The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

by Raegoul Thu Sep 02, 2021 4:42 am

Hear me out, it has occurred to me that many bands have three good first albums and then go downhill. I post this in the Christian Metal subforum because I am going to make my point with Christian albums but I guess it also works for the secular domain and, as a matter of fact, any style of music.

The theory is that a band comes onto the scene with a great debut album, bringing something fresh to the table. The band then follows up and refines their style, with more or less success (some manage to one-up their debut some don't). By the third album, the band starts to grow tired with their trademark style and starts to experiment with new styles, but still caters to the die hard fans.

After that, the band either folds, disbands or changes the style for good (until maybe a reunion 20 years later when its time to haul in some retirement money on a comeback tour).

Exhibits (on the top of my mind):

1) Believer: Came in strong with Extraction, a milestone in tech thrash, a raw diamond. Sanity Obscure: same style but more refined. Dimensions: the band leaves the pure thrash genre to venture into avant garde experimental stuff. After that, radio silence for a bit, then the new albums that reflect the bands new style (hate it or love it), later down the road attempt to recreate the original style with Gabriel (at least that's how I perceived it).

2) Deliverance: Great debut, raw around the edges. Weapons: the pinnacle, Christian thrash classic. What a Joke: The band at a loss of ideas, fading out. After that, a new style (hate it or love it), later down the road concessions to the old style for the fans.

3) Tourniquet: Mindblowing debut, instant classic, innovative and creative. Psycho Surgery: Great follow-up, branching out a bit. Pathogenic: Pushing the boundaries of the OG style but still true to it. Then, exchange of band members, newish style. Later down the road returning to OG style (and I love some of the stuff, Antiseptic Bloodbath or Gazing at Medusa have great songs).

An example from another genre:

Cypress Hill: Classic Debut, classic follow-up with Black Sunday, classic third album (Temples of Boom), after that, bland and uninspired mostly.

Obviously, there are many exceptions to this rule. What is your take on the theory? What other examples are out there?

by TZ75 Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:56 am

I can agree with your perspective. But honestly, most Christian thrash or hardcore bands folded after just two albums.

Some that immediately come to mind:

The Crucified
Sacrament
Betrayal (I don’t count the goth album Marcus did)
Six Feet Deep
Focused
Seventh Angel (until the reunion album 20+ years later)

by Follower of Jesus Thu Sep 02, 2021 7:03 am

Bride did this too, except they went on to even bigger success with the change after the third album.

Guardian was another one. They changed their sound after the third album and never recovered. (Though I enjoy Buzz and Almost Home.)

Lastly, I think Whitecross fits here too. Their first three albums were hard rock gems. They change their sound on “In the Kingdom” and never went back. I like ITK and “High Gear”, but not nearly as much as those first three albums.

by Raegoul Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:33 am

TZ75 wrote:I can agree with your perspective. But honestly, most Christian thrash or hardcore bands folded after just two albums.

Some that immediately come to mind:

The Crucified
Sacrament
Betrayal (I don’t count the goth album Marcus did)
Six Feet Deep
Focused
Seventh Angel (until the reunion album 20+ years later)

Very true. That would be a topic for another thread, bands with great potential that folded too soon. Add Detritus, identical case as Seventh Angel.

Then again, isn‘t the legendary status of those bands partly due to the fact that they stopped when they were at their best and did not tarnish their legacy with a mediocre releases?

by Raegoul Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:43 am

Follower of Jesus wrote:Bride did this too, except they went on to even bigger success with the change after the third album.

Guardian was another one. They changed their sound after the third album and never recovered. (Though I enjoy Buzz and Almost Home.)

Lastly, I think Whitecross fits here too. Their first three albums were hard rock gems. They change their sound on “In the Kingdom” and never went back. I like ITK and “High Gear”, but not nearly as much as those first three albums.

Very good examples. I would imagine that in the case of the mainstream hardrock acts management/labels played a role in the style change, trying to get more airplay. At least that‘s how I always thought Whitecross and Stryper softened down their style after their 3rd albums.

Stryper then luckily moved on and gave us ATL and after the hiatus came back to deliver the goods once again. I was deeply impressed with Fallen and NMHTP and to a slightly lesser degree (but still very pleased) with the other albums since the comeback. They are the exception from the rule I guess.

by TZ75 Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:10 am

Raegoul wrote:
TZ75 wrote:I can agree with your perspective. But honestly, most Christian thrash or hardcore bands folded after just two albums.

Some that immediately come to mind:

The Crucified
Sacrament
Betrayal (I don’t count the goth album Marcus did)
Six Feet Deep
Focused
Seventh Angel (until the reunion album 20+ years later)

Very true. That would be a topic for another thread, bands with great potential that folded too soon. Add Detritus, identical case as Seventh Angel.

Then again, isn‘t the legendary status of those bands partly due to the fact that they stopped when they were at their best and did not tarnish their legacy with a mediocre releases?

I think that could be the case… but we’ll never know if the next album would have been a success. Those two Crucified songs that were set to be for the third album were very good IMO! They still had the musical chops. Unfortunately, personal stuff got in the way and it didn’t get finished.

by Temple of Blood Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:46 am

If you think about it in terms of stages in life, your years of playing rock star, living with mommy and daddy, working a mediocre job (that doesn't qualify as a career), and eating mac and cheese are probably going to be pretty limited.

So releasing 3 albums is probably around 8 years of your life. At that point you get sick of it, have to find a real job, have kids, want to get married. Your wife isn't going to want you to just languish in an unprofitable band and be gone from home a lot, especially if you have kids.

Few thrash musicians made the transition from "single rock star" to "married family man rock star" very successfully.

Most everyone who is still active is single without kids or divorced and never see their kids.

A lot of bands got active again when a lot of the band members divorced. Sad but true. Also when their kids grew up.

This is the unflattering side that I think fans don't see of their favorite bands.

by Constantine Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:30 pm

I think TOB (as usual) made some good points. I would also add that as a listener I'vs changed and matured over time too. So I might really like those later albums that represent a departure from a band's signature sound. I might perceive them to be a sign of growth and maturity as songwriters.

For example, my favorite Deliverance releases are actually "Learn" and "River Disturbance." My favorite Believer album is "Transhuman." I still like the thrashier stuff of either band but in smaller doses because I like the newer sound and style more.

This is not always the case so it is not a general rule. Sometimes I will always prefer a band's 1st album to everything that comes after it. Like Tourniquet, Living Sacrifice, or Vengeance Rising.

Other times I will really like the 1st album and 1 of the mid-period albums and that is basically it (Guardian).

Still others, I like all of their albums but that is RARE (Letter 7).

I am always surprised though, when a band puts out a really good album decades after their 1st one - to me that is also rare (The Brave, Bloodgood)

by yaark Thu Sep 02, 2021 7:59 pm

Can add Mortification to the list. Most people only like their first 3 albums... I enjoy most of their albums.

Living Sacrifice first 3 albums as well, before they changed their style to metalcore.

A lot of punk bands like greenday, blink182, offspring, pennywise etc all started out great for their first albums (when i used to listen to them years ago), then they all tend to go down the commercial pop-punk route.

by average joe Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:13 pm

I think Metallica’s first five are universally recognized as solid before taking a nosedive.

by eatbugs Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:34 am

I agree with this premise, except that I often like the post-change albums better, especially ALBUM #5.

If you think about many of the above examples, album #4 was the first foray into the new sound, but album #5 was the top of the new sound, in some cases better than albums 1-3. This doesn't always hold true (Mortification, Guardian), but it often does.

Examples:
Bride's peak is Snakes in the Playground. They had their first three albums, then took a step back with the overproduced commercial Kinetic Faith, then put out the monster of an album Snakes...

Deliverance. I prefer Learn (#5) to Stay of Execution (#4), although in this case neither are as good as Weapons...

Living Sacrifice. Not all, but many (including me) prefer The Hammering Process to Reborn.

I also agree with Temple of Blood's comments about good bands vs family priorities (I've said similar in the past on why Christian bands don't last long), and TZ75's two album rule for hardcore bands.

by Tobi Elektrik Fri Sep 03, 2021 3:23 am

Proof: SAVIOUR MACHINE!
They already believed in this theory when they started to work on their third album. To avoid releasing weak material after the third album, the third album was divided into three parts. And the third part was divided again - a fourth part could only have been weak!

by Tombie Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:28 am

One band that defies this is AC/DC... The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong) 1f601

by Raegoul Fri Sep 03, 2021 9:11 am

yaark wrote:Can add Mortification to the list. Most people only like their first 3 albums... I enjoy most of their albums.

Living Sacrifice first 3 albums as well, before they changed their style to metalcore.

A lot of punk bands like greenday, blink182, offspring, pennywise etc all started out great for their first albums (when i used to listen to them years ago), then they all tend to go down the commercial pop-punk route.

I didn't mention Mortification because I see the style change after the first two albums...

As for Living Sacrifice I think the debut stands alone and everything that came after that was quite different (first the "death metal" style, then metal core).

Talking about "punk" bands, One Bad Pig had quite a nice three album run with Smash, Swine Flew and I Scream Sunday.

by Raegoul Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:56 pm

eatbugs wrote:I agree with this premise, except that I often like the post-change albums better, especially ALBUM #5.

If you think about many of the above examples, album #4 was the first foray into the new sound, but album #5 was the top of the new sound, in some cases better than albums 1-3. This doesn't always hold true (Mortification, Guardian), but it often does.

Examples:
Bride's peak is Snakes in the Playground. They had their first three albums, then took a step back with the overproduced commercial Kinetic Faith, then put out the monster of an album Snakes...

Deliverance. I prefer Learn (#5) to Stay of Execution (#4), although in this case neither are as good as Weapons...

Living Sacrifice. Not all, but many (including me) prefer The Hammering Process to Reborn.

I also agree with Temple of Blood's comments about good bands vs family priorities (I've said similar in the past on why Christian bands don't last long), and TZ75's two album rule for hardcore bands.

I agree with you on Bride's second stint. The first three albums were cool musically but Dale's howling was way over the top. However, I really like Kinetic Faith as much as Snakes. They're different kind of beasts, Kinetic has that west coast groove to it (not sure that's the right way to put it) whereas Snakes is downright G'n'R.

As for Deliverance I have yet to get into anything beyond What A Joke. It just doesn't click.

by Black Rider Fri Sep 03, 2021 6:00 pm

I'm glad most bands change, listening to the same sound album after album grows stale.

by alldatndensum Fri Sep 03, 2021 7:59 pm

Black Rider wrote:I'm glad most bands change, listening to the same sound album after album grows stale.

While I can agree to that, bands have to be careful with changing too much or they lose their fanbase. Bon Jovi is nothing like what they once were and a lot of their fans hate the music they are making. Guardian has suffered the same fate.

Making some changes is okay, but you gotta keep that fan base that got you there happy or you are done.

by WildWorld Fri Sep 03, 2021 8:16 pm

Tombie wrote:One band that defies this is AC/DC...

Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, and Judas Priest as well.

by eatbugs Sat Sep 04, 2021 12:16 am

alldatndensum wrote:
Black Rider wrote:I'm glad most bands change, listening to the same sound album after album grows stale.

While I can agree to that, bands have to be careful with changing too much or they lose their fanbase. Bon Jovi is nothing like what they once were and a lot of their fans hate the music they are making. Guardian has suffered the same fate.

Making some changes is okay, but you gotta keep that fan base that got you there happy or you are done.

I agree with both of you. Guardian and many others I could list wreck their legacy when they over-change. That said, Skillet has had the same sound since Collide. I like the sound generally, but it gets redundant.

by Constantine Sat Sep 04, 2021 9:51 am

Black Rider wrote:I'm glad most bands change, listening to the same sound album after album grows stale.

I agree, I get bored of bands that recycle the same album over and over (Iron Maiden, AC/DC, Testament, etc.).

With the bands that change too much (like Guardian), my wish is that they would at least throw in a few songs on each album that the older fans would like. Not just change completely and never look back.

by deathisgain Sat Sep 04, 2021 4:50 pm

I think some of it is because of a lack of drive. When a lot of bands are young, they are starving. They want to prove something to the world. They live, eat, sleep music. If they get some success, they usally still have that fire and try to strike a second time quickly. By the third time they have been doing it for a while, if they have some success, they lose that fire, and they have proven themselves. Maybe they are bored with what they are doing and want something different. That being said, for my third album, I'm going country rap.

by Temple of Blood Sat Sep 04, 2021 5:43 pm

Bands should "pivot" over time, not drastically change from album to album.

That keeps it fresh while also giving old fans what they want.

It also expands the types of styles a band can play, over time.

by Constantine Sat Sep 04, 2021 6:12 pm

deathisgain wrote:That being said, for my third album, I'm going country rap.

The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong) Fun_me10

by Raegoul Sun Sep 05, 2021 1:56 am

Temple of Blood wrote:Bands should "pivot" over time, not drastically change from album to album.

That keeps it fresh while also giving old fans what they want.

It also expands the types of styles a band can play, over time.

I agree. If established bands with a fanbase feel adventurous and want to try a new style they should do so under a different name to avoid to alienate said fanbase.

Exhibit: Suicidal Tendencies and Infectious Grooves

by alldatndensum Sun Sep 05, 2021 8:37 am

Raegoul wrote:
Temple of Blood wrote:Bands should "pivot" over time, not drastically change from album to album.

That keeps it fresh while also giving old fans what they want.

It also expands the types of styles a band can play, over time.
I agree. If established bands with a fanbase feel adventurous and want to try a new style they should do so under a different name to avoid to alienate said fanbase.

Exhibit: Suicidal Tendencies and Infectious Grooves

Or, stretch just a little and do one or two songs on an album. If it hits with the fans, you have clearance to do more. If the fans reject that, then you know not to tread those waters again.

by Sponsored content

The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)

Re: The Three Album Theory (prove me wrong)