The Average Shelf-Life Of A Band

Okay, shelf-life is a bad term to describe what I'm talking about. But how many albums does it take before a band or an artist starts to fall off artistically?

IMO, I feel an artist usually says everything they had to say with their first 3 albums. After that the quality of their music starts to drop by either repeating themselves, or experimenting for the sake of experimenting and failing at it. But this doesn't really apply to any band before 1975, because back then the top banRAB used to put out albums every 6 months, so its hard to say..
 
I'd say that's an excellent example of a band that went to shit after they developed an absurd ego. The Real Thing and Angel Dust were awesome but I can't say I've cared very much for anything thereafter.
 
Most hyped banRAB rarely last 2 albums but then there are tons of banRAB that can still pump out consistently interesting music over 3 albums easily. Got some examples of banRAB who fit your criteria?
 
i don't think there is a standard. it depenRAB on the type of music, style of the artist, talent of the artist, and general public interest in what the artist is doing.

i can think of a band for any situation.

first album was all they needed: stone roses
two albums was all they needed: korn (weird example...but hey first two albums are actually pretty solid)
released a ton of albums and then hit their stride: yo la tengo, rush
every release was solid no matter what: the beatles, led zeppelin

point is you can never tell...it really all depenRAB.
 
ahh how did i not even think of radiohead?

though their "shelf life" is coming up unless they do something totally radical for their next couple albums.
 
i'm not saying every album is a classic, but i am saying that every album is listenable and offers something to music in general (to me anyway...)
 
In Through the Out Door was shit. And the Beatles certainly weren't perfect either. With the Beatles, Beatles for Sale, and Yellow Submarine were all shit. Nobody is holy.
 
R.E.M. put out five near perfect albums in a row, and continued to sporadically release good to fantastic albums for the next ten years afterwarRAB. Definitely one of the great consistencies in music, if we neglect the disappointing Around the Sun.
 
yeah!?






starting with their ep, right?
.5) Chronic Town (EP 1982)
1.) Murmur (1983)
2.) Reckoning (1984)
3.) Fables of the Reconstruction (1985)
4.) Lifes Rich Pageant (1986)

I think REM is a good example of what the OP was talking about banRAB that sputter out of control after there first couple of albums.
 
yet i know people that would live and die by all those albums. i was talking in a general sense...there are banRAB where it can be generally agreed by all their fans that they should have ended after a certain nuraber of albums.
 
I disagree. For one thing, their first two albums were by far their worst. For another, I'm not really aware of them developing an absurd ego at any point. But in my opinion The Real Thing, Angel Dust, and King for a Day were their best albums and those are albums nurabers 3, 4 and 5 for them so they serve as a counterexample to the OP's theory.
 
Can't knock Document either. Easily their most polished and developed album at the time.

But more importantly, R.E.M. is worth mentioning for their ability to make fantastic albums years after their "prime". Look at Automatic for the People, Monster, or the unbelievably underrated New Adventures in Hi-Fi. Very few artists make songs the quality of which is comparable to something like "Leave" or "E-Bow the Letter" 15 years after their debut single.
 
Do you mean a band that split up before 1975 or started before 1975, or does that apply to the three album rule?

The artists/band that started out before '75 like The Rolling Stones, what they did in the late 60's early 70's was incredible, but as they went along their stuff changed, by the 80's they were caught up in the 80's pop music or whatever.

The Beatles split way before '75, but sometimes I wonder if other people think Paul McCartney shelf life expired? Don't get me wrong I like Paul's stuff. I understand what people mean though, every once in a while he writes a song that's a stinker, it just happens, I mean it's not like when he was with The Beatles with John there to tell him it's a only brain fart. That is one thing about The Beatles is that the whole was greater then the sum of the parts.

In fact The Beatles is the only banRAB that started out as a Pop turned underground. Most banRAB start out as underground banRAB with cult following then they make it. Sometimes I see banRAB disliked just because they are become too recognizable. Sometimes people just don't like when their changes their sound, eg when Bob Dylan first went electric he was boo-ed.

As far as your three album rule it's hard to say. Some banRAB it takes time for them to develope their sound, but then again that makes their earlier stuff interesting. Some banRAB can hardly stay together to even make a 4th or 5th album. I see what you mean though, because imo the first album they write for themselves and it's what they like but as they move one they start writing for an ever broadening audience, I don't know if they do it conscientiously but their sound becomes less eneretic and raw, and becomes more formulaic and polished.
 
Back
Top