Hidden Treasures - Follow-Ups

[Scott]

I have a widely accepted and scientifically proven theory regarding albums that precede a bands biggest success. And that is that these albums are often better than the most succesful album of their careers. So what about albums that follow these massive successes? What happens to a band after the success? The only way to find out is to listen to some samples. So here are 4 tracks from albums that followed a bands biggest seller.


So, did they sustain their success? Go a total different direction? or fall flat? What follow up albums are your favorites or are the worst?


PLAYLIST --> http://www.podsnack.com/CA69EFD9E8C/avkm0ccu

	Fleetwood Mac Tusk 1979 1 - Sisters Of The Moon More than any other Fleetwood Mac album, Tusk is born of a particular time and place -- it could only have been created in the aftermath of Rumours, which shattered sales records, which in turn gave the group a blank check for its next album. But if they were falling apart during the making of Rumours, they were officially broken and shattered during the making of Tusk, and that disconnect between bandmembers resulted in a sprawling, incoherent, and utterly brilliant 20-track double album. At the time of its release, it was a flop, never reaching the top of the charts and never spawning a true hit single, despite two well-received Top Ten hits. Coming after the monumental Rumours, this was a huge disappointment, but the truth of the matter is that Fleetwood Mac couldn't top that success no matter how hard they tried, so it was better for them to indulge themselves and come up with something as unique as Tusk.
	Queen A Day At The Races 1976 2 - Long Away In every sense, A Day at the Races is an unapologetic sequel to A Night at the Opera, the 1975 breakthrough that established Queen as rock & roll royalty. The band never attempts to hide that the record is a sequel -- the two albums boast the same variation on the same cover art, the titles are both taken from old Marx Brothers films and serve as counterpoints to each other. But even though the two albums look the same, they don't quite sound the same, A Day at the Races is a bit tighter than its predecessor, yet tighter doesn't necessarily mean better for a band as extravagant as Queen. One of the great things about A Night at the Opera is that the lingering elements of early Queen -- the pastoral folk of "39," the metallic menace of "Death on Two Legs" -- dovetailed with an indulgence of camp and a truly, well, operatic scale.
	Rush Signals 1982 3 - Countdown Instead of playing it safe and writing Moving Pictures, Pt. II, Rush replaced their heavy rock of yesteryear with even more modern sounds for 1982's Signals. Synthesizers were now an integral part of the band's sound, and replaced electric guitars as the driving force for almost all the tracks. And more current and easier-to-grasp topics (teen peer pressure, repression, etc.) replaced their trusty old sci-fi-inspired lyrics. While other rock bands suddenly added keyboards to their sound to widen their appeal, Rush gradually merged electronics into their music over the years, so such tracks as the popular MTV video "Subdivisions" did not come as a shock to longtime fans. And Rush didn't forget how to rock out -- "The Analog Kid" and "Digital Man" were some of their most up-tempo compositions in years. The surprise hit, "New World Man," and "Chemistry" combined reggae and rock (begun on 1980's Permanent Waves), "The Weapon" bordered on new wave, the placid "Losing It" featured Ben Mink on electric violin, while the epic closer "Countdown" painted a vivid picture of a space shuttle launch. Signals proved that Rush were successfully adapting to the musical climate of the early '80s.
	AC/DC For Those About To Rock (We Salute You) 1981 4 - Put The Finger On You AC/DC's hot streak began to draw to a close with For Those About to Rock We Salute You. While Back in Black was infused with the energy and spirit of paying tribute to Bon Scott, it became apparent on the follow-up that the group really did miss Scott more than it initially indicated. Brian Johnson's lyrics started to seem more calculated and a bit clichéd, lacking Scott's devil-may-care sense of humor. And the band itself slowed down the tempo frequently, sounding less aggressive and inspired. There is still some decent material here

[Scott]

Seems I may have made a minor mistake in this weeks list.... hmmm....

[Jon]

About Queen?

[Scott]

Maybe... 

[Jon]

You could have played something from Jazz. Or Hot Space.

[Scott]

Yup and there's the issue...  I got A Day At The Races wrong and by the time I caught it I didn't know which one was the biggest seller... So I went with it anyway.

[Scott]

Ive been sitting on this playlist for a few months...  My research staff may have slipped a bit on this one

[Jon]

I was debating on whether to do a series of albums that followed up mega-selling albums. I had two in mind, forgot one of them and now don't know if I'll do it.

[Scott]

They are fun to listen to....

[Niels (Mod)]

I'm very glad, that you didn't choose something from....Yuk!!..."Hot space"!!!

1. I haven't heard this album that many times. I'm not a fan. I'm mostly a fan of Lindsey Buckingham, definitle the most talented in that band. I'm not a fan of Stevie Nicks way of singing. She was good to look at, but that's it. I can't remember this song, but it's okay. Nice guitar from Buckingham. I've only bought one FM-album (not true: I've also got a "Live At The BBC: The "Original Fleetwood Mac") and that's the one, that came before this one. Bought it twice, actually.

2. I bought this album in 1980, a month after my first Queen-album "The Game". But I'd heard Queen many, many times before that, when both my sisters were playing their tapes and albums. This song actually reminds me of 1977 and not 1980. Great song, great band, great album!!!! 

3. Great stuff!! It really bothers me, that I didn't start buying Rush-album earlier, than I did (1987), because I would had loved this stuff back then, I'm sure. I loved great produced albums from the very start. It's been a while, since I heard this album. I think it's about time again.

4. When I bought this album, the day it was released, I loved it.....for a week. Then I got tired of it. These days, I think it's the last really good AC/DC-album. I know, I've said, that the last good AC/DC-album was "Flick Of The Switch", but this one has aged better. I "blame" Mutt Lange, the champion of all producers. Good stuff!!

"What follow up albums are your favorites or are the worst?"

Well, I guess, it has to be follow up on the bands most successfull albums, then......hmmmmm....

The first, that comes to mind is "Load" by Metallica. That was crap!!

Ahhh, the worst was probably "Animalize" by Def Leppard. Utter crap!!!!

Let's see, if I can find some good ones....

"Hysteria" 

"Wish You Were Here" is a good one!!

"Achtung, Baby"

That's it for me.

[Scott]

Again I'm pleasantly surprised...  Nice feedback...  I hope Jon does a series on follow ups I'd like to continue this thread a bit more...

[Niels (Mod)]

So you're surprised, that I am able to give a nice feedback? 

Once, in the 80's or 90's, I played a little game for myself: When did a band finally release a crap-album? (Two crap-albums in a row, would mean, I wouldn't buy "the third one").

Some bands, made great albums for quite a while:

Def Leppard did, until "Adrenalize". Judas Priest did until "Ram It Down". Metallica did until "Load". Queensryche did until "Promised Land". Van Halen, until "OU812". Cheap Trick until "The Doctor". Iron Maiden until "No Prayer For The Dying". U2 until "Pop" aso.

KISS was the one exception, becuase they started making crap-albums in 1980 (Unmasked), and I kept buying KISS-albums up until HITS.

I can only think of ONE band, that never made crap-albums: The Beatles!!

[Scott]

Crap albums sounds like a fine title for a SHT playlist.