Hit the Ground Running: Living in the Shadows of Your Early Years

The following story is all too familiar:

A promising young band or artist comes onto the scene, releases their debut album, and dazzles fans and critics with a fine work of art. When it comes time for their sophomore effort, who knows? It may have the same effect. However, in this situation, we often find that an artist fails to live up to the success or the grandeur of their debut effort and that their subsequent works fall short of the mark they had previously made. Sadly, we find many of our favorite artists living in the shadows of their early years, and while we may support them with each new release, we often wonder what happened to the fresh sound that accompanied them in their older days.

On the contrary, there are often times when an artist has to wait until their third or fourth album (maybe even later) to garner the commercial or critical acclaim that they always craved. As their careers progress, they continue to please critics and fans with new angles, new approaches, and new ideas. As opposed to the previous situation, this always keeps us excited and energized for an artist's subsequent projects.

(It's important to note that an artist's success is not limited to these two specific situations.)

So, why does this happen? Why is it that some artists nail it with their debut albums? Moreover, why do some of the same artists have trouble developing thereafter? What makes them different from other artists that didn't "get it right" the first time?

"The Spearhead Effect"

Many times, we find this trend happening in the midst of important movements in the music scene. For instance, during the post-punk revival movement in the 2000s bands such as The Strokes, Interpol, and Yeah Yeah Yeahs rose quickly following the release of their debut albums Is This It, Turn On the Bright Lights, and Fever to Tell respectively. Each garnered much critical acclaim, and The Strokes were often credited for saving rock music at the time. One of the main reasons these albums are looked upon with such favor is because they, among other albums, were responsible for spearheading a definitive movement in the music scene at that time.

However, could this "spearhead effect" have a detrimental impact on bands such as these? Could having a significant role in the music scene early on in one's career cause trouble for them in the long-run?

Whenever a new movement happens in the music scene, it's fresh and exciting. In times like these, new life is given to music, and new artists get their chance to have a defining moment. However, while it's great to have a definitive debut such as Is This It or Turn On the Bright Lights, it can be difficult to see a band in a different light whenever they come onto the scene with such prominence.

For instance, when Interpol released Turn on the Bright Lights, critics and fans alike praised the band for its dark yet sensible sound that paid homage to the likes of post-punk pioneers, Joy Division. Interpol's sophomore effort, Antics, proved to be successful as well. While Interpol has maintained a significant fanbase, myself included, many will argue that their efforts succeeding Turn on the Bright Lights, especially their most recent ones, are not as fresh or as impressive as their debut. Put simply, their debut album seems to be a beautiful relic of the past, while their subsequent albums fail to live up to the grandeur of Bright Lights.

Maybe it's just me, but my hope for my favorite bands is for them to continue to grow rather than to decline. That being said, is it better for a band or artist to have gradual development throughout their career than to garner massive success toward the beginning?

During the time The Strokes, Interpol, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and others were spearheading the post-punk revival movement, other indie bands danced to the beat of their own drums. Among these bands was The National, whose sound centered more around a mix of various styles including Alternative Rock, Folk, and Americana. While their first two albums didn't have as much success as their counterparts, their third album, Alligator, received much more critical acclaim than their previous efforts. Following the aforementioned release, the five-piece has continually developed their sound with each album. Over their career of over 20 years, The National have become elder statesmen of American indie music due to their consistency, their nonstop development, and their various approaches to production and songwriting. Because of this, the band has received constant critical acclaim for their work.

There are various things that have set The National apart from their counterparts in the 2000s and onward, but a significant difference is how they responded to the trends exhibited by the music scene. While many artists rode the wave of garage rock and post-punk inspired music, The National and others prevented themselves from being associated with the Post-Punk Revival scene and instead kept their own sense of originality. While the movement was a definitive moment in music history and a fantastic resurgence of rock music in the 2000s, post-punk revival, like Grunge or Britpop, gave so much hype to the artists associated with its sound that it proved to have an adverse effect in the long run. The bands who rode the wave of trends eventually descended when that wave came crashing down. That being said, while spearheading a significant movement in music is an important role, it's safe to say that the results are outstanding when an artist dares to be different.