You're on the cover of all the magazines, you're everyone's best friend. People who would never give you a second thought are suddenly clamoring for an autograph or a quote. Heck, you're thinking of calling up that girl you always had a thing for in high school, once you've gotten tired of bagging models. You find yourself hanging out with the likes of David Bowie and Bono, hearing about your amazing musical genius and how they'd love to work with you in the future. But there's still the nagging thought in the back of your head: "What do I do next?"
Nothing quite beats having a successful debut album, since you don't have to deal with the uncertainty of wondering if you are ever going to make it. However, at some point you have to figure out what you're going to do to follow up your massive success. How does one avoid the dreaded Sophomore Slump?
The classic paradox that faces these groups is this: do we stick to the same formula that brought us success in the first place and risk being branded uncreative, or try something new and different and take the chance of alienating all our fans (and just out and out failing). There is no quick and easy answer. The Strokes stuck to their formula for their follow-up to "Is This It", and the buzz waned even though "Room On Fire" is probably the better overall album. Badly Drawn Boy has attempted to mix things up, but nothing has gotten the acclaim or success as "The Hour of Bewilderbeast".
Everyone wants to write the next "The Bends," but to actually get that success is rare. The trick is to find a balance, which can be found in the examples of Interpol's "Antics" and Coldplay's "A Rush of Blood to the Head." Both had debuts that appeared on many critics' lists while also selling a fair amount and getting some radio play. They decided not to abandon what made their debuts successful in the first place, but also pushed their style into new directions.
Interpol kept their jagged guitars and somber vocals, but surrounded it with a generally more positive outlook. Coldplay did much of the same thing, but instead of more intimate ballads, they pushed things to a broader and more epic scale.
The past few months have seen a few high-profile sophomore releases from the Killers, Bloc Party and the Arctic Monkeys, among others. The Killers and the Arctic Monkeys represent the extremes of the paradox. While the Arctic Monkeys' new album is not bad at all, it certainly doesn't stray from their formula -- if I was asked what album the non-single tracks came from, I would be unable to tell. Meanwhile, the Killers listened to a bunch of Springsteen records and decided they were an "important" band, and the results are absolutely awful. I recently had a conversation with my friend over AIM while listening to this album, and beyond a couple of highlights ("When You Were Young" and "Read My Mind"), we were literally laughing at the results. It can all be seen in the one track, "Bones" -- horns that come out of nowhere, an out-of-place gospel choir for some "heft" and atrocious lyrics ("I want to feel my bones on your bones"? I know skin-on-skin has been done, but that's just creepy).
There is always hope that the sophomore album will be another "Pinkerton." When Weezer first released their follow-up to their massively successful debut, it was greeted with a resounding silence, and Rolling Stone labeled it the worst album of the year. Ten years later, fans rediscovered it and it is now listed as one of Rolling Stone's "5-Star Classics." I think this is will be the fate of the new Bloc Party album. Everyone raved about "Silent Alarm", but there has been a huge critical backlash over "A Weekend In the City". Even though the band moved away from their strengths (novel guitar-playing and wicked drums), they put together songs that are just too good to ignore.
Of course, you could always quit and go out on top. The Sex Pistols only had one album, and they're revered to this day. Neil Young was right -- it's better to burn out than to fade away.
