About practically every band (or singer), it's usually said that their "early stuff was best". It's so commonly said that it's a cliché, but it is true in most cases.

However, there have to be some exceptions to the rule, groups in which their better music came later in their career, say past their 2nd or 3rd album. The most obvious example is The Beatles. Who else is like this?

Flaming Lips

Green Day
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Bruce Springsteen
Pearl Jam

MATT

Sonic Youth
Pixies
REM
Rolling Stones
The Cure
They Might Be Giants

I agree on both counts. 1) Pablo Honey is a step down from every album that followed it - I only repeat the assessment since the image is not coming through for me. 2) Murmur is my favorite R.E.M. album, so I definitely don't agree that R.E.M.'s earlier music was inferior! But that's "just, like, [my] opinion, man!"
-ringding-

I'll take Document/Automatic/Green over Murmur/Reckoning/Fables any day.

Oh, I love the late 80s/ early 90s R.E.M. albums too, but I was thinking in comparison to the newer stuff. Besides for New Adventures in Hi-Fi, I haven't enjoyed many R.E.M. albums in awhile.

As far as R.E.M., I really can't stand any of their music after Fables of the Reconstruction. Their first couple of albums are masterpieces, and then it all went to shit.

As far as The Beatles, I'd rather listen to Please Please Me or With the Beatles than Sgt Pepper or Let It Be any day.

In terms of the original question, I think Everything But the Girl got better later on, and I feel the same way about Kraftwerk.

Alice In Chains.

The Notwist
Mogwai
Psychic TV (when they were Throbbing Gristle - not as good)

A handful pop to mind...
- The National
- Bright Eyes
- Guster
- Jump Little Children

Wow I thought I was into some obscure bands but I've never heard of the National or Jump Little Children. Are they good?

And I'll go old school and add Fleetwood Mac (pre/post Buckingham/Nicks) to the pile...

Wilco

I believe Tweedy has referred to A.M. (their first record) being the bastard child of all the Wilco albums.

I love them both. Alligator by The National came out last year and got quite a bit of critical acclaim, as did their previous album, Sad Songs for Dirty Lovers. You can hear a couple tracks from Alligator here:

http://www.beggars.com/features/thenational/

You can check out the last album from Jump, Little Children here:

http://www.jumphq.com/musicplayer/ju...sionthree.html

It's not as good as Vertigo, which was their absolute best work.

Since I've recently gotten into them, I'd add Snow Patrol to the list. Final Straw and Eyes Open are miles better than their early stuff. I'd also add Coldplay to the list, because ROBTTH and XY are leap years ahead of Parachuttes.

Oh yeah - Husker Du.

Goo Goo Dolls.........they were punk early but got their acclaim playing acoustic stuff in the mid-late 90's

No friggin way. Ten-Vs-Vitalogy or Yield-Binaural-Riot Act? No contest. You could compile a 2 disc greatest hits package(with leftovers) from the first three and struggle to put out a one discer of the last three. Not that it's all about radio hits, but the last two albums are that bad. Haven't heard the new one yet.

Didn't they only put out 3 albums?

In reference to AIC - they did 5 albums total if you include their EPs. Their first release is weak compared to everything else, but it is still a strong album.

I would name ELO (Electric Light Orchestra) to the mix. Their first 3 albums are pretty poor listens and not very catchy. Lynne got going on Eldorado, their fourth album, and stayed strong until their demise (strictly my opinion...critics tend to hate all ELO albums).

I definitely think Queen didn't really hit their stride until their 3rd album Sheer Heart Attack and then stayed stong until the release of Hot Space.

Level 42 - started as a jazz fusion band and evolved into a catchy pop/rock band. It took 5 albums until they had their first real hit (and truly coherent album...again in my opinion) in World Machine, their 6th album!

Radiohead immediately came to mind. My friend is a huge fan and doesn't own Pablo Honey.

No one's mentioned Nirvana? Bleach is forgettable at best. It seems they hit their stride after that album because everything on Incesticide is good. To me, they only kept getting better.

I'm also going to mention Beck. His very early work (Golden Feelings, A Western Harvest Field by Moonlight, Stereopathetic Soul Manure) I admire but they're just not very good. It's just too odd or experimental, almost not musical. While we're at it, let's put Folk Implosion and Ween in this group.

Grandaddy's first album (A Pretty Mess...) wasn't good either, and they improved again after Under a Western Freeway.

I also thought the first Hives album was their weakest. And I like the more recent stuff by The White Stripes, or at least I'm pretty sure I do.

Maybe add Yo La Tengo to this list...

Genesis

I was going to mention Queen as well, although I don't think they hit their stride until Night At The Opera and Day At The Races, which I consider sister albums not only because of their titles but for the equally superb production and songwriting. The production on the first two albums was really bad, and only got slightly better with Sheer Heart Attack. The songwriting grew progressively with each album, but I don't think they stayed as strong up until Hot Space. In their own ways, each album after the "sister albums", while maintaining great songwriting and performances, got somehow weaker as a whole...IMHO.

Queen has always been , and always will be, one of my all-time favorite bands, but I don't think they should have ever gone to synthesizers, and just grew more and more mediocre with each album after they did. I think they tried a little too hard to be mainstream, and produce "hits", which is what the record companies began wanting more from their artists in the 80's, and from then on. Total albums of great music became a thing of the past from all the artists we grew to expect, and enjoy, them from, in favor of a couple hits and a group of throwaway songs.

Good points & I definitely agree with you on most of them. The reason I mentioned Sheer Heart Attack before A Night At The Opera was because SHA was just so different from Queen I & II. It's almost like a completely different band and showed the direction they began heading. I will agree that ANATO was better written and produced but the balls that SHA has to follow Queen II...jeez! It touches practically every kind of music on one album and without it I don't think Queen could have done ANATO (or at least it would not have turned out so smooth).

There are times when listening to SHA that one might think...is this even the same group that I heard on the previous track? Good stuff.

Sorry for the side track.