First Album Vs. Second Album Debate

So far this year we have seen sophomore releases from MGMT and Vampire Weekend and it reminded me of an old debate about the first album vs. the second.  Often times when a new band debuts and people start to like them a certain sound is created that the fans identify with. For me when I like a new band I get excited and really enjoy when I can connect with the music in the hopes that more music will follow. I never put to high an expectation on a second effort because I realize that it would be impossible to repeat the feeling of the original release. You don't get a second chance at a first impression. So when the new album comes out I try to look at it as a separate entity and I believe allows me to enjoy it that much better. There are some fans out there, and I do read their comments, that hold onto those first albums like it's their baby and it must be protected. They refuse to move on and can't accept a slight change to the sound or the songwriting. I can't understand this. Overall both MGMT and Vampire Weekend's new albums have gotten lukewarm receptions from people I know that loved their first albums. Mostly I hear....I like it but the first one is better.....There's not one really great song....I'm still listening to their first album. Honestly it gets me pissed. Why can't you just like both? I mean they already made a great album you love so why don't you give the second one a chance first before you toss it to the side?

In my opinion I really think it is part of our current musical culture with the 30 second snippets on iTunes being our first taste of a record. We are no longer invested in a band the way we used to be, when we would go out to the record store to pick up the new cd and be super excited to put it on in our car. I always think of the smell when I would open up the jewel case, pull out the album booklet all while the new record blasted from my speakers. Don't get me wrong, I think iTunes has aided in a lot of my new band discoveries but I just can't simply rely on one outlet. Also I think it's important for bands or artists to challenge themselves to constantly improve their music whatever that may mean to them. I am always interested when a band tries something new as long as it's not Weezer's Ratitude. In their careers, bands usually spend the most time with their first record and what I mean by that is up until their second one comes out that's the only music they have ever really played. So sometimes when they get down to writing a new record they feel like changing directions. Who wants a band that sounds exactly the same on their second record (311, The Strokes, Everclear, Smithereens), I don't (even though I like all those bands). I want something fresh and new. I want to spend a lot of time with it and really let it sink in, then after that compare the two as a complete body of work.

Here are some other bands with interesting first vs. second record debates:

Radiohead: Pablo Honey Vs. The Bends
The Stills: Logic Will Break Your Heart Vs. Without Feathers
Weezer: The Blue Album Vs. Pinkerton (back when they were great)