Bands
that release their second album after a particularly good and popular first
album seem, nearly by rule, to encounter disappointment. Perhaps the rule
applies to almost anything that follows something big, but the drop off seems
to be much larger when the anything is the second thing and the something big
is the first thing.
The
primary reason for a first timer to gain any acclaim usually has something to
do with uniqueness. The band has a particular sound, the writer a particular
voice, the painter a particular perspective that hasn't been achieved before,
at least not so successfully. Musicians who started using electrics guitars in
the 50s got this reaction. So did painters of the mid- to late-1800s who
started painting with undefined brushstrokes.
Then the
second iteration of whatever it is the artist does is released. And it doesn't
sound as good. The cliché that I have heard many items over the years is that
the first thing was frat because it had essentially been stewing in a person's
mind for a lifetime. It's existence is due to a cathartic process that is
almost impossible to replicate. So the second album s bound to be a slump.
Regardless
of the veracity of this industry cliché, I think that any publicly recognized
artist producing a second (whatever) is in a tough spot, especially if their
first (whatever) is so great. If they tried to replicate the magic that made
their first work so fantastic, the second work (regardless of its actual quality)
will be perceived as being comparatively worse than the fist. The uniqueness,
the surprise that made the original shine now seems old and tired in the
replica.
But, if a
expansion is made, if a diversion in the path is taken and the artist steps
away from what made the fist work great, the second work is vulnerable to
criticism that the musician doesn't have a cohesive sound, the writer a
cohesive voice, the painter a cohesive perspective. They should have stuck to
what they know, what they had done best, what they had already done the first
time.
(Obviously
all of the above criticism can be applied to children, when comparing the
second to the fist, third to the second and so on.)
Two Door
Cinema Club's first album, Tourist
History, - I thought- was fantastic. It was filled with real poppy, high
energy songs liable to make even the least flexible to gyrate on the dance
floor. And, being a traditionally set up four piece rock band, everything was
tinged with a great rock feel. All the songs, in addition to being poppy and
energetic, had a bite to them, just a bit of thrashiness.
So I was
nervous about their second album, Beacon.
And I heard from a few friends that they had hit a slump. Though their album
was released in September of last year, I didn't get my hands on it until my
annual Christmas ITunes splurge.
At first,
I was a bit disappointed. The first three songs are a bit techno-y. Admittedly,
this is a matter of personal taste, and an argument against the criticism
discouraging musicians from branching out after an initial hit. The songs were
good. They just failed to mesh with me tastes the way Tourist History had.
Then the
fourth track, "Sun" started playing. That thrashing guitar solo
picked up and TDCC once again popped. The song simply kicks ass and kicks off
the last three-quarters of a rejuvenated Beacon.
So much
for slumps.
No comments:
Post a Comment