I don't think it's so much "second album" in itself as "reaching that point where you've used up most of that huge pool of ideas you had before you got to make your first album and now gotta think up new ones". The Chemical Brothers are a perfect example, three amazing albums of subwoofer wrecking goodness, then you get to the fourth and its like "where do we go from here?". Its not a bad album and contains some of their finest moments ever (Star Guitar, It Began in Afrika-ka-ka-ka!), but it lacks direction and a couple of the tracks are pretty inessential. They had backed themselves into a corner in a way, when you've built your career on bombastic block rocking beats, how do you change direction without toning it down a little and thus sounding a little underwhelming in comparison? The latest album is even worse in that respect, again not a bad album and "Believe" is amazing, just lacking a clear direction.

The Strokes, didnt deliver with the second album, some would say the Stone Roses, (no matter what you think of it its nowhere near as good as the first) I'd agree with Binokular though, a band has a long time to write their first album, how many songs have they gone through, and played for years, just to get to that point, and then when the time comes for the second album there is a lot of pressure, its a little rushed, and might not deliver. Some bands just end up using discarded material from their first to buy some time, (The Doors did that, but well, it ended up damn good!)

The Thrills definetly seemed to have beginners luck with 'So much for the city' - personally i still like it. But the second album, 'ooooorreeeyyyy haaiiimm' and all that just went down the tube for me. I reckon theres one more attempt for them and then its back to Stillorgan for those lads. Did anyone catch their live appearance on TV? - the worst version of '1979' you could ever possibly imagine. I'm interested to see how Gemma Hayes and Automata will get on with their 2nd albums?

Im slightly confused by alot of people giving The Strokes 2nd Album stick. Ive heard it from plenty of people. Its not a classic but its a good album. Suppose people expectations were just really high

I actually thought The Strokes second album was better than the first, with the exception of Last Nite and the other song whose name I can't remember. It seemed much more alive to me, it was easier just to get into. ishrink, I'd have to disagree. Audioslave are by no means anything special, but their first album was a well-rounded and enjoyable album. I think Binokular probably is right, but then, maybe bands are in too much of a hurry to release a second. Do you think giving their ideas more time to develop properly would be a good idea, or is it usually a now-or-never situation (ride on the surf of their new success)?

i actually think the stone roses second album is better than their first, i dont expect many to agree with me on that one!

Elastica's 'The menace' was about five years after the debut and was a bit too shambolic for most of their previous fans.

From a commercial point of view JJ72's second album bombed, I mean really bombed but i actually like it. Some bands, who are true stayers have delivered excellent follow up albums to either dissappointing debuts or brilliant ones. Suede followed "Suede" with Dog Man Star. My personal favourite album ever. Radiohead gave us the Bends then followed it up again but have since gone a little awol. The Manics took 3 albums to get it critically right with The Holy Bible. The Longpigs gave a fantastic debut and then, what i thought was a super follow up cost them their career and were dropped. I have never been a believer that your a one hit wonder when it comes to good debut albums. Sometimes its the mood or phase or fad at the time as is becoming to frequent these days. Look at Kaiser Chiefs, Bloc Party, The Bravery. All bands which i think have had their moment because the material I hear is not "career" music. Its "band of the moment music". Its what record companies are increasingly on the look out for, bands who can deliver now for a short term period, make them immediate money and then move on to the next one. Within that crop, we get one or two bands which will stick around and make something of themselves. I too am really at a low over Audioslaves new offering. It just does'nt match up. Queens of the stone ages however have come out with a super follow up. If the talent is there the music will come through, but if the music is just there to be sold immediately, to be driven by catchy singles which have instant connections to the brains then I am never surprised to see bands come and go as quickly as they are right now. The Thrills have REALLY surprised me with their success but i think, as ERIC mentioned, their flaws were exposed and a third album, unless MIND BLOWINGLY different will see the end of them. Not enough bands out there making it - i stress making it - which have the substance or purpose for me to get excited about at the moment. So i still await the next radiohead album with massive enthusiasm. Getting my drift?