The pattern I would say is:

CD #1 -- All the band's own material, in the band's own sound.

CD #2 -- Band is being pushed to come out with second CD while they are still well remembered from the first. Band has some good tracks saved up, rushes the rest. This is of course assuming band isn't just a one-hit wonder, in which case CD #2 if it does come out would just suck all around.

CD #3 -- Band is REALLY being rushed because they owe the record company money (due to RIAA accounting, an album that goes Platinum still means the artist owes the label money... don't ask. Their accounting would make Enron envious and is one of the reasons I have no compunction laughing when they claim they "represent the artists" over filesharing). They put out a few really good songs, the rest are put together by the record company throwing people at them and insisting on putting the album together by focus group with a track or two that will "sound ok" to anyone. (Note: these "sound ok" tracks are usually the garbage ones we throw away).

Thus, CD #3 gets a few memorable songs that the original writers come up with, but the rest are focus-group crap that the label made them record just to meet ship date for the album. The memorable songs were written on the road, when the writer/band members weren't too busy having sex with their groupies.

btw it's Divergence.

Sorry, spelling is one of my pet peeves.

Also, your editing of your blog setup (I presume when you took Amish Tech Support off) is causing some wierd artifacts in every page but your main index.

I'd thought of that, and it might apply more generally, but didn't seem to be the case with the specific examples. Rob Thomas (and other member of band) still write almost all of their material and while that might apply to their second release (which was rushed, from what I understand), they had more time before the release of their third.

The other cases are generally unsigned artists and so they don't have their record companies breathing down their neck. Of course, they do have some bills to pay and whatnot and so the writing of their songs very well may be rushed.

So I dunno...

Note: these opinions are based on artists/bands that write their own material. The Britneys are a different beast.

CD-1. Band has had years to polish, tweak, refine, and perfect the track list. Only the strongest songs in their repertoire will make it onto the album.

On top of all of that, the band is most likely a "new" sound and you'll like it because it's at least slightly different from everything else you're hearing at the time. If it wasn't, it wouldn't break through to you. This positive leaning on your part might color your perception of the weaker tracks.

CD-2. If the first album was a big success, the label will be pushing them to get the second out as quickly as possible to capitalize on momentum. In addition, the label will be "guiding" the band in the direction of the current hot sound. Only the most powerful of bands can withstand this.

Leftovers from the first album often make it on here, but sometimes they also write everything fresh. More than perhaps any other, this album is written by committee. The combination of label pressure, drastically short time for songwriting, distractions from touring, pr, and success often add up to a so-so album.

Finally, expectations for this album are almost always high - often unrealistically so - simply because of the success of the first.

CD-3+ If a band gets picked up for the 3rd CD these days it's because CD-2 made the label enough money to warrant additional expense. Artist development is dead which is why we get so much repetition in current pop. By making enough money to get options 3+ picked up, the band has developed clout with the label and can start pushing back, if just a little.

So CD-3 is often the one where the band gets to take at least a short break, recharge, and work on songs. Additionally, if they didn't have a really long history to begin with, the last 2 years/CDs have tightened them up, they're starting to work more as a unit and grow as artists.

Frequently, they're also wanting to branch out a little bit, or members that haven't been major writing contributors want to try their hand at it. These are often the songs that make you tilt your head and say, "huh?" Sometimes they get lucky with one of these and bring in an entirely new audience.

As I said, this is normally the path for folks writing their own stuff - "Performers" (as opposed to artists) are normally carefully groomed and have a limited shelf-life. There are exceptions, but five years is about all a groomed act will get unless the label is determined to continue throwing money at it.

The current "Superstar" effect is the result of consolidation and short-term quarterly goals for the stock market. Where A&R folks used to go out and find groups with solid talent, then develop them over a period of years, they now go out and find the bands with the biggest local or regional followings and a proven sales record.

Each year, they throw a new crop of these at the wall and see what sticks. The ones that sell get pushed and pushed and pushed while the ones that might do really well get dropped. It's much cheaper and more lucrative for the label to plug three or four major artists than to worry about developing seven or eight.

The really unfortunate thing is that the ones that get dropped aren't necessarily the worst acts, they just weren't in the right place with the right sound at the right time. Getting signed and then dropped is a really quick death sentence for most bands, as no other label will touch them in the future.

Still worse are the bands that get signed and shelved without getting dropped. Often, the label just wants to keep the band out of anyone else's hands.

If you've never read any of them and wonder why pop has gotten so homogenized, I highly recommend "Hit Men," and "Confessions of a Record Producer."

TA,

Thanks for the input and I think what you're talking about does apply at least to M20 in particular. The third is definitely a "branch-out" and many (though not I) complain that the second one was a little whitewashed.

On the local/unsigned ones I refer to, the other reasons you give (and that Mike and I sort of alluded true) make sense. They did have their entire lives to write the first CD, though in many cases they're not released as rapid-fire as big company products are.

Oh, on the subject of the "wrong place at the wrong time" I'm reminded of Blue October. They were signed at Universal for their second CD, which didn't do so well (though I think quite a bit of that was their very poor choice of a first single). They got dropped, put out a stellar new record with the stuff that Universal didn't want on their previous record, it sold quite well quite immediately and now they've been signed... by Universal.

TA,

That's a very good point -- no acts are "developed" these days, if you don't stick you get dropped.

The big problem with getting dropped is... oftentimes either out of spite or just out of prospecting (seeing if you get big again on your own) the band will hold on to that contract. Usually it's a "Two albums with options on X more" -- and as long as one label has options on you, the other labels CAN'T legally touch you or they will get sued by the label with the options.

This setup has been how major labels have blackballed a number of artists -- they hold on to the option forever, so that the band can't even do a self-published release without legal risk.

Mike,

Got any examples of that?

In the four dropped bands I can think of (Blue October, Great Divide, Radney Foster, and Charlie Robison) none have had that problem.

The only example I can think of is Dog's Eye View, which left the rights to the name with the record company that dropped them (and I recall something similar happening with Prince).

Can't think of any artists that can't release anything due to the record label.