Why are indie bands debut albums always their best or second to best work? Neutral Milk Hotel, Arcade Fire, Libertines...

Why are indie bands debut albums always their best or second to best work? Neutral Milk Hotel, Arcade Fire, Libertines, Oasis, Arctic Monkeys, Weezer, The Strokes etc etc.

Does mainstream exposure really stifle creativity? Do they get lazy when the cash roll in?

bump

You might have a point desu but I gotta revise rn so can't really contribute

Maybe because their first album has to satisfy and they put their soul into every song because it's so personal

It's funny because Neutral Milk Hotel's debut is their worst LP, which also makes it their second best.

A band has it's whole life to make the first album but only a year or so after their first tour to make their follow up album, or else they risk losing traction and a happy fanbase. Pressure from their record label can also make bande meet a deadline rather than put their efforts into making a solid sophomore album.

A lot of indie bands are one trick pony's that can make a great album or two, but get boring quick once you realize that they have very little else to their act (Strokes, Klaxons, Razerlight, etc). Also, your list has a lot of cherry picking, bands like Radiohead, Pulp and Blur got better with time, and it also includes bands that broke up (NMH, Libertines) or bands that's members lost their minds (River's Cuomo having a breakdown, Gallagher bro's being off their heads for most of their later stuff.

I think, it's because a lot of the artists you've named came up with a particular sound that was loved by fans and critics alike. Why should you touch a formula that seems to work? So they stayed true to their sound and changed little to nothing and thus, their LP's were less and less original.

Right, I forgot about avery island

I forgot who said it, but i was reading some article from a musicians perspective and he said that the first album is the culmination of about 20 years.
Then the second album is made in a rush after the first album.
Then the third album is make or break on whether you can sustain this shit and the third album the band usually goes on a long hiatus and takes their time

>he didn't mention Nirvana
Come on OP we all know Bleach is 1989s AOTY

Is that why Ten is good and everything after gets worse

Shit taste

I think In Utero is their best album no?

>Neutral Milk Hotel,
>when the cash roll in
Are you stupid

It's confirmation bias. The same reason people think that 27 is some cursed age that a weird percentage of musicians die at - it isn't really, but because you already believe it to be true, you only notice evidence that backs up your belief, and filter out evidence to the contrary.

For all the bands where their first album was their best, there are just as many who released something better farther down the line

Second best

>implying 89 had any other options
It was a pretty bad year user

Good job pointing out the only band of those mentioned that that particular theory didn't relate to

It's not always true

Nevermind is the most solid album. I know you fags won't agree since It's well known and popular

...

Don't forget about Wilco and Interpol. But yeah I think most artists come up with their best stuff before they ever get started because they've had a lot of time up to that point.

>Nirvana
>indie

Sucks about the new song, though. I feel like Matt is the only guy in the band not growing up musically.

...

>Disintegration

...

...

...

...

>It was a pretty bad year user

>Blood Upon The Altar
>Realm Of Chaos (Slaves To Darkness)
>Tales Of Creation
>Symphonies Of Sickness
>Self-Non-Self
>Thè Wäll Öf Säcrificè
>Haus Der Lüge
>Streetcleaner
>Sensual World
>Love Is Hell
>Extreme Aggression
>The Awakening
>Technique
>Wrong
>Pungent Effulgent
>Consuming Impulse
>Le Trésor De La Langue
>The Spooky Gloom
>Beneath The Remains
>Form Destroyer
>Agent Orange
>Spectrum (Sonic Boom)
>Playing With Fire
>Metallic Diseases
>On Land And In The Sea
>Disintegration
>Automatic
>The Stone Roses
>Taste
>Dum Dum
>Bizarro
>L'Eau Rouge
>Treponem Pal
>Nothingface

Yeah, go eat dicks, Nirvanaboy.

>evidence for contrary
radiohead, blur,

But No Code and Binaural are their best albums you fucktard

Sounds like OP's mistake

Cry more about it

They spent their entire lives developing their own sound and they put in everything they wanted to say to the world into their first album.

Let's not pretend Nirvana is worth listening to outside of MTV Unplugged, and that was just because Kurt didn't want to play his own music so he just did Meat Puppets and Leadbelly

A lot of great bands have 2 or maybe 2 and a half albums worth of material accumulated before the first album is made, and if they're smart they dont put all the best stuff on the debut.

In Utero is p. cool

But NMH are only valued at all because of their second album, and literally all the other bands you named were garbage from jump.

>MTV Unplugged
>good

Because bands have their lifetime to write their debut and 2 years to write their debut. Hence the difficult second album.

For some bands they have a repertoire of songs they have been working on for years to fill the first 1/2 albums and when they are required to step up output yearly they struggle. See: Oasis

Some bands effectively use hard drugs in the beggining which helps the creative process and then get clean once they hit it big and the music and lyrics just aren't there anymore.

Weezer was never an Indie band, until they started releasing on their own.