It's true, many cool bands do burn out. Creation, and the chemistry between individuals is fleeting at times, so...it's almost inevitable that bands only have a couple great records (if that!) in them. I'm never sure what's worse, to have a band you love break up, or to have them run out of steam, putting out progressively lamer records. Also, tastes change.

I'm 99% sure that the REM that exists today is pale imitation of the REM I loved back in 1986. But, having said that, I recently listened to the remaster of Murmur...and I'm not sure it's them. Maybe my tastes have shifted enough that what they are doing now no longer interests me.

There's also those bands that tend to put out the same record over and over. Sure, the words and titles change, but really, it's the same record. One example that comes to mind (and can likely be shot down by their fans who REALLY know their stuff) is ZZ Top. To me...everything I hear sounds a lot like Sharp Dressed Man, and I don't much like that song. So...I think it's kind of sad when a band hit on something and just keeps churning it out.

The flip side if when you LIKE the record they keep putting out. I'd argue that one of my favourite bands, The Weakerthans, have been putting out one long record since 2000 at least. But I LIKE this one. So...if they don't start to dabble in hip hop, I'll be happy. Keep it up fellas.

I think it's pretty rare for a band, or artist, to keep up with new ideas, or new production values and tastes and STILL be worth listening too. I'd argue that David Bowie has pulled it off pretty well. U2 might have as well, with some misses. Doing this, though, has the potential or rankle with the fans that want more of the same. C'mon Dave, gimme more like Changes! I don't wanna hear this new stuff! BOO!

Wow, I'm ramble-y today.

I saw the Femmes a few times back in the mid-nineties. They were doing a mini-tour with TMBG, which was basically the most perfect possible show for me at that time.

Even then, though, about 80% of their set was that first album. (I'm pretty sure they played every song off of it.) Their later albums, while they had a few very nice songs, really didn't come anywhere close, IMHO, to the first one. Their artistic sensibilities as a band also seemed to wander slightly from their original intentions: At the show, they brought on The Velcro Horns to turn "Confessions" into a 15-minute cacophony. Odd.

Gordon Gano has done far more interesting things as a solo artist. (Not that he's usually all that solo, of course.) Hitting The Ground is a lot of fun.

Some people have a lifetime's worth of continual creativity in them. Some have one or two good things to say.

For lot of reasons, a lot of artists seem pretty content after a decade or so of success to just coast on the old hits and not try to hard to be creative. Of the bands and artists that I liked in the seventies as a teenager, I can't think of more than a handful who have done anything interesting since then. Dylan and Springsteen come to mind as counter examples; Joe Strummer was doing some cool stuff toward the end of his life; Neil Young did a few good albums in the early nineties but not much since.

If you'd told me in 1979 that Empty Glass would be the last interesting thing that Pete Townsend would produce, either solo or with The Who, I'd have told you that you were nuts. (Or that I'd come to hate most of The Who's songs due them being used in every movie or TV show for the last twenty years).

Perhaps I'm weird, but I really like "Hallowed Ground" and "3". After "American Music" (was it "Why do Birds Sing"?) it all got a bit shit, but these things happen.

That said, Brian Ritchie was on Spicks and Specks and came off like a total wanker.

I did not mean to say that I thought the Violent Femmes weren't creative, or I didn't like their music after the first album. It just seems that their early popularity was based on having a high level of raw energy, and being something different for the time. I think they had some really nice songs later on, but they lack that energy, and the newness. After "The Blind Leading the Naked", it was like they were just another folk group. Creativity certainly doesn't correlate with popularity. There's plenty of evidence of that from both sides.

There have been other bands that I've liked which have had that. I really liked U2 early on, but with Joshua Tree they became an ordinary old pop band for me. Worked out well for them, and they really created a pop force, but I didn't care for that later music. Rusted Root came on with all that drumming and raw energy, and while they've changed quite a bit, I still like what they're playing. It just seems to me that the Violent Femmes epitomize that amazing energetic entry into the spotlight with a first album, and just failed to capture that energy later on.

It just seems that their early popularity was based on having a high level of raw energy, and being something different for the time.

I think that's just the natural curse of pop music. First albums are different to other albums. (another example: the last gig I went to was the Specials, and their first album kicks the shit through the rest of their output - to a greater extent that the Femmes, imho).

Would ramble at length, but it's lunch now...