The relationship between good music and drugs

Here's something I've just sketched to explain Oasis of all bands - but it applies to most good bands I reckon:

• First album good. They have something to prove and want success.
• Second album brilliant. They had some of the songs saved up, they've got into drugs and still want to prove something to someone.
• All downhill after that. They're rich, have nothing to prove and have to 'change direction' which in most scenarios means they turn rubbish.*

Once again I find solace in Bill Hicks:

* Exceptions to the rule? Pink Floyd and The Beatles to name two. Others?

Comments

[John]

Are you saying that "whats the story" is better than "definately Maybe"?

Is there a graph for the effect of drugs on a planners taste in music?

[Charlie Gower]

I'm not gonna start on Oasis but I would say that it's a bit of a stereotype...

Yes there is the 'difficult second album' journos love to harp on about but most 'good' bands change a lot over time - The Stones, Radiohead or Bowie. Personally I don't think Led Zep's second is their best for example...