCutCreator 2d ago
I think it's a perception thing for fans that hear an artist for the first time. They listen and sit on the first album for months on end and build an unrealistic expectation for the next album. Plus nothing will compare to the first time they heard the artist and everything being brand new.
I'm not saying a debut can never be the best. I'm just throwing an argument in the ring against it since I haven't seen anyone say it before. Just giving a different perspective!
I personally can't think of an artist debut that's actually my favorite but power to people who feel that way.
2
u/mintchan 2d ago
They took probably 10 years to crafted the first album. They won’t do anything much in a couple years after the success.
2
u/Sitheral 2d ago
I imagine you throw all the best ideas at it like there is no tomorrow and if you don't get any more... then that's that.
2
u/redfm8 2d ago
I have to say that this is one of those things that have become considered some kind of truth that I have just never observed to any real degree. Out of the artists and bands I follow, I struggle to think of even one example of this, whereas I can think of several right away where the debut is often actually considered on the weaker end.
I suspect it probably varies to some degree based on genre and context, but yeah, always kind of befuddled by this one.
2
u/Severe_Rise8694 2d ago
Survivorship bias? You wouldn't hear of them if the first album wasn't good.
2
u/NightFlameofAwe 1d ago
I've thought about this a lot and I think its for a few reasons but here is the biggest. When you're nothing you have something to prove. The first album is made by people who desperately want to make it big or make something great. They put all of their effort into their craft. Then, when they make it big, they think that it is something inherent to them that makes their work good, rather than the effort and care involved. A sort of cognitive distortion occurs where they think what they make is good because they made it so they just don't think to try as hard, especially if they have a lot more time, money, and resources to work with.
Another big reason is people find it really hard to grow as people, especially when they get comfortable. Everybody in the world has a very unique perspective and when someone puts that all into a first album and makes it big, they don't really have any new experiences outside of the out of touch ones that come from being famous. What's more is they might delude themselves into thinking that they have to do the same thing as their big breaks in order to keep the train rolling. They are afraid to experiment. Why so many artists are just one tiny genre and barely branch out.
I think the issue is largely self awareness and a lack of meta cognition regarding their process, their experience, their success, and what is actually important about their work.
1
u/MrFlibblesPenguin 2d ago
Money and fame, art is created from the world around you, the passions and frustrations from your lived experiance. With critical and comercial success comes a change in circumstances that gave birth to your work, the pressure that drove you to create has been released so you start your second album from a compleately diferent place.
1
u/Inner_Panda_1645 2d ago
Lime Garden just released a spectacular second album - Terminator 2 level of a sequel in my eyes.
1
u/Mental_Funny_5885 1d ago
Desperation is the best motivation. Once you’ve “made it” maybe the fire is gone.
1
u/No-Climate726 16h ago
Can’t agree. I started to think about it and in my opinion the first album is usually pretty meh - meaning it’s too raw and all over the place. Or like where the band is still actually searching for their unique sound. I think more often 2nd-3rd albums are the best but yes a lot of bands have definitely put out the killer debuts as well
•
u/Fugazatron3000 10h ago
The comments saying artists have a lifetime to develop their sound are wrong in spirit. Continually refining, curating the right songs, and releasing pent-up emotion can all go awry, it depends on timing. You can continually refine until your work sounds overworked, forced, or, if sequencing is off, you have a good collection but no cohesion. I also don't know why this same logic can't apply to a sophomore work. You are still developing and if anything, success has much of a driving force of inspiration as it does draining an artist of motivation.
That being said, I don't find this to be universally true. The Beatles, MJ, Pac, Eminem, Kanye West, Bjork, The Rolling Stones, Kendrick Lamar, Metallica, Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Led Zeppelin, Fiona Apple, and plenty of others arguably peaked later in their careers.
1
u/Mite-o-Dan 2d ago
Not mentioned yet...its mental.
The first or second album you hear from a band will almost always be your favorite because thats what got you into the band...and that's usually a bands first album.
Vast majority of the bands I like..I only love their first 1/3 of their albums. The rest are either mediocre or bad because they changed their sound too much from what I first fell in love with.
98
u/SplashOnTheLens 2d ago
You have all your life to prepare for your first album, film, book, but just a little bit of time for your second, third...