Most current bands don't have enough good material for one. The way albums are packaged and advertised these days seems to me a desperate attempt to disguise the fact that there's probably three good songs on them at best. Presumably people can only be effectively conned once. I refer you to David and Fraser's observations about Creedence Clearwater Revival.

I find it incredible that tens of thousands of people bought album one and weren't taken enough to buy album two. More fool them - their loss.

...have literally nothing to offer beyond a handful of singles. I see a lot of those albums (I've seen about four copies of The Kooks' 'Inside In Inside Out' in the past few days!) clogging up second hand stores and charity shops.

Next for the chop? I'd be surprised if The Klaxons' second album did anything- I predict a Darkness-esque scenario whereby the novelty value (in The Klaxons' case it was 'nu rave') wears off for the public.

may be going too far but stunningly mediocre at best. All the acts you cite, including the Arctic Monkeys, owe their first album's success to a surfeit of media hype and the great British public's lemming-like willingness to jump on board in the pursuit of trendiness.

"Why would you want more than one of their albums?" Why would you want one? Let's allow that there was the odd good tune on each of those first records. The balance was unadulterated, immature, time-wasting drivel. Now time for the second record and folks stay away in droves, or, courtesy of the new-found download store, just buy the single or tracks that take their fancy. Just as it should be.

There are two things working together. The decline of the album, and the feverish attempts by the record business and their media lackeys to maintain its significance by hyping artists way beyond their merits.

I didn't actually like the first Arctic Monkeys record, too irritating with the "Mardy Bum" / "Scummy Man" catchphrases. The mix is awful too, completely in the red and lacking in dynamics. However, I think the 2nd one is an excellent, far more interesting album. In my opinion though, Franz Ferdinand are better.

do you find out sales figures?

"You've got 24 years to write your first album, and six months to write the second"
Noel Gallagher freely admits that he mined his stockpile of pre-fame songs up until the third album. The tailing-off is there to see, though at least it was good of him to admit it.

i was thinking about this the other day and remember having a similar conversation with my music loving history teacher many years ago when i was at school.
It seems that these days most bands are pushed into the media spotlight so quickly that they don't have a chance to develop properly. The NME are the worst for it. It seems every week they have a new "best band ever" on the cover, when in reality they are probably just an average band who given time to slowly develop their craft might amount to something.
The sad thing is that these days with the way that things are (internet/media/record companies etc) i dont see this changing anytime soon