Main Forums > The Outpost Cafe

Bands Whose Early Albums Stand Out

(1/4) > >>

westen44:
I've been thinking about this point since I saw an Allman Brothers documentary today.  I mentioned this on another thread.  This is just subjective and reflects how I personally feel about the issue.  Also, I might preface this by naming two bands important to me that actually seemed to get better in time.  That would be the Beatles and Golden Earring. 

But this is my personal list of bands I've listened to a lot and I like their early albums the most.  This is in no particular order. 

1.  The Jimi Hendrix Experience.  I've mentioned this before several times, but I actually once had to leave a forum just because I liked Hendrix's early albums and the majority of people did not.  Specifically, that would be Are You Experienced and Axis: Bold As Love.  You would not believe how heated this issue can become with Hendrix fans.

2.  Muse started a little slow; that is true.  But quickly they came out with some outstanding albums.  They reached a peak with Absolution and Black Holes and Revelations. their third and fourth albums. Their last two albums especially are so bad, I hardly even know what to say. 
Creatively, they now seem to be a band disintegrating, IMO. 

4. ZZ Top.  In the early years, I considered ZZ Top to be pretty interesting.  I guess the 80s might have killed them.  But the 80s killed a number of bands, including the next band on the list. 

5.  The Allman Brothers.  I've discussed some of this already on the other thread. I loved their first few albums.  But by the late 70s and especially early 80s their music had turned into a wasteland for a while.  As the years progressed, they regained their composure, more or less.  I've got most of their CDs.  But I'll always like their early albums the best. 

6.  Grand Funk Railroad.  I know a lot of people probably disagree.  But by the time of We're An American Band I probably couldn't even call myself a fan anymore.  And what about the album several albums later?  Born To Die.  Can't a band think of a better album cover than to put themselves in caskets on the cover?  That's just outright macabre.  It might have been better if more songs could have been like track 3 "Sally."  That was written about Mark Farner's involvement with the actress Sally Kellerman.  From what I've read, I think they must have had some wild times.

7.  Rolling Stones.  My attitude toward the Stones is just based on my own peculiar taste.  I realize that.  Objectively, I know this can't even be proven.  But I began to lose interest in the Stones after Let It Bleed.  For a while there, they were definitely one of my favorite bands.  But their earliest albums had really gotten through to me in a special way which could never be equaled.

This really is just a partial list.  But there are the bands which come to mind now.  My own theory is that people tend to be more creative when they're younger.  Their best music may end up being their earliest music.  Plus, sometimes you can simply just start running out of good songs.  But I'm sure some people would be able to list many bands Whose best music came later on.  In fact, logically it seems that might be what would be expected to happen.  But for me personally with the bands that I really liked, it often seems that they kind of sputtered out--to put it bluntly.  Once again, the Beatles are the most striking exception to my point of bands having their best albums early.  In their case, they just got progressively better, except for Let It Be which did a great job of displaying just how human the Beatles could actually be.  "

Now that I've got this off my chest, I can focus on the Runaways.  Because I don't even have any of their music.  But today I got "The Runaways:  Neon Angels On the Road to Ruin 1976-1978."  5 CD box set. 

Rob:
Funny I completely agree.  Personally, I think those acts that are lucky enough to have good production seem to have more mojo on their earliest works.  I attribute that to having a lifetime of training or angst versus being forced to produce on a timeline.

Basvarken:
I'm trying hard to think of a band whose later albums stand out. Can't think of any.  ;D

Somehow they all seem to have used all their gunpowder on the first few. And for the rest of their careers fans want to hear those songs. No matter how much effort they put into new albums.

uwe:
I decidedly prefer mid-period albums. I think Sabbath Bloody Sabbath is a a better album than the first two Sabbath albums, Purple’s Machine Head and Burn are better than In Rock, Physical Graffiti tops all Zep albums before it with maybe the exception of IV, Wishbone Ash’s Argus is better than the debut and the sophomore efforts. Be Bop Deluxe’s Sunburst Finish and Modern Music beat Axe Victim and Futurama. Pink Floyd’s Wish You Were Here tops anything they did before or after. Queen peaked with Sheer Heart Attack and A Night At The Opera. Sticky Fingers is the Stones’ best record by a stretch. The Who peaked with Next. Alice Cooper’s Killer, School’s Out and Billion Dollar Babies are a holy triumvirate + Welcome To My Nightmare is mid-period too. Bowie‘s two best albums are Diamond Dogs and Station To Station. Status Quo‘s 74-76 trilogy of Quo-On The Level-Blue For You are all mid-period works, cocaine must have had the best quality then. Kiss‘ Destroyer is the closest this band ever got to recording a remarkable album.

There are a few debuts that really stand out (eg by The Police, Boston and The Ramones), but most bands get better with more professional touring and recording experience - until the rot sets in. If you like your music well-recorded like I do, a bigger studio budget can’t be faulted either. That debut album cult is mostly a myth. Imagine if Sgt. Pepper had been The Beatles‘ debut … (Of course it couldn‘t have been, they and George Martin needed that arc of development from album to album.)

Thinking about it, I like albums that have a touch of decadence to them - when bands feel they can branch out a little.

wellREDman:
I think the reason that many debuts are the best music the band make is because that batch of songs have been played live and honed during the period where they are  striving to get signed, they have played them often for years, honed them, and dropped the songs that don't work so well. Then when they get signed they have to keep playing those songs on tour. The sophmore and further albums don't have the same baptism of fire before they record them meaning that the weak doesn't get weeded out and the good stuff doesnt have the same amount of polishing that the debut had

a good example of this is Appetite for Destruction which has never been matched by any incarnation of G'N'R

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page