http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/the-100-greatest-debut-albums-of-all-time-20130322
Lots of good ones!
Montrose by Montrose - conspicuous by its absence...?
(ten musicians in a room with ten lists of ten LPs...) ;)
John Prine's self-titled debut would be near the top on my list; it's not there at all.
Some choice ones in there, I agree, but I wouldn't allow 75% of them in my house.
Quote from: Dave W on March 31, 2013, 04:02:42 PM
John Prine's self-titled debut would be near the top on my list; it's not there at all.
Some choice ones in there, I agree, but I wouldn't allow 75% of them in my house.
I agree, except I'd change that to 85% in my case, although I only looked at about the top thirty on the list.
Not a great fan of debut albums at all, I often find an artist's mid-period work to be their prime. I prefer Sgt. Pepper to the Beatles debut, Wish you were here to Floyd's debut, WA's Argus to their debut, DP's Machine Head to Shades of, Led Zep IV and Physical Graffiti to Led Zep I, the Stones' Sticky Fingers to their 1st, Bob Dylan's Desire to his early work. Once in a while there is an exception (VH I, the first Ramones album), but in general I have a soft spot for a band that has matured somewhat.
it's rolling stone, a freakin fashion and pop 'culure' rag.. what do you expect.
They need a memorandum from the national affairs desk to sharpen them up .
Beastie Boys #1?
That doesn't even fall under debatable. Just wrong.
Rolling Stone's last gasp at musical relevance was, at best (and even then only tenuously), 20 years ago. Nowadays, they publish these idiotic lists simply to draw attention to themselves and stir up controversy among people who actually DO care about music. I recently checked out their top 100 albums and songs from the 2000's; I had never even heard of three quarters of them! Their "hip hop embrace" is both forced and transparent; they're just a bunch of tried hippies at heart jerking off to whatever is left of that counterculture so they hired a bunch of young kids with all the credibility of the models in a Benetton ad (there's a cultural reference) to say that Jay-Z and Bob Dylan hold equal footing in modern music. Sure. On the plus side, by checking out the lists, I did discover some music I had never heard that I really like, but then again, I've never made it a habit to follow Randy Newman's album releases. ;)
20 years ago? I'd say it's more like about 1980, and even then, it was only relevant if you were an aging hippie.
Quote from: HERBIE on March 31, 2013, 03:17:29 PM
Montrose by Montrose - conspicuous by its absence...?
(ten musicians in a room with ten lists of ten LPs...) ;)
Kenny, speaking as a died in the wool Montrose fan, I would have no delusions about that album making any mainstream list. Despite the fact that it was the first really BIG sounding hard rock album that I can recall (setting the stage sonically for VH 1), it simply didn't make enough of an impact for most people to notice - let alone a magazine that is basically Jann Wenner's plaything.
I bristle far more at the omission of
Chicago Transit Authority.
I understand a lot of them, even if I don't agree. I don't know a great deal of the '80s/'90s entries. And as much as I am not a fan, I guess I have to understand the influence of bands like The Stooges and Velvet Underground on today's music. Everyone has brought up a few omissions, which I would generally agree with, and I have a couple to add:
King Crimson - In the Court of the Crimson King
Eno - Here Come the Warm Jets
Like Uwe, I tend to think that most band's best work occurs after the debut, once the artist gets a firm footing.
And....The Beatie Boys?????? Really? It may not be true anymore, but Boston's debut, and at least they are on the list, was once the highest selling debut album of all time.
What?! No Motely Crue?
I wouldn't let these guys pick my nose, much less my music.
Quote from: TBird1958 on April 01, 2013, 10:04:59 AM
What?! No Motely Crue?
I wouldn't let these guys pick my nose, much less my music.
All right, missy....
Motley Crue's debut was hardly anything to crow about. They didn't have any idea of what they were doing, so they did everything. The sound was credited to Roy Thomas Baker, but I've heard since that he wasn't nearly as involved as credited. The whole album was a mish-mash of every popular trend of the time. Motley Crue didn't really make a big impact until after Vince Neil's accident and the enormous PR makeover the band got from Dee Anthony.
Wasn't R.T.B. only involved in remixing the original self-produced Crue album before it was released by Electra?
I was being a bit flippant ;)
I don't see any Duran Duran either.
Quote from: Nokturnal on April 01, 2013, 12:11:40 PM
Wasn't R.T.B. only involved in remixing the original self-produced Crue album before it was released by Electra?
I reviewed the debut for the Illinois Entertainer, and I seem to recall that he was listed as the producer, but it came out that he did some mixing for one song. It's been a long time, but I think you have it pretty much correct. I seem to remember that his work was even limited within that description. All I know is that it certainly didn't sound like a Queen album!
Quote from: lowend1 on April 01, 2013, 08:47:45 AM
I bristle far more at the omission of Chicago Transit Authority.
Can't argue that, Billy... certainly can't argue that one...
Would Derek and the Dominoes be construed as a "debut" album...?
Quote from: HERBIE on April 01, 2013, 01:09:27 PM
Can't argue that, Billy... certainly can't argue that one...
Would Derek and the Dominoes be construed as a "debut" album...?
...or Blind Faith?
Quote from: gweimer on April 01, 2013, 12:43:41 PM
I reviewed the debut for the Illinois Entertainer, and I seem to recall that he was listed as the producer, but it came out that he did some mixing for one song. It's been a long time, but I think you have it pretty much correct. I seem to remember that his work was even limited within that description. All I know is that it certainly didn't sound like a Queen album!
Yeah, he only remixed it after the Elektra signing. Frankly I liked the Leathur Records version better - the remix was lipstick on a pig.
Saying that they compiled a list of the best debut albums of all time and then saying albums got docked points if the artist went on to far greater achievements kind of makes the whole excercise invalid, doesn't it?
Quote from: Dave W on April 01, 2013, 08:18:09 AM
20 years ago? I'd say it's more like about 1980, and even then, it was only relevant if you were an aging hippie.
They latched onto the grunge/alternative movement pretty hard because they viewed them as Neil Young version 2.0. And while it was still a music network,
RS was pretty much in lockstep with MTV, who still dictated the charts in those days. Sadly, the pretentious Seattle scene was probably the last time that large labels and big media supported non-prefab music. It was a slim grasp, but for a short time in the mid 90's,
Rolling Stone actually did know and report on what was going on in music. They laid off their permanent boner for Dylan, even if it was only to fly it for Neil Young, but it was at least a change that reflected the times and tastes of many folks.
imo crawdaddy was the best rock rag ever followed by lester bangs era creem.
Apparently "all time" started about 1965.
Quote from: gweimer on April 01, 2013, 10:59:19 AM
All right, missy....
Mötley Crüe's debut was hardly anything to crow about. They didn't have any idea of what they were doing, so they did everything. The sound was credited to Roy Thomas Baker, but I've heard since that he wasn't nearly as involved as credited. The whole album was a mish-mash of every popular trend of the time. Motley Crue didn't really make a big impact until after Vince Neil's accident and the enormous PR makeover the band got from Dee Anthony.
Mötley took an excruciatingly long time to finally get their sound right. The first two albums were badly produced, Theater of Pain was thin-sounding, it really took them until Dr Feelgood to get whatever they do right. I thought Ratt's debut more musical than the first three albums the Sixx men put out.
I understand the importance the Crüe had for the whole hair metal and glam rock LA scene, but their music lagged behind their, errrm, "cultural importance" for quite some time. I'm no Crüe hater at all, I've seen them and was entertained even though Herr Neil is so dumb to make you Vince (bad pun intended).
Rolling Stone always massacred Deep Purple and Rainbow albums, but they did it with style and wit. Loved how they quipped in their Burn review: "With a new singer and bassist in, both sounding "blacker" than their predecessors, they still manage to sound as Yuropean as a vampire movie". :mrgreen: Their snipe at an early eighties album of Iron Maiden was great too: "No doubt one of the better albums of 19...72."
Quote from: uwe on April 02, 2013, 03:40:37 PMMötley took an excruciatingly long time to finally get their sound right. The first two albums were badly produced, Theater of Pain was thin-sounding, it really took them until Dr Feelgood to get whatever they do right.
Bob Rock produced that album, and he was exactly what they needed. He has his place in music, aside from ruining Metallica.
QuoteI understand the importance the Crüe had for the whole hair metal and glam rock LA scene, but their music lagged behind their, errrm, "cultural importance" for quite some time.
Without MTV, they never would have been anything other than LA club-scene burnouts. They were/are dumb, wasted, and marketable to white trash, the perfect spokesband for record label-approved corporate "rebellion." They have their moments, but are far more flash than substance.
Quote from: Psycho Bass Guy on April 02, 2013, 03:54:13 PM
... aside from ruining Metallica.
Ah... a pre "black" fan... Mostly post, myself... ;)
Quote from: Psycho Bass Guy on April 02, 2013, 03:54:13 PM
Bob Rock produced that album, and he was exactly what they needed. He has his place in music, aside from ruining Metallica.
Without MTV, they never would have been anything other than LA club-scene burnouts. They were/are dumb, wasted, and marketable to white trash, the perfect spokesband for record label-approved corporate "rebellion." They have their moments, but are far more flash than substance.
LA rock without MTV is an oxymoron. Wimmin' writhing on Jaguar hoods and half (of) the (male) band looking like Claudia Schiffer, the other half like Cindy Crawford. Which reminds me of a highly amusing exchange between Axel Rose's then missus, Stephanie Seymour, and Ms Cobain/Love, when both bands met at the MTV Awards. Ms Seymour to Ms Love: "Are you a model?" Ms Love's repartee: "No, are you a brain surgeon?" :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: Wimmin' can be harsh.
Quote from: HERBIE on April 02, 2013, 03:58:48 PM
Ah... a pre "black" fan... Mostly post, myself... ;)
Moreso than the changes in production and fidelity, which were most definitely positive, it was the change in attitude reflected that a former "legit" band like Metallica who had made their rep on being the anti-establishment band would willingly make a philosophical 180 in hiring Bob Rock and trade legitimacy for rock-stardom. They were already rich, but I guess they wanted to be super rich. The first time I saw the video for "Enter Sandman" which premiered a month or so before the album was released, I knew the band that I had loved for years was gone. I would like to hear Bob Rock remixes of the first Metallica albums. FWIW, prior to Bob Rock,
Kill 'Em All and the
Garage Days Revisited EP were the best sounding recordings from the band.
Quote from: uwe on April 02, 2013, 04:13:30 PM
LA rock without MTV is an oxymoron.
Yep. The question is did MTV choose SoCal to promote because of Van Halen or Micheal Jackson?
Quote from: Psycho Bass Guy on April 02, 2013, 04:20:51 PM
... I knew the band that I had loved for years was gone. I would like to hear Bob Rock remixes of the first Metallica albums. FWIW, prior to Bob Rock, Kill 'Em All and the Garage Days Revisited EP were the best sounding recordings from the band.
I like Garage Inc as well as the Live Sh*t sets - got to admit I'd love to hear him remix those recordings too - as much as I like Justice I just do not like the drum mix one little bit... would you hate me forever if I said I really like the S&M set...? :o
Money is the root of all profit...? Pistols are a prime example of the filthy lucre... :-\
Quote from: HERBIE on April 02, 2013, 04:41:08 PM
I like Garage Inc as well as the Live Sh*t sets - got to admit I'd love to hear him remix those recordings too - as much as I like Justice I just do not like the drum mix one little bit... would you hate me forever if I said I really like the S&M set...?
Garage Inc. is a collection of Garage Days Revisited, Garage Days Re-revisited (which was released in Europe on Mercury records) and various single B-sides and one-offs. I have it and most of the original releases. There is definitely remastering, but the mixes are the same. I'd love to hear Bob Rock actually mix Cliff audibly on
Ride the Lightning and
Master of Puppets and not just have the bottom octave of the overall mixes boosted and limited.
Garage Inc is a great way to get ahold of some previously VERY hard to find tracks and a nice indication of what a better mixed back catalog might sound like.
Justice's mix worked VERY well back in the day when most of the overwhelming drums were "fixed" by cheap stereos and analog broadcast limiters, but on anything of reference quality,it is a terribly mixed record. By "S&M set," are you referring to the album or live box set?
As "Beat It" amply proves, there is no difference between the two. :mrgreen:
If they made an album of nothing but Isolated Cliff Burton, I'd buy it and be happy to have it.
http://www.notreble.com/buzz/2012/08/03/cliff-burton-metallicas-orion-isolated-bass/
Quote from: Psycho Bass Guy on April 02, 2013, 05:30:21 PM
... By "S&M set," are you referring to the album or live box set?
Both... I think...
Just in case of confusion, as I was very much a late arrival with them - the box set CD/DVD of Live Sh*t Binge and Purge, S&M CD and DVD... I also have the Cunning Stunts DVD and all the regular releases on CD - still not got round to their newest with Mr Reed - I have a few other items but I'm not a completest...
I've never owned anything of theirs on vinyl... I may well have bumped into LU back in the day as we both haunted the Marquee club and followed a lot of the NWOBHM acts, but I was more into Motorhead at that point, especially Lemmy's playing style
Quote from: HERBIE on April 03, 2013, 03:25:48 PMI may well have bumped into LU back in the day as we both haunted the Marquee club and followed a lot of the NWOBHM acts, but I was more into Motorhead at that point, especially Lemmy's playing style
I have some friends who met him "pre-sellout" on the Justice tour and said he was actually a super nice guy who took them backstage and shot the shit for a couple of hours and gave one of them drumsticks and cymbals when he mentioned he played drums, too, even jammed with him on his warmup kit in the dressing room. I guess he developed his coke/asshole problem when he started partying with Slash, who seems to be a carrier, but not a sufferer, of the douche virus.
I asked about the
S&M thing because my wife got me that CD for Christmas the year it came out, and it's pretty good, but in its context of the
Load era, I hear too much of the bad things in the band to truly dig it. The way they kept shitting on Newstead never sat right with me and hiring Trujillo to replace him only furthered my disgust. I have the remastered 45's of
Ride the Lightning and
Master of Puppets but they're just "cleaned-up" vinyl mixes. I always get a chuckle out of hearing Hetfield's quote about how Lighting had a better sound but he couldn't place what it was that was better. I can; you can
almost hear Cliff with the full band on Lightning.
"Newkid" certainly was not treated with any respect... S&M was how I got into them; it was that late in the day... played it to death and quickly bought the rest...
Quote from: Psycho Bass Guy on April 03, 2013, 04:17:23 PM
... but he couldn't place what it was that was better...
;D