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...