Long hill down after debut album

I agree about Hackett. I also think ELP went down-hill after their debut. It is IMO their best.

Ambrosia's debut was their peak, and it still wasn't that good. Same with Asia.

Sean Trane wrote:   Syzygy wrote:   In fact, most of the classic prog bands of the 70s had relatively weak debuts, and even where this wasn't the case they generally managed to equal or improve on their debut - for example King Crimson with LTIA.   Yup, this is often true for prog groups who refine their complicated formula in further albums, because it is damn well almost imposiible to get down pat inb just one shot..   But in other rock styles, often the debut is theitr best work , because the most immediate and honest. Also where they have the most fresh ideas. For ex: Lynyrd Skynyrd, Van Halen etc..     I must say that by their fourth or fifth abums most 70's groups (non-prog) have said all they had to say. And usually went downhill after that.   This is however not so true with 60's bands that managed to survive a while >> Savoy Brown, Ten Years After. Their better efforts came much later in their career >>  Raw Sienna or Lookin' In and Cricklewood Green or Space In Time   By the second album, most 80's and 90's groups had said everything.     Some bands like TFK never manage to say anything throughout their lengthy career filled of double albums

Australian wrote: I don't like Godspeed You Black Emperor have been able to equal F#A#.

Just want to comment on that one, I actually think they got better with each album . They're all great, but F#A# is the only one that I don't consider to be a masterpiece.

Under wrote:   That is an interesting theory. Band from the 60s: evergreen Band from the 70s: 5th album is top Band from the 80s: 2nd album is top Non prog bands: 1st album is top   Band from 70s? Yes - Close to the Edge Genesis - Selling England by the Pound VDGG - Godbluff KC - LTIAspic     So far, you are right. >>> not exactly , I implied this rule for non-prog groups having their best album within their first five albums >> such WA's Argus (3), Aerosmith's Rocks (5) or Zep's Zoso (4) or Santana's Caravanserai (4).   Prog groups are not subject to this rule because most of them kept progressing >> although GG's In A Glass House and Tull's TAAB are the tops also of their respective careers too >> so this rule of five is indicative but certainly not the norm according to the Trane Theorem. But to say that of Floyd or Traffic is not correct. And many group did not reach five albums. And Focus's Mother Focus is atrocious   Band from the 80s? Dream Theater - Images and Words IQ - The Wake   Right again   Non-prog albums?   Las Ketchup - The Ketchup song >>> whazdat?????   Right!   Hmmm, not bad. I'm impressed.

Alas, I must point to my namesakes, Captain Beyond, though they are only tangentially prog. Their first album was as good as any hard rock album ever recorded, up there with In Rock, Master of Reality, Bad Reputation, Zep II etc. Never came close to matching it. Must've existed in the chemistry between the musicians that was only there at that place and time.

The band to keep an eye on right now, in this regard, is the Mars Volta. Staggering, jaw-dropping debut. Relatively weak and lazy follow-up. Waiting on the upcoming next album.....

Ambrosia

you could say Pink Floyd, since they went down after the debut. but then they rose up again after atom heart mother and just kept getting better

Kleynan wrote: I agree about Hackett. I also think ELP went down-hill after their debut. It is IMO their best.

    You're out of your mind! "Tarkus", "Trilogy", and "Brain Salad Surgery" are DROP DEAD BRILLIANT!!!!!

bump