Jump-the-shark site for Recording Artists?

Does anyone know of a place that chronicles the downhill of popular recording artists?

I don't know of one, but a thread here on the subject is guaranteed to be entertaining and hotly debated.

I'll start:

U2 jumped the shark on the album that came after "Joshua Tree". I forget the album title, but it had the "she moves in mysterious ways" song on it.

"Achtung Baby". (Actually, the album after "The Joshua Tree" was "Rattle and Hum", which you may argue was a live album or some such, but it had a lot of original material, too.)

Anyway, I disagree. It was "Pop", but they jumped back with "All That You Can't Leave Behind". BTW, even if you disliked "Achtung Baby" and "Zooropa" (which I didn't), you should totally check out "ATYCLB". It's much less electronica-y, which is bound to be what you disliked about the intermediate three.

I think we really need to clearly define our definition of "jump the shark" here, because I think that means different things to different people. (Of course, this entire conversation is governed by the "it's all a matter of taste" rule.)

For one, I think using landmark recordings like "The Joshua Tree" in this context can be a bit unfair. We're talking about an album that almost any knowledgable fan of rock music has on their top 10 or 20 of all time. Of course there's going to be a letdown from The Joshua Tree to *anything*. And maybe you legitimately don't like anything U2's done since then, that's fine. But holding a band up to the standard of a once-in-a-lifetime recording and concluding they've jumped the shark seems wrong to me. Pink Floyd, by most peoples' accounts, never made an album better than Dark Side of The Moon, but they released a lot of good albums afterwards, some that came pretty close (again, if you measured the opinions of a representative sampling of the population.)

So, if you mean that U2 has put out nothing good since The Joshua Tree, you're entitled to your opinion, and that's cool. But I think the better way to measure "shark jumping" is to compare what they've done to the average of their material prior, and evaluate whether the graph slopes upward, downward, or stays the same.

Secondly, I think a band is entitled to a clunker or two before one can pronounce them dead. I'm sure that any band prolific enough to even be talked about in the "jump the shark" conversation has had at least one record they (or their fans) would like to forget about. I think for a band to have jumped the shark, they have to have had consistently sub-par output since the moment that's being cited.

Now, maybe even with these definitions, you will stand by your Joshua Tree suggestion, but I just wanted to make sure we're all speaking the same language here. I personally think that, while Achtung Baby was a step or two down from The Joshua Tree, it's still a fantastic album that stands up well amongst U2's library. Zooropa was maybe one more step down from Achtung Baby, and Pop was probably several steps down from that. But, as Bitt says, All That You Can't Behind is by most informed accounts a good album, and that would seem to invalidate the "jump the shark" theory. I conclude that U2 hasn't jumped the shark yet.

For a good musical jump the shark example, I'll submit Metallica as Exhibit B. Their self-titled record was clearly the moment of shark-jumping. There might be some who'd go back further and say "The Black Album" was also crap, and probably others who'd say they never made anything good to begin with. But I think if you look at the average fan's opinion, it was a solid release, and most everything since has sucked. That, in my mind, is jumping the shark.

I disagree. "Achtung Baby" was a great album, just very different. I haven't liked much from them since, but I haven't listened much either. In the end, both "Joshua Tree" and "Achtung Baby" are albums I listen to end to end on a regular basis.

For one, I think using landmark recordings like "The Joshua Tree" in this context can be a bit unfair. We're talking about an album that almost any knowledgable fan of rock music has on their top 10 or 20 of all time. Of course there's going to be a letdown from The Joshua Tree to *anything*.

Agreed.

It was Achtung/Pop/Zooropa as a whole unit that I considered indicative of a shift in the band's musical focus. I don't think the direction they took is a good one.

I haven't heard All That You Can't Behind, but it brings up a point that any band can make themselves over and do something brilliant and critically acclaimed even after a complete shark jump.

A good example is my personal favorite, Rush, who to many seemed to have jumped the shark on 1982's Signals (incidentally, that was the album following 1981's Moving Pictures, which, like Joshua tree, was a landmark recording, so the analogy is even more complete). It took them one more intermediate album to climb back up to the fantastic "Power Windows" album in 1985, only to put out a few more mediocre ones after that. Their next peak was 1993's "Counterparts" and I haven't really liked their albums since then.

So I'll agree that bands can dig themselves out of a Shark Hole. I don't know if there's an example of a TV show that survived long enough to even try.

You are all wrong. Zooropa is great.

- Jon

[Metallica's] self-titled record was clearly the moment of shark-jumping. There might be some who'd go back further and say "The Black Album" was also crap

Ummm, the black album and the eponymous one were the same album. What were you trying to get at?

I'd like to also make clear for those that disliked U2's foray into electronica-styled stuff that "All That You Can't Leave Behind" is totally without any such influence. It's just a solid pop/rock album. It's once again different from what came before, but it's much more accessible. (I've never had a problem with inaccessible music, though.)

Ummm, the black album and the eponymous one were the same album. What were you trying to get at?

Yes, and I was saying most people recognize that album as the last worthwhile album they made, but there are a sizable minority who think that album also sucked.

I would offer "OU812" as where Van Halen jumped the shark, to reiterate my previously stated position.

While I won't agree that Rush ever jumped the shark before Vapor Trails, I will point out that if you look at their studio albums in sets of four, the first was always the weekest and the latter two almost always the strongest. In this sense it's almost as if they "jumped the shark" several times in order to re-invent themselves. Of course, as I said I like all of the "weak" albums; I just think they weren't as good as those that followed.

Oh. I see. I use the term "jump the shark" to indicate where it obviously became bad, not the step right before. For example, the "jump the shark" episode of "Happy Days" was obviously a bad episode -- the moment when you really knew that it had become awful. By that definition, saying that the black album was where they jumped the shark and saying it sucked are not mutually exclusive. The former implies the latter, and the latter does not prevent the former.

Actually the black album is sort of interesting in this regard because while it was a really strong album it represented a sound that ultimatly failed the band. So in a sense the change in sound was "jumping the shark" even though the album itself was really solid. Or at least that's my take.

Yeah, I actually was trying to use "jump the shark" to mean the first bad one, but screwed up my logic at some point during that post. I think I ran out of brain power doing my analysis of the U2 chronology. I blame my after-work beer which was setting in just about that time.

Let's define the "jump-the-shark" point as a point at the beginning of the bad. That is, the jump-the-shark album must be a bad album.

That being said:

Rolling Stones: "Goat's Head Soup"

I'm also willing to consider "Let It Bleed" (first post-Brian Jones album).

Okay, a few more, then.

Smashing Pumpkins: Adore
Primus: Pork Soda
Bruce Springsteen: Human Touch / Lucky Town (take your pick, I think they were released concurrently)
Guns & Roses: G N' R Lies

That's about all I have for now, most of the artists I can think of right now are either still going strong or went out on top.

I'd argue that "Adore" was a solitary bad album. I liked "Machina" okay, and "F&EoMM" was quite good. But I won't argue too much.

Soul Asylum: "Grave Dancers' Union"

Actually the black album is sort of interesting in this regard because while it was a really strong album it represented a sound that ultimatly failed the band. So in a sense the change in sound was "jumping the shark" even though the album itself was really solid. Or at least that's my take.

Certainly an interesting take, although I disagree. I don't think that it was the new sound itself that caused their downfall. That sound showcased Thrash in an new sociably acceptable manner without changing the music much itself. Nowadays it is so easy to consider that combination of sound and music run-of-the-mill, but at the time of the release it was still right on the fringe. It still took a couple of years for it to become totally accepted in general society. It's probably fair to say that the album was responsible for changing many peoples' conceptions of what 'that heavy metal shit' really was.

Unfortunately with that acceptance, Metallica became part of the very system that they had spent their entire career denigrating, and also took them from being very successful niche muscians to megabuck-earning stadium-fillers. This transition appears to be complete, witness their stance on p2p filesharing. Can you imagine Metallica of 1986 being so anti-p2p? I think that everything that Metallica has written since the black album has been written from that new perspective. They sold out.

I don't think that it's fair to suggest that the album's sound failed the band in any way, or to denigrate the album because of that perception. If anything, the band failed the sound. They could have kept riding the fringe of social acceptability and pushed the frontier further whilst retaining musical integrity. They could have even backed off into older realms and pushed some of their new fans away to ensure that was the case. They chose instead to take the easier path and sell more albums.

Eh, I guess Machina was a step up from Adore, but I wouldn't rank anything Adore or later above anything Mellon Collie or earlier.

Couple more:

The Cranberries: To the Faithful Departed
311: Transistor

Zooropa is great.

Numb is a good song, I'm just not sure it's a good U2 song. I liked most of Achtung Baby though.

The Orb jumped the shark with Pomme Fritz -- their remix work is still brilliant but there hasn't IMO been a good Orb studio album since UFOrb.

The Stone Roses jumped the shark with Second Coming -- although maybe this too escapes under the "anything would be a letdown after The Stone Roses" clause.

The Happy Mondays, Yes Please (not so much jumping the shark as snorting it).

The Pet Shop Boys, Release.

Peter

If anything, the band failed the sound.

Yeah, your take is better.

as far as Zooropa is concerned....Stay (Far Away, So Close) is a brilliant song.....and when it is played live, it is fantastic

This is slightly OT, but it does relate to music somewhat. Does anyone else think that Ryan Seacrest's career jumped the shark when he started using that "Seacrest Out" thing? Talk about begging for ridicule, I think he's DONE.

"OU812" as where Van Halen jumped the shark

"1984" in my book

"1984" in my book

I can certainly understand that opinion, and it's certainly where their sound started to change (keyboards, more generally poppy, etc.), but I think it was still a solid album, even if it wasn't really a Van Halen album.

Personally, I think of "Adore" as the album without Jimmy Chamberlain, and the lack of a strong rhythm section totally killed the album. He was back after that, and I think it showed. My point is that "Mellon Collie ..." is an outstanding album, and nothing they produced after would likely be able to stand up to it. If "Adore" had never been made, I don't think that you'd consider "Machina" to be the jump-the-shark point, and, therefore, "Adore" was simply a bad album. I could be wrong.

Yeah, I follow your logic, you certainly don't need to sell me on Jimmy's percussive mastery. But if Adore hadn't been made, I think I'd still see the band really tailing off at the end, maybe just one less data point to show a downward trend.

Oh, and FWIW, AMG seems to support your position on Van Halen (check out the stars.) I still see Van Halen III as my personal JTS point for them, though that doesn't provide much of a trend, either. (I happen to like the live album,and I don't think Balance was bad enough to signify jumping the shark.)

The guy who does most of the VH reviews seems like a real prick, by the way. It's funny when you can actually see the prickdom oozing out of the review text. I hate musical snobs.

I will point out that if you look at their studio albums in sets of four, the first was always the weekest and the latter two almost always the strongest. In this sense it's almost as if they "jumped the shark" several times in order to re-invent themselves.

Yeah, they've always talked about how they tend to move in cycles where each four-album group is a cohesive subsection of their musical focus. That is why they choose to do live albums as "snapshots" at those points. Although the Rush In Rio DVD and album release seem to have messed up that pattern, I'm glad they did it because it makes up for the fact that we never got a DVD out of the Test For Echo (Different Stages) tour.

Anyway, you're right, the strong albums always seem to be the third and/or fourth album of each four-album group. Hm. Makes me think I need to cut them a little slack about Vapor Trails, since it's the first one out of the gate after the last group. (Although I think the standout from the last group of four was Counterparts, the third, rather than Test For Echo, the fourth.) (Not that I wasn't already cutting them slack, with the tragedies that induced the hiatus.)

By the way, played the arcade version of EA's "Need for Speed" over the weekend and was pleasantly surprised to hear "One Little Victory" as the background music for one of the courses...

Hmmm....

R.E.M. - Monster
Roger Waters - The Final Cut
The Cure - Wish

I can certainly understand that opinion, and it's certainly where their sound started to change

Well, I probably unfairly hate that album and said that solely because of the song "Jump" on 1984. "Hot for Teacher" "Panama" and "I'll Wait" are really good songs IMO. But is was where the sound changed and it just wasn't classic VH anymore...

Roger Waters - The Final Cut

Final Cut is a Pink Floyd release
RW jumped on Amused to Death, IMO

Final Cut is a Pink Floyd release

David Gilmour, Nick Mason, and Rick Wright would probably disagree with that statement

I'll second The Final Cut as Roger's jump the shark moment... I can definitely live without his solo material.

I'll agree with that I like pros and cons. I don't have radio kaos but have been told it is good. I listened to music from the body and it was pretty bad except for the comic value.

Def Leppard - Slang (although I really liked Euphoria...X is pretty bad)

The Cure - Wish

You should check out "Bloodflowers" if you haven't. It's much more like the Cure again. It's not great, but it's pretty good.

yn0t_I think we really need to clearly define our definition of "jump the shark" here,

wfaulk:Oh. I see. I use the term "jump the shark" to indicate where it obviously became bad, not the step right before

I am no media maven, but I feel that "Jump the Shark" (a metaphor?) has been somewhat abused. My sense (using the original Happy Days cases) was that JTS was significant of the moment when, faced with flagging interest in their product/art, the creators/artists/writers ran out of good ideas and resorted to trying something....anything! .... to revive interest. But perceptive fans/customers could perceive this act of desperation and know for a fact that things were defintely going downhill.

I submit that some artists never jump the shark. They try this, they try that. Some of it works, some doesn't. Some of it we like, some we don't. Do they sit in their producers meetings and say "Hey. how about we have Fonzie water ski over a shark?" I don't think so.

Could an album that contains "What's The Frequency Kenneth?" be fairly compared to Happy Days' shark indiscretion? I don't think so.

JTS was significant of the moment when, faced with flagging interest in their product/art, the creators/artists/writers ran out of good ideas and resorted to trying something....anything! .... to revive interest

Exactly...case in point...several episodes of ER this season...Helicopters crashing, etc...

Nope. REM became lousy and pandering long before that album.

several episodes of ER this season...Helicopters crashing, etc..

_This_ season!?

I've been saying for a few years that I'd never even consider visting a Chicago A&E department. Too many internal incidents. Fires, chemical pollution, doctors randomly being shot or stabbed, etc., seem to happen on a weekly basis. The place is a public safety hazard!

_This_ season!?

I don't watch the show...it was more of an observation from the commercials I've seen this year.

Nope. REM became lousy and pandering long before that album.

Bitt, I thought we had an agreement that you wouldn't try to out-jade me!

(Awww, c'mon, _Monster_ was fun!)

Sure. If you think that an entire album filtered through the vibrato pedal that Angelo Badalamenti got rid of after Twin Peaks was over is "fun".

Heh... I considered going with Green but Automatic had it's moments.

My reply to this entire thread:

Since this "jump the shark" thing doesn't hold true for my examples, the "begining of the end" for artists were:

U2 - Pop
My modern musical tastes were born and raised on U2 (and Sting/Police). Thus, when Aucthung Baby came out, I did not accept it. It Zooropa coming out to make me appreciate Aucthung Baby. And it took Pop coming out to make me accept Zooropa. (and, of course, the latest one rocks, no doubt). U2 WAS the leading edge of the music industry (no pun, the edge). It just took me a while to catch up.

Rush - they've still got it!
I haven't heard Vapor Trails, but the only Rush album I don't like is Power Windows (sorry Tony, it's too theatrically dramatic for me). Like U2, Rush innovates their sound, yes, every 4 albums. Luckily, I like each innovation.

Metallica - as soon as they picked up a guitar.
Never liked 'em. Talk about trying to be dramatic.

Smashing Pumpkins - awesome till the end!
Sure, Adore didn't have a drummer, but it was still as good a listen as any. Honestly, Siamese Dream is at the bottom of my Pumpkins stack. It was "too hard" for me when it came out.

Cranberries - Faithful Departed - agreed with yn0t_

REM - Monster - agreed with Dylan

my contribution:

Green Day - Dookie
Sure, it was decent, and it fit the pattern of them singing songs about their lives, but it was the sell-out; the begining of the end. I've never heard a band conTINUE to drag their feet for SO long after biting the dust. And never have I heard a CONSUMER community so gobble up a band putting out junk just because MTV calls them "punk". Good thing they finally broke up. (but, ya'll are entitled to your own opinions, of course. )

Sting - 10 Sumners Tales
Yeah, it's a good album, but it's the tip of the iceberg for the rest of his overly over produced, "little bit 'a country, little bit 'a pop" albums.

Delerium - Chimera
<to the artists> Ok boys, two albums of candy techno was good enough. What happened to the good old days of their like 10 interestingly ambient techno discs?

Bad Religion - No Substance
My favorite band ever (hey, ONE of them had to be my favorite), but please, "The End of the Millenium Address" was just a bit pompous. They could at least SING the lyrics like they always did. Don't even get me started on "Hopeless Housewife" and "Hippy Killers" etc.

Sting - 10 Sumners Tales
Yeah, it's a good album, but it's the tip of the iceberg for the rest of his overly over produced, "little bit 'a country, little bit 'a pop" albums.

Agreed. That's the one where he lost me, too.

Funny, I seem to not listen to any artists who are around for long enough to have a downhill turnaround album. I suppose that's what you get when you listen to Seattle groups artists. My favorite band of all time, Screaming Trees, released 7 albums in ten years, but they only steadily got better (and Allmusic seems to agree with me).

The only close example I can think of is Pearl Jam. But they rebounded after their descent. Basically, they lost me at "No Code", but got me back at "Binaural."

I would have to add
Motorhead - after another Perfect Day, although Hammered seems to be back on track again.

Rush - they've still got it!

Of course they do, even though I don't quite care for VT. It's just not my cup of tea. However, their last show was one of the best I've and I love the live versions of the songs off VT, even though they were exactly the same. (I still submit that something just wasn't right with the production of that CD).

Sting - 10 Sumners Tales

One of my favorite CDs. If you thought it was a good CD you shouldn't mark it down just because of its sucessors, especially since you're giving Aucthung Baby a pass (which, as I've stated, I also think is a great album). I haven't bought any of Sting's stuff since TST, though, so I'll have to agree with your analysis of his career.

DiGNAN17: Pearl Jam... For some reason, I never *noticed* them after "Vs.". They were a huge influence on the 90's, yet they seemed to vanish early. Or was I just ignoring them? Question is, DID they actually do stuff after "Vs." (which I'll rate as their begining of the end, because I loved Ten).

FerretBoy: Sting's "Ten Sumners Tales" was actually the first CD that I bought and I love it. But, like with U2, I didn't like it *as* much until I heard the successors. That made me appreciate it more. And, strangely, at an after-work disucssion on "favorite album ever" with my co-workers, I picked "Soul Cages" as my top. I didn't have much time to think about the answer (and someone else already took "Joshua Tree") but it's such a great album.