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 bands used to put out albums every 6 months, so its hard to say..

Most hyped bands rarely last 2 albums but then there are tons of bands that can still pump out consistently interesting music over 3 albums easily. Got some examples of bands who fit your criteria?

i don't think there is a standard. it depends 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 depends.

Led Zeppelin, really? Every album?

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.

yet i know people that would live and die by all those albums. i was talking in a general sense...there are bands where it can be generally agreed by all their fans that they should have ended after a certain number of albums.

I'd say three or four years. By then a band will either break up, hit mainstream, or go down the toilet altogether, and in the process alienate most of their original fans. Bands outlive their welcome all the time, they're what the music industry hangs onto.

I'm not so sure I agree with this. It's certainly true of some artists, but there are also a lot of artists who take a couple albums before they really find their voice. Tom Waits, Faith No More, Ministry and Ween are all examples that come to mind.

A lot of jazz artists seem to release huge amounts of albums with classics sort of scattered randomly throughout. Miles Davis for example:

Miles Davis discography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bob dylan seemed to be able to release pretty solid music well into his 4th decade.

two words, Frank Zappa

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.

i can't figure that band out because mike patton had a lot of other great bands...faith no more just ended up biting it.

But also some very very bad music all throughout. Self Portrait, anyone?

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 numbers 3, 4 and 5 for them so they serve as a counterexample to the OP's theory.

The thing with Dylan is that one man's trash is another man's treasure.

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 bands that started out as a Pop turned underground. Most bands start out as underground bands with cult following then they make it. Sometimes I see bands 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 bands it takes time for them to develope their sound, but then again that makes their earlier stuff interesting. Some bands 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.

i think the 3 album rule is a pretty solid concept IF the first album is a hit. if not, the 3rd album better score a few minor hits or have a very solid cult following or there won't be a 4th.

When you say "a Pop" are you referring to Paul McCartney's father James?

IMO Wilco has remained consistently awesome through 7 albums. Ditto Radiohead

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.

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 afterwards. 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 bands that sputter out of control after there first couple of albums.

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.

Monster is pretty awful but I agree with you about Automatic for the People, it's one of my favorites by them.

I don't think Monster is great, but i like the overall "feel" of it. On the plus side, a couple of the songs were really awesome. Strange Currencies, What's the Frequency Kenneth?, and Circus Envy are some of my favorite latter-day R.E.M. tunes.

Meh. To me even the best songs on that album, like "Crush with Eyeliner", are merely mediocre. When it came out it was by far the worst thing they had ever released and it kind of killed my interest in the band overall.

Automatic For The People is my favorite album by them, though it kind of switches between that and Murmur. And I haven't heard New Adventures, In High-Fi, Document, or Accelerate.

Have you heard Up and Around the Sun? Up is awesome, and the songwriting on Around the Sun is pretty good but it suffers a lot because of the arrangements and boring instrumentation. The live versions of Around the Sun songs are awesome though. They add a much more rough feel to it.



That said, I also think Reveal is perhaps their best since New Adventures. Imitation of Life is one of my favorite songs of the decade.

Strongly depends on whether or not the band can maintain any sense of creative momentum and change over a long period of time ie Wilco,Radiohead,Modest Mouse. Otherwise the band will either a)lapse into a rut, b)peter out with nobody listening or c)collapse.

Well said.
There are loyal fans that stick by bands throughout change and even fans that stay with a band even after they go mainstream.