The Stone Roses.
One perfect album, then...
nothing.

Elton John's "Island Girl" was the beginning of a spectacular slide.

Is that Slash? Well then sorry for being Mr. Obvious here, but Guns 'N Roses. One good album, about half of another good one (minus that awful, racist and homophobic garbage on one track)and then a few gigantic, overblown turds and nothing now for over 14 years.

I like the Stone Roses choice, too. That second album really blew.

Terrence Trent d'Arby was going to change the face of rock...but he d'idn't.

The La's.

The La's don't count. They're literally a 1-hit, 1-album wonder, right? Entries in this Flameout thread need to have released a follow-up turd that would stand as the beginning of a run of subsequent turds. In short, The La's (I believe), Sex Pistols, and others you might have in mind do not qualify. Thanks.

saturn is mine wrote:

Terrence Trent d'Arby was going to change the face of rock...but he d'idn't.

I'm surprised that this didn't get a seething response from hrrundi. :-)

Anyway here's another one that popped into my mind just now: Suicidal Tendencies. Maybe it's because I watched Dogtown and Z-Boys (the documentary) last night and one of the guys interviewed was Jim Muir, the brother of ST singer Mike Muir. Anyway they released one great hardcore/crossover album and a bunch of shitty metal albums followed.

is fritz a fan of Terrence's later output?

of course, there's also the Knack.

Yes, Hrrundi's stuck by his man TTD through failure to change the course of world history, name change, and the like. Truth be told, he's sent me a few of those post-flop CDs, and they're not bad, each one including a couple of good songs. Truth be told, though, TTD may have to be excluded from this thread on account of the 1-hit wonder rule. He never built up a spectacular body of work before flaming out. Same goes for The Knack.

Let's go, Townspeople: the guidelines for play are clearly stated!

wait a minute...

the La's I can see as a one hit wonder. One song, a flameout does not make.

But both the Knack and Terrence made very solid first albums (and in the former's case, there were two chart topping singles, not one, and even their followup produced a top 15 single).

both were lauded by critics as saviors of rock, or at least lauded as "important", and then both fell off the map. In fact, when I suggested them, I was being mindful of your description at the top of this thread, which asks for artists who "in the course of one release, lost it, to date, for good".

Here's 2 groups that tried to end-run around one hit album status: Boston, who really did put out a second and third record (Though almost identical to the first, with nowhere near the success) yet have the impression of not being flashes in the pan to an extent. And Meatloaf, who really did release his hit on several records, didn't he? A one hit wonder who kept slamming it at you without waiting for kinder posterity.

The Knack is a good one. Do My Bloody Valentine qualify? John Phillips? Ozzie/Black Sabbath?

Liz Phair! If she would have died after EXILE TO GUYVILLE (preferably while receiving oral sex while driving) she would have been the indie rock Janis Joplin! Instead she is being marketed as as moderately-rocking MILF version of Pink who only gets the half-hearted defense of anyone still paying attention.

That first album seems to a about a very specific time in her life which she has no connection to now, sort of like Jonathan Richmans relationship to his first lp.

good one, dan!

I mean, good one D'an.

I doubt there'll be a consensus here but one of the most disappointing flameouts for me is Fountains of Wayne.

Is there some confusion in this thread? People seem to be responding as if the question was about bands who flamed out after one good album.

But wasn't Mr. Mod asking about bands who, on one particular album, lost it for good after a stretch run?

I don't know, I'm confused. I'll answer the question everyone else is answering and say Violent Femmes.

Townsman Mwall, YOU, my friend, have understood the guidelines and restated them accurately and clearly. The rest of you who are suggesting artists over whom critics and fans might have rushed to judgement on ONE STINKING ALBUM need to rethink your approach here. Who was it who suggested Elton John at the release of "Island Girl"? That's a good one.

Although I personally agree with Fountains of Wayne, who have sucked since their first album, but they're kind of in that Boston territory, of simply fading out with the same old same old. That's different than an outright career FLAMEOUT.

My Bloody Valentine...nah. I won't argue over Stone Roses, but they're pretty much in that 1-and-done category.

To spur PROPER discussion, I'll offer the following with whom you may agree:

• Van Morrison, maybe following the decent Wavelength album
• Rod Stewart, upon the release of "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" (or maybe as early as "Tonight's the Night")
• Prince following that "Kiss" single

See, these are artists who had significant, wholly appreciated bodies of work that quickly sunk to the nether regions of cut-out bins.

BTW, Violent Femmes are also not eligible for this discussion. I'm sorry this lot dragged you down, Mwall.

yeah, there's confusion. but you're right, the mod's asking for a substantial body of work before the flameout.

his use of the slash youtube confused me into thinking that a flamemout after the first album is okay becasue of slash's origins in g-n-r.

i don't see why a flameout can't occur after one good album (regardless of whether or not said effort produced a hit).

btw, WHAT's the deal with scott wieland?

Saturnismine, I appreciate the pains you're going through to better understand this thread. The use of the Slash video was the result of searching YouTube by the phrase "lost it."

As to your other point, surely a flameout can occur after one good album, but I would not characterize that as a "spectacular" flameout.

I have no idea what the deal is with Wieland. He's about as creepy as it gets. Definitely a dude who should keep his shirt on.

I posted Elton John. What do I win?

Townsman Sammy,

WhatchootalkinaboutWillis? I just read back. Did you post "Elton John " from KingEd's account?

Well does Michael Jackson fit the glove?

Hard to think of anyone recently because these days "stints in rehab" and "found with underage girl/boy" seem to only bolster ones career...

Mrclean, you have offered a completely acceptable answer. Thanks!

What about T-Rex? Wasn't there a point when Bolan suddenly sucked for his last few years on earth? Was there a dramatic point at which he dropped off, or was it a slow death?

DAVID BOWIE. everything Perfect up until the end of side one of LET'S DANCE.

Nothing since.

Aesthetically i agree with the Liz Phair comments, but musically, I actually like WHIP SMART (2nd album) better.

RE: T-Rex - having just read the Wikipedia entry on Marc, the writer(s) seem to indicate he was returning to do some good stuff after kinda fading away. Too bad about that tree.

One of my memories from living in England in 1972-1973 was when I went over to my friend Alex's house after school one day and we listen to T-Rex's "Electric Warrior" in his room and played with his chemistry set. We concocted something stinky and smoky that required opening the windows and clearing out of the room. We went downstairs and had baked beans on toast with tea....

Many years later, one of the first CD's I bought was Electric Warrior.

Bowie is an EXCELLENT suggestion!

Great Bolan/UK story, Mrclean. I had no idea you'd lived overseas as a lad.

Sorry. I posted Elton John the other day under the "should have died" poll. My bad.

I will offer up Meat Puppets here, although I understand that some people like post Up On the Sun. But the spectacular flameout between Up on the Sun and that shitty EP is mind blowingly tragic for me.

mod, thanks for your sympathies.

if we're talking about flameouts after a good body of work, then aren't we just locating the moment when an artist or band "lost the magic"? couldn't we say this about almsot any band?

there's something about that meteoric rise of the first album that's so great it gets everyone using superlatives....only to be followed with garbage. to me, that's what a flameout is.

but dropping off the face of the earth after amassing a substantial body of work...that's something else...that's fading.

the who, after either "quadrophenia" or "who are you" (i'd say the former).

the band, after the second album: bye bye quality.

and i suppose all roads lead to the debate as to when the stones fell off the map, too, no?

i'll say after 'tattoo you'. nothing good since. don't gimme no dirty work, don't gimme no steel wheels.

oops. should've read: "but but dropping off the face of the earth after amassing a substantial body of work...that's something else...that's INEVITABLE."

the word "fading" was leftover from an abandoned sentence, and changes the meaning of my point.

certainly, there's nothing in "dropping off the face of the earth" that resembles "fading".

Saturnismine wrote:

"but but dropping off the face of the earth after amassing a substantial body of work...that's something else...that's INEVITABLE."

I say: SPECTACULAR FLAMEOUT, not fade, not inevitable, slow death...

The Stones died slowly, over the course of all those later-period Mick Taylor and fill-in albums through the brief hope of revival of both Some Girls and Tattoo You. The Who don't count because Moon died very close to the time they competely lost it. Before then, they'd been suffering a slow death.

The Band did not suck for all time; The Last Waltz movie cemented their critical acclaim. They were alive and well when they played their hits one more time.

I'm talking about spectacular, unexpected flameout from which an artist never recovers. Even an Elvis Costello has bounced back to some extent from numerous turds.

nah...the last waltz saved their azzes from the mediocre tripe they'd been purveying since that brilliant second album.

I'd agree with you about the spectacular Rod Stewart flame out, Mr. Mod, but not about Van Morrison. I truly like Common One, Beautiful Vision, and Inarticulate Speech of the Heart, as well as his collaboration with the Chieftains. Avalon Sunset is the beginning of a dead patch, but I like some of his swinging music from later years, especially How Long Has This Been Going On.

Mind you, he has in some ways moved away from rock and roll as such on those records. But there's a lot of solid music there.

btw, thanks for clarifying, moddie!

i'm thick today (seriously).

i still think that the last waltz was a clever way of saving face / self-revisionism for the band: call in all your favors on all your industry pals by offering them facetime / exposure before cameras directed by the hippest filmmaker around. who WOULDN'T "critically acclaim" the band in these circumstances?

they had been impotent since that second album. and don't gimme no "the shape i'm in".

How about Chilton on Sister Lovers? Granted, I don't by any means think all his later music sucks; I like some of it quite a bit. But he's never returned to anywhere near that level of brilliance ever again. So if he wasn't quite destroyed, he was sure never the same.

Hey, Perfesser -- you sayin' that the La's first *album* isn't a good, solid piece of work? 'Cause it most certainly is, Moddie's pube-plucking rule-ifications notwithstanding.

Mr. Mod, while I'll agree that the general rock n' roller certainly won't find much post Tattoo You with The Stones, Undercover is an album that I really feel is sadly overlooked, especially by Stones Nation in general. It's one of the few 80's albums by a major artist that has drums that sound good, plus, it just rocks. It's one of my favorite Stones albums.

My choice for utter, brutal flameout goes to Grand Funk Railroad. Never the critics darlings, us boozing, smoking, wannabe toughboys propelled that band to the top of the charts and sold out tours. They were, big, dumb, loaded blooze rockers and they had the world by the balls right up through Caught In the Act (Live). Sure they had some missteps with All the Girls in the World Beware and Shinin' On, but they always came up with a few great lunkheaded songs that were just irresistible.

Then came Born to Die, quite possibly the greatest self implosion ever. They never recovered. They got critical acclaim for Grand Funk Lives, but that album was just the turd that floated. Everything else they ever did after that live album is pure crap. To top off their brilliant flameout is the mushroom cloud of Bosnia, a live album for a CAUSE! recorded with an orchestra.

fritz, i bought it when it came out. big disappointment to me. aside from the hit (which blows me away and which i find to be a thing of beauty) "doledrum" and "feelin'" are alright. but even one play of the latter puts me off that record for a good two or three years until i forget, and give it another try.

you can put your universal blanket statement that "it most certainly isn't" a turd out there, of course.

I'll stick to my own extremely flawed and biased opinion that it IS.

i'm with you on the rule-ifications, however.

Grand Funk Railroad is a great suggestion. Those of you still whining about the exclusion of 1-and-done artists need to start your own thread with your own lax rules. Some of us are trying to get things done!

Townsman Mwall, your objection to my suggestion of Van Morrison is worth considering, but then you must consider whether you're merely being Mr. Nice Guy, holding on to the pleasant works of an old favorite. I tend to think that Van pretty much lost it, but it probably wasn't dramatic enough of a drop to warrant inclusion on this list. Sorry.

I'm sure there are other folks out there willing to make the effort to make the hard choices. Keep 'em coming.

Townsman Mwall, your objection to my suggestion of Van Morrison is worth considering, but then you must consider whether you're merely being Mr. Nice Guy, holding on to the pleasant works of an old favorite.

Well, I can grant that Common One and Beautiful Vision are unlikely to win him any new converts. But that said, they're among my favorite Van records; I think there's a genuine cosmic quality to them that I find really appealing. And Irish Heartbeat is plain and simple a fine record of Irish folk music. And I meant "What's Wrong With This Picture?" and not "How Long," which is pretty boring. But "What's Wrong" is a very strong and aesthetically mixed record that I play a lot.

Any reason to duck my Chilton suggestion?

The Beatles. Everything released after some point in 1967 is evidence that they'd lost it, as a group and as individuals. The only question is whether to draw the line after the Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields single or after Sgt. Pepper.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't "ducking" the Chilton suggestion. I just don't think his fall was all that spectacular. He did "Cry Like a Baby" and "The Letter" and three great to good Big Star albums that, despite the highs I get out of the last two albums, clearly disintegrate before your ears. Then the interesting Like Flies on Sherbet... By this point it was as if he'd fallen off a small garden wall. Not that spectacular.

BigSteve, you must be fishing for outrage with your Beatles suggestion. We're talking "lost it," not losing it. Tell me you're joking - but be sincere.

It's a long way down from Strawberry Fields to Magical Mystery Tour. Nothing afterwards has 'it.'

I've got Big Steve's back. Maybe that a little too supportive since "lost it" is too strong. But the more I listen (the older I get?) the more convinced I am that the real peaks ended with Revolver. What followed was spectacular - I'm not saying different - but it was a big drop off from the mop top days.

Let's look at it a different way (and Mr. Mod, this may stray from this thread so feel free to move it elsewhere), would the Beatles be what they are today (and I don't know that we need to or I want to define precisely what that is) if they started with Sgt. Pepper? I don' think so.

As far as the actual thread goes, how about Weller and Westerberg?

Townsman Al wrote:

I've got Big Steve's back. Maybe that a little too supportive since "lost it" is too strong.

That's really all I'm saying and why I suggest that The Beatles never flamed out in a spectacular fasion, never to reach previous highs again. I would think many fine arguments could be made for them regaining "it" now and then on an individual basis. If you disagree with that, then I would have to disagree with you in turn.

Al, your other question, which does stray from this topic, is so good that it's about to hit the Main Stage. Stay tuned, Townspeople, and make your feelings known under the new thread! Thanks.

you are all out of your FUCKING MINDS with this Beatles thing. ABBEY ROAD is the last (recorded) Beatles Album and it is their MASTERPIECE! The Beatles have one Album that's not great, and it's LET IT BE. (which is still pretty good) The Stones have to keep touring today out of the perpetual tourture they feel about NOT being the best rock and roll band from the 60's. The Beatles did it perfectly.(like Zeppelin) They saved all their crap for the Solo records.

even the solo records by john and paul are sprinkled with gems.

the other day i came across "getting closer", the opening cut from a crap album like "back to the egg" and a song i probably hadn't heard since 1979.

sheesh. that song a sweet piece of pop craft that probably would've been held up as one of the great songs in the oeuvres of so many other acts with lesser talent. as it is, that song gets overshadowed by beatle greatness.

interesting though: it sounds effortless, like paul probably wrote on the back of a restaurant check while waiting for the waittress, but it's much better than the more "important" songs on that album, the ones where he's trying.

i'm sure the post tattoo you albums also contain deep cuts like that. i'm talking about moments where the artist goes on auto pilot, writes the kind of song he or she can write in their sleep, and they and the label think they're producing filler, and the song gets no play, even though the artist is really working from his strength, but either doesn't know it or value it.

As far as the actual thread goes, how about Weller and Westerberg?

I'm not a big Weller fan post Jam, but Westerberg's work this century has been spot on, and his Grandpaboy - Mono album is one of my favorite albums by anyone, anytime. The Stereo album is great, Come and Feel Me Tremble is a nice, hard rockin' album and Folker is maybe a little adult oriented, but at least Paul is an adult I can stand being oriented to.

One could talk about The Beatles flaming out, but everything they did is considered damned near perfect (rightly or wrongly) and their entire catalog still generates huge interest worldwide. They never flamed out, or even faded away.

Re: Weller and Westerberg
I don't think either artist can be separated from The Jam and The Replacements, respectively. The Jam took a quick dive and called it a day. Don't know that the dive was spectacular. The Replacements suddenly lost a key member, so they're disqualified. I like a good deal of Weller's solo works, under his own name. He's kind of in that Van Morrison "For Fans Only" category these days. Maybe the same goes for Westerberg. I never followed that guy.

Maybe the same goes for Westerberg. I never followed that guy.

Really? I think you're missing out. I think over the last five years or so, he's the person I've been able to count on most for delivering something good. He's been consistently good for quite awhile now, even though his immediate post Mats stuff was kinda spotty.

Hey 2K:

Thanks for bringing me the word on Westerberg. I'm not aware of what he's been doing lately. Limitations and all, I've always dug the guy. Which of your recommendations should I pick up first? Grandpaboy-Mono?

2K, I was never a fan of The Replacements in their heyday. I know I'd have more friends and cred if I could just loosen up and enjoy their best stuff for all it's worth, but even their best stuff sounds like the same two songs over and over after a few numbers.

mwall, the best way to get Mono would be to scour the used bins for a first pressing of Paul Westerberg's Stereo. It came with Grandpaboy's Mono fo' free. Stereo is a more mellow affair, but it grows on you. My 19 year old loves it. Mono is recorded in glorious mono, and it's pretty much about screwing up relationships from start to finish. AAA, Two Days Till Tomorrow and Let's Not Belong Together are really addicting. Paul's weakness is his drumming, but the dude's sincerity gets me every time. I'd get that first. I like Come and Feel Me Tremble a lot, too. Paul's solo stuff is as collectible as sand (for the most part), so you should be able to get them cheap.

Mr. Mod - does it matter if a band's best stuff all sounds about the same? I really think that just about everything I like sounds about the same (at least that's the joke I tell the owner of my favorite record store, she says that's not true). Rock n' roll is a pretty limited genre. I tend to think the biggest changes in a band's sound when the key songwriters and players stay intact is a change in producers. That's kind of weird, isn't it? See if you can find Besterberg in the used bin. There's a few odd cuts, like Stain Yer Blood from the Friends show that are a blast, and some of his better known stuff from his other albums. Disregard Dyslexic Heart, though. There's songs that will grow on you nicely, I'm sure. Like Things and stuff that should grab you pretty quick, like the poppy Seein' Her. Plus, most of those songs have a real drummer on them. As far as the "adult" rock world goes, at least Paul sounds like he gives a shit.

2000 Man asks:

Mr. Mod - does it matter if a band's best stuff all sounds about the same?

I need to think about this. I've already painted myself in a corner regarding kick drum parts. I am hyper aware of patterns. When I sense a band has 2 or 3 patterns of songwriting, I think I often begin to shut down on that band. I'm sure there are exceptions. Let's pick this up down the road.

I think Weller's done a flameout since Heliocentric, and I'm still waiting for the comeback album that will grab me in a spectacular way that isn't (sadly) regurgitating old songs from his solo catalogue and reinventing the riff to Woodcutter's Son. I'm sorry Paul.

I also gotta go with Fritz when I say that The La's first and only album is through and through lovely, but not as a flameout - because they didn't have the chance to flameout before Lee Mavers went MIA, so that doesn't count because he didn't stick around long enough. The other half of the La's - John Powers' band Cast is a good one though - they had two albums go platinum and one go gold in the UK... and then... nothing.

I'd just as soon nominate The Beautiful South for committing to an album ten years too late (Quench) and then another seven years even later; releasing the atrocity Superbi, which would finally break up the band for good (egh, what a stinker), mmm... how about, er, Ben Folds... and dare I say Matthew Sweet? Although he is releasing a new album. Could there be a "save" in store?

DAVID BOWIE. everything Perfect up until the end of side one of LET'S DANCE.

Nothing since.

Bowie is an excellent suggestion, though I thought Heathen was a pretty good album. I never listen to anything of his that's chronologically past Scary Monsters, though, just as a general rule.

My vote goes for Devo. They were absolutely brilliant up to Duty Now for the Future (and I'm including all the weird, homemade stuff that came out on Hardcore Volume 1 and 2), a great power-pop band on Freedom of Choice, a great synth-pop band on New Traditionalists and then absolutely nothing worthwhile of any note.

Also, as for the Ben Folds suggestion, I sort of agree and I sort of don't. I agree in the sense that I was a big Ben Folds Five fan in college and I also really like his 1st solo album as well. I really disliked the more "mature" (read: hookless and boring) sound of his last album Songs for Silverman, but I wouldn't call it a flameout quite yet. I'm hoping he'll release something more upbeat to bring me back into the fold. The last time I saw him live, he still had it, too, so I think he's more than capable. However, I read interviews that suggest he'd rather do mellower stuff and write for others, so I'm not too optimistic about the prospects.

I thought this thread was over, but since Matt chimed in ... Steve Marriott occurred to me after things had died down.

BigSteve, you WIN!

Yeah, it's true. Good one Big Steve!