duga

bob dylan seemed to be able to release pretty solid music well into his 4th decade.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

Antonio

two words, Frank Zappa

__________________
Been making some new music lately, check it out

My MB Journal-I talk about music and stuff!

add me on Steam!
http://steamcommunity.com/id/commandercool

lucifer_sam

I'd say that's an excellent example of a band that went to shit after they developed an absurd ego. The Real Thing and Angel Dust were awesome but I can't say I've cared very much for anything thereafter.

__________________
first.am

duga

i can't figure that band out because mike patton had a lot of other great bands...faith no more just ended up biting it.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

Rickenbacker

But also some very very bad music all throughout. Self Portrait, anyone?

__________________

last.fm
rym
Talk About the Passion - R.E.M.'s Discography Reviewed

Janszoon

I disagree. For one thing, their first two albums were by far their worst. For another, I'm not really aware of them developing an absurd ego at any point. But in my opinion The Real Thing, Angel Dust, and King for a Day were their best albums and those are albums numbers 3, 4 and 5 for them so they serve as a counterexample to the OP's theory.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Alfred

The thing with Dylan is that one man's trash is another man's treasure.

__________________

Neapolitan

Do you mean a band that split up before 1975 or started before 1975, or does that apply to the three album rule?

The artists/band that started out before '75 like The Rolling Stones, what they did in the late 60's early 70's was incredible, but as they went along their stuff changed, by the 80's they were caught up in the 80's pop music or whatever.

The Beatles split way before '75, but sometimes I wonder if other people think Paul McCartney shelf life expired? Don't get me wrong I like Paul's stuff. I understand what people mean though, every once in a while he writes a song that's a stinker, it just happens, I mean it's not like when he was with The Beatles with John there to tell him it's a only brain fart. That is one thing about The Beatles is that the whole was greater then the sum of the parts.

In fact The Beatles is the only bands that started out as a Pop turned underground. Most bands start out as underground bands with cult following then they make it. Sometimes I see bands disliked just because they are become too recognizable. Sometimes people just don't like when their changes their sound, eg when Bob Dylan first went electric he was boo-ed.

As far as your three album rule it's hard to say. Some bands it takes time for them to develope their sound, but then again that makes their earlier stuff interesting. Some bands can hardly stay together to even make a 4th or 5th album. I see what you mean though, because imo the first album they write for themselves and it's what they like but as they move one they start writing for an ever broadening audience, I don't know if they do it conscientiously but their sound becomes less eneretic and raw, and becomes more formulaic and polished.

__________________

mr dave

i think the 3 album rule is a pretty solid concept IF the first album is a hit. if not, the 3rd album better score a few minor hits or have a very solid cult following or there won't be a 4th.

__________________
i am the universe

Rickenbacker

When you say "a Pop" are you referring to Paul McCartney's father James?

__________________

last.fm
rym
Talk About the Passion - R.E.M.'s Discography Reviewed