I prefer their earlier stuff...

For me Underworld never did anything as amazing as dubnobass...

It's up there with the Orbital album I posted before as the GOAT.

Their later stuff was decent, if you liked that sort of thing. IMO obvs.

Does it ever go the other way? I’m struggling to think of a single band where I prefer the later stuff.

If you count "later stuff" as being later within their original era of mass appeal and cultural relevancy (not decades later when reformed or still touring), then I'd say yes.

The Stones' Exile on Main Street.

Beach Boys' Pet Sounds and Surf's Up.

Someone up there said Pulp got better with age. Have to agree with that too.

The Beatles? Sergeant Pepper generally regarded more highly than the poppier first albums

The Beatles were brilliant from start to finish. There I came out.

Underworld never did anything as amazing as dubnobass…

Some of the stuff they released on their website was well up there. Plus Second Toughest, Boucoup Fish, they were pretty consistently fab I reckon.
And, how can you not love this!

Anyway, maybe it's just me 😛

U2 up to and including under a blood red sky

And, how can you not love this!

That's very pleasant, yeah.

Not saying Second Toughest... and their subsequent stuff was bad, just I really loved the sleazy, mid-paced, nocturnal but still euphoric feel of dubnobass...

Their later stuff just felt a bit colder and harder and not my bag, baby.

Just thinking about being on the dancefloor at the Soundshaft when the DJ dropped Cowgirl or Rez, it'd always go off.

To stick to the the spirit of the original question REM.  I like most everything they have ever done but for me Murmur, Reckoning and most especially Fables Of The Reconstruction will always mean the most to me.

Does it ever go the other way? I’m struggling to think of a single band where I prefer the later stuff.

Nirvana? Bleach -> Nevermind

I've generally thought that few bands ever make a really good first album, and that the best stuff happens between albums 2-4 but rarely later than album4. The first album may have great tunes (and great intent) on it but is often hampered by lack of money, lack of time in the studio or recording expertise. It seems natural to me that Nirvana's second album was far better than the first because of that, and also because of the presence of very talented producer Butch Vig.

You have all your creative impulses from your entire life to draw on for your debut. You then get to hone it for a few years of constant touring / gigging. The wheat gets cut from the chaff over and over again. By the time you hit the studio its the culmination of years of graft and inspiration.

You then have 12 months to record your follow up…

So true. I'm not an Oasis fan, but their first album has energy and edge. After that its just flabby pap. The first couple of REM albums have a raw edge to them but then they get less interesting. Arcade Fire's debut was a great piece of work but nothing since has had more than a couple of highlights.

It's not always true - Someone mentioned Underworld upthread - of course they'd had various iterations before Dubnobasswithmyheadman (and personally loved second toughest and thought BarbaraBarbara was a real return to form in 2016).

I think with some bands a single album of great music is enough. Sigur Ros Takk felt magical at the time, but I never really felt I needed a lot more (though bought their later stuff at the time).

And some bands/artists develop over time - MAH's LCD Soundsystem special last week had an interview with James Murphy where he said he didn't think he had enough talent when he was younger - he needed to mature.

I think Ezra Furman continues to put out album after album of great music. As does Gruff Rhys.

Has anyone done it the other way round? I mean, getting into a band late, and then discovering that you prefer their earlier stuff? I did this with Carter USM- I was vaguely aware they existed in their heyday, but never clicked at all, then I went and saw them in 96 and they blew me away. Got their mini album World Without Dave and love it to this day. They put out one more album- which was alright- but I was working backwards all the time from then.

Their post-reform stuff isn’t bad exactly; Indie Cindy really gets in my head, but it’s not the same

No, they all grew up.

I prefer their earlier stuff…

Are the words that come just before a music bore goes off on one in a smug, self satisfied attempt to demene all before them with their superior taste and knowledge; but in reality just mark themselves out as a true chicken choker to everyone in the room with a life.

Pixies – yes. But go back a couple and stop at Doolittle – I prefer their earlier stuff 😉

It took hearing Bagboy on 6Music to really spark off a proper appreciation of Pixies, I went backwards and re-listened to their early stuff and that kindled a proper liking for their early albums, but I really do like the new post-reformation albums, and I’m chuffed to bits to be finally getting to see them live, at End Of The Road!

There’s a maturity to their new music, and Joey Santiago is finally getting a chance at writing as well.

If a band is to continue to record, then their songwriting should, almost by default, mature with experience - that can lead to self-indulgence, see ‘Topographic Oceans’ for a classic example of a band getting really up themselves, but there’s no self-indulgence with Pixies, as far as I’m concerned.

One band I really love, and who came out with a cracking first album, called 20:20 Sound, was Dark Star, who I saw several times.

There was a second album, but it never had a final mastering, and has turned up as a download on the internet.

Their drummer, David Francolini, used to use a pair of maracas as drumsticks on a couple of songs, they were bloody loud!

Fleetwood Mac earliest form was a pretty generic (and let’s be honest – forgettable) blues band

Your missing a huge point here - at the time what they were doing was ground-breaking. At that time the UK artists like Fleetwood Mac, Clapton and the Rolling Stones were discovering the American blues artists, were hughly influenced by them and were responsible for bringing a lot of them (like Howlin Wolf and Muddy Waters) over here to play, when the US audience wern't interested.

It wasn't generic then - it was novel and they (collectively) were responsible for shaping a lot of modern rock-flavoured music.

Just to contradict some of the earlier observations:

The Doors- LA Woman, utterly sublime.

Led Zeppelin - Physical Graffiti, a progression from their blues / folk beginnings and hugely influential on the next generation.

Black Sabbath - Vol 4, my favourite of them all. Supernaut and Snowblind being the heaviest tunes ever, (and Frank Zappa agrees with me.).

Great to see early Stereolab and Beta Band stuff get a mention. I thought it was only me who trawled through all this stuff haha.

If you like the Beta Band have a listen to the Black Sessions recorded live - unfortunately they were a bit too clever for mass consumption I think.

...and if you like Fugazi have a listen to Scratch Acid. I LOVE this song!

On reflection, one of the few bands who have remained consistently fantastic are The Fall. I actually can't think of many others off the top of my head. Maybe The Beastie Boys. Prince.

On the topic of the intent of the OP, I think the thread title might have coloured it slightly for me 🤣 so apologies for misreading it!

There are definitely bands that get better over time: I think this is predominantly those that have "a sound" that they stick with.

Examples might include Fu Manchu who started out a bit "meh", hit a good plateau of ace, had some wandering in the wastelands, and are back to fairly ace once more.

Or Kyuss: first record is a bit dull. Blues for the Red Sun, Welcome to Sky Valley, ...And the Circus Left Town, just level upon level of greatness.

Or Elder: debut is fairly generic and turgid stoner rock trope territory. Then they bust out Dead Roots, Lore, Reflections of a Floating World. Again all ace (and actually exhibit progression too, which kind of refutes my initial premise, but never mind).

Does it ever go the other way? I’m struggling to think of a single band where I prefer the later stuff.

Kyuss. Their albums (whilst all amazing) got progressively better.

Or Kyuss: first record is a bit dull. Blues for the Red Sun, Welcome to Sky Valley, …And the Circus Left Town, just level upon level of greatness.

No word of a lie, I posted my response before I'd read this!

Does it ever go the other way? I’m struggling to think of a single band where I prefer the later stuff.

@nickc mentions Pink Floyd as an answer to this one and I have to agree. Many will shout “burn the heretic” as I’m going to say the early stuff with Sid Barrett was, to my ears, pish. Once you get beyond the Uber psychedelia drivel and hear Echoes, you realise how much this was going to become a blueprint for the sort of stuff they were going to produce. Dark Side of The Moon and Wish You Were Here were two perfect Floyd albums. I also loved Animals and Final Cut, but for different reasons. I’m a great fan of later Floyd post Waters, but this is a good example of how, as someone up thread said, it’s great that bands don’t always produce stuff that everybody likes all of the time.

Dark Side of The Moon and Wish You Were Here were two perfect Floyd albums

By far my favourites.

 at the time what they were doing was ground-breaking

I'm not sure that Fleetwood Mac were responsible for it though, they're weren't the Yardbirds or Blues Breakers. I don't disagree that British Blues as a movement was important and massively influential, but it's starts in the mid sixties and it's all over bar the shouting by about 1970...Only no one tells Peter Green; Albatross, Man of the World are all hits at the tail end of the movement, not the start.

But you're right, calling them generic now is with hindsight a bit unfair,  given what they turned into