It's universal. Although, we all have our own preferences, so I'm going to ask you guys a more broad question that can be answered by almost anyone. If an artist makes a great first record, and replicates that same sound on the second record without changing the formula, or experimenting with the sound, do you think that makes the second album bad?
Well since "bad" is more of an opinion than anything else, for me I would say it just depends on how quickly it gets old. I've seen it work, and on the other hand I have seen it fail miserably.
Like Luxord said, depends how quickly it gets old. I remember people throwing a fit when Linkin Park changed their style but I thought it was brilliant, I suppose people like consistency in their music but they also like new stuff. So, bottom line, it's bad if you don't like it since it's all subjective :3
Ultimately the goal of art is to please its audience, period. Critics and elites can keep deciding what is or isn' t high art all day long, it won' t change that fact. Whether it has a deep message or not, whether it' s a marvel of chirurgical precision or not, if it didn' t move you it failed. What kind of music do we call a guilty pleasure ? A music whose meaning and technique we know full well are craptastic and/or done to death ... and yet we enjoy it anyway, even though we' ve been told repeatedly we shouldn' t. If the first one was a hit it is likely someone out there will want more of the same.
See here's the real answer Everyone bitched about Mezmerize and Hypnotize so apparently we're all deathly afraid of change
I wouldn't say they're necessarily bad. If it's not broke, don't fix it, right? It will get old and tiring to hear the same thing over and over again though, and people will probably get turned off by it.
