It's Just [....] Part Two...

"Nation Of Millions"?

Wax: Weezer - Pinkerton
Wane: The Strokes' next album

Funnily enough, I heard Coldplay's latest single this morning and thought: "Hmmmm, that not exactly a brave departure into uncharted territory for them, is it!"

So yeah, Coldplay went with the "if something works, stick with it!" formula.....as did Moby (whose 18 just comes across as weaker little sibling to PLAY).

I hate to canonize them further, but at least Radiohead have "pushed the envelope" (although their next release might be the deciding factor). As bizare as OK COMPUTER seemed in relation to THE BENDS, it was nothing compared to the full-out deviation-of-course that was KID A (although some say AMNESIAC was just more-of-same to its forerunner, but let's wait for the next disc before we damn them for that, shall we?)

After slowly perfecting the process, Ministry scored with their industro-metal template, PSALM 69, but then ran-aground by beating that formula to death on the next two albums.

For its time -- and let's be fair here -- ACHTUNG BABY *was* a radical change of course for U2, brazenly going against the JOSHUA TREE/RATTLE & HUM grain as best as they could muster (although "One" wouldn't have sounded wildly out of place on THE JOSHUA TREE). Too bad they lost their way after that.

Ooh, almost forgot the classic rut:

Bowie's LET'S DANCE (then a surprising departure from the arty SCARY MONSTERS phase), spawning the decidedly lesser TONIGHT (itself a patchy xerox of its forerunner) and then onto the final, wheezing, desperate chapter that was NEVER LET ME DOWN (a stillborn attempt to maintain commercial viability).

I'm not interested in bands who did make records different to their last records, or in followups that are good (cos thats just a list thread).

I'm interested in the process whereby *tiny* tinkerings to a formula result in something better (or worse). You could also ask - which records *should* have had a 'sequel'?

Was ITANOMTHUB really so similar in sonic content to Yo! Bum Rush... I noticed that the songwriting credits on Yo! were different to the ones on It Takes... implying that the production team was switched a bit at least.

Slightly arsey beginning to that post, Ewing, but never mind. It was similar in sonic content and better produced. Lyrically it followed the classic sequel trend of spending practically the whole album rapping about the previous one.

Or, for a better example, "Run-DMC" beget "Kings Of Rock."

Jay-Z following "Hard knock life" with "Everything" was a real career nadir.

"Hey, an Annie sample worked, let's try Oliver! next..."

Hmmmm....I don't think records *SHOULD* have sequels, really. I mean, maybe those records themselves could/should have been longer, but I'm more interested in interesting changes and new directions, not refinements. But hey, that's me.

One of my favorite "pair" of records ever is Rubber Soul/Revolver. Releasing them as a double-length would have ruined them, though.

'Van Halen 2' was the exact same record as their debut except they made it immeasurably better by spending less time and effort on the writing, recording and production. (eg how can you be possibly any lazier than to come up with something like "Eruption" and give it its own track listing? Easy - do it on an ACOUSTIC ("Spanish Fly") so you don't even have to plug in an amp! Also, filler tracks on VH1 ("Feel Your Love Tonite", "Little Dreamer") were just filler, basically forgotten 2 secs after they finish, whereas VH2's counterparts ("Women in Love", "Outta Love Again") benefitted from the apathetic delivery by sounding a bit rancid and obnoxious as well as insubstantial, a definite improvement) Then again, they cleverly also included a way-out-of-character track the likes of which they hadn't done before or since ("DOA"), unsurprisingly the best thing they ever did. (Until side 1 of 'W&CF', but that's a topic for a far longer and more in-depth and groundbreaking publishing sensation)

dave q writes the best review of VH2 I've ever read!

Consider Metallica. 'Ride The Lightning' - fast fast one, midtempo social protest number, slow slow sludge, hate-myself-&-want-to-die power ballad, fast fast one, midtempo fuck-society quasi-mosh, silly fast one, very long instro. 'Master of Puppets' - exact same except they made everything longer and switched the order of the last two. 'Justice' - exact same again except they stuck an extra silly one on the back half, and switched the order of the last two back again. Then they decided to change and make every single song sound the same and seem really fucking unbelievably long despite the shortened 'actual playing times', but that's a whole other story

"geogaddi" tinkers with the "music has the right to children" formula apparently only slightly to come up with something different; the devil being in the details, of course.

dave q's Metallica post: While containing many of the same elements that made the first one so hot, not quite as good as his previous Van Halen post.

I'm interested in the process whereby *tiny* tinkerings to a formula result in something better (or worse)
Not wishing to fault the question, but how are we measuring "better" and "worse" here? For some, the very fact of sticking to a formula may in itself be a turn-off.

I suppose the "which records deserved a sequel" qn. is a better one - the sort of '10 tracks are not enough, I must have more like this' feeling. But, even then, when you get exactly that you can feel strangely disappointed. I'm trying to think of an example: Cocteau Twins 1985-86 maybe?

When did Blue Bell Knoll come out? *yawn*

Now for the gratuitous and water-treading '3rd post' - Kiss' 'Rock & Roll Over' and 'Love Gun' are the same album except on the former the liner notes say "Produced by Eddie Kramer" and the latter's say "Produced by Kiss and Eddie Kramer", which means it took them four extra producers to come up with the same record except not as good

Millie Jackson following _Caught Up_ with the, er, very similar _Still Caught Up_ (pt. 2 of the story!).

Blue Bell Knoll came out in 1988 IIRC (that was the "Cocteaus get out of their rut" LP, hence deliberately excluded from my previous post)

I always thought Blue Bell Knoll was them still in said rut -- Heaven or Las Vegas was where they really said, "Hell with it, let's just strip everything down a bit." Bingo!

Hmmm, this Heaven or Las Vegas is suddenly popping up everywhere. I've never heard any Coctau's album after Victorialand, except for the BBC Sessions, and never thought I would care to. Their titles all form a blur to me, like Jackie Chan movies. Could it be time?

Coctau = Cocteau

Aren't there tons of bands who, like Van Halen, had a strong debut then tried to repeat it? What about bands who floundered for years before hitting upon a winning formula, then immediately went back and improved on it? Of course, we're talking here about His n Hers -> Different Class.