Yesterday, my drum teacher suggested that, in general, a band's first album is their strongest because that's the music they started off playing, and as the career progresses, their songs just become mass-produced and samey.
His example was Jamiroquai. I'm not sure if I agree or not, but thought it might be worth discussing.
It's probably not.
I for one prefer the new Young Knives album to their first.
I would say that it is not true in general
but you can always find examples, like Turn on the Bright Lights is so easily Interpol's best album that it must be embarrassing for Antics and that other one nobody liked.
except
Antics is an incredible record and isn't too far off TOTBL
It's true for bands
with short careers and only a few ideas they just keep repeating.
But many bands have produced many better albums than their first...
alexisonfire
their first album is so much better than the others
Bedroom Demos totally pwn debut albums.
its only true
because there's a hype around the debut
Examples For And Against
FOR:
Bloc Party
Futureheads
AGAINST:
Arctic Monkeys
Nirvana
Franz Ferdinand [debatable]
I think the Futureheads one is debatable
indeed !
for serious?
Do I look anything but serious ?
Lets see
Smashing Pumpkins - Siamease Dreams
Modest Mouse - Lonesome Crowded West/Moon & Antarctica
Sonic Youth - CBA to name every album better then their debut
Pulp - See Sonic Youth
Interpol
I utterly disagree with the numerous comments that I have read around and about that Turn on the Bright Lights is the best Interpol album! I have always preferred antics think it's just the better album
i agree
with this. ^
antics contains a much higher percentage of better songs in my opinion.
*Siamese Dream
Radiohead piss
all over that theory. As do Fugazi, At The Drive-In, and so on...
With some bands it's true though. It's impossible to make a generalization either way.
this guy
he knows it
It was, of course,
a massive generalisation, but I think I could see his point.
Thing is, with Radiohead, they've "experimented" quite a lot. </lazy journalism> I think he was talking more the kind of bands who stick to similar formula with each album.
So can anyone think of a later album where the music is the same sort of thing as the debut, but...better?
Teenager by The Thrills.
End of debate.
good call.
oh how i love that band
it's true in a ridiculous amount of cases
i think it is to do with contamination, as if the debut is the purest and most natural form of expression, whilst everything after is tainted by self-consciousness
Mogwai have still
never topped 'Young Team'. There, I've said it. Two others spring immediately to mind:
Psychocandy - JAMC (although personally I prefer Honey's Dead, I am in a severe minority)
Suede - Suede (surely?)
It's a
tough one because the follow-ups to all those albums were not only great but some would argue better.
In general, their early records were the best.
Calculating Infinity
> than everything after it.
mr scagdenSir...
i am with you...i prefer darklands over Psychocandy and therefore possibly in the minority too. Happy when it rains is a great song though.
nooooooooo
Dillinger progressed maaan. I'd say all 3 of their albums are equally as good.
MBV Loveless
is example of 2nd album being soooooo much better.
Also Sonic Youth yes.
Also mystery jets.
then again Weezer and many others i cba
i have only got
isnt anything by MBV so will have to investigate Loveless.
Isn't Anything
has better songs on it though! It just doesn't sound hald as good.
*half*
obviously.
Pixies
Pavement
Les Savy Fav
Beulah
Archers of Loaf
Weezer
Hefner
So yeah, probably.
I was tempted to add Wolf Parade and Sunset Rubdown as well
And thinking about it now, Cadence Weapon, but they only have two albums each, so you know...
The Thermals
WEEZER
I was tempted to say Weezer. But alas Pinkerton, though had its critics, certainly was welcomed (eventually) by the fans.
Id put it on level par with Blue though nothing can be Only In Dreams as a closer.
For the love of God...
Why do people insist that Slanted and Enchanted is the best Pavement album???
This is the sound of a bunch of guys becoming Pavement - it's easily their weakest album by a mile.
It's good but the next 3 albums are perfect and Terror Twilight is only much better.
I feel better now...
Yeah
Slanted is good, but they really got better as they went on, Crooked and Wowee are much better than Slanted.
this can be true
but I'd disagree with your drum teacher's reasoning. I think its normally because bands have a lot longer to prepare stuff for their debut because it takes so long between starting a band and being able to afford recording an album. They have the chance to hone the songs more and will normally have a lot of songs to choose between when it comes to the tracklist for the album. Whereas, a second album can be a lot more rushed because they have to tour the first album extensively and capitalise on their fame, etc.
Back in the day when Blur were interesting....
...Blur's second one was sooo much better than their first.
And I prefer the Hidden Cameras second to their first. Also Belle and Sebastian, and aye, I'm with the bloke about Interpol. Have a drink on me, Anthonyc
disagree so much
for;
Gang of Four
Cooper Temple Clause
Wu Tang Clan
i really can't think of many others
Against...loads;
Radiohead
Nirvana
Tom Waits
Sonic Youth
Pulp
The Cure
Bjork
Pink Floyd
The Beatles
Mostly true. But if its false - you're a very very good artist.
All the big 4 bands would be exceptions (Beats, Dylans, Stones, Zeps).
Other people whose subsequent albums were better than the first;
Ryan Adams
The Byrds
White Stripes
The Vines :O
i love all 3 vines albums
there i said it!
i think the really great artists often improve on their debut
or make albums equally good. not so good bands can often go downhill. for a variety of reasons, one being that bands can have been writing and rehearsing their debut for years, then have to write and release a new album in a year
Trail of Dead (Madonna/ST&C >> first one)
Deftones (started being a bit generic nu-metal)
McLusky (Do Dallas >>> Everything)
Minus (First one was a bit underpowered, superseded by Jesus Christ Bobby and Halldor Laxness)
Polysics
Slint (Spiderland much better than Tweez)
Blood Brothers (peaked around Piano Island I reckon..)
It depends on the artist obviously
but a lot of debut albums are better than subsequent ones, probably because those songs have been played and perfected over a longer period of time. It probably effects those bands who are hyped to death without being really good, and who have to rush out their second album to attempt to keep up the momentum. Some artists already established or not bothered by the fame game seem to improve on ealier albums. and they're probably just better artists full stop.
I read somewhere that if the RHCP had released their debut album nowadays, the record company would've dropped them for poor sales, back then they were allowed time to develop - the record companies were looking longer term. Might also be a factor.
i disagree with both deftones and blood brothers
hold on, i know understand what you mean
but i still disagree with your opinion
You can't generalise
about this at all. Some bands and artists learn and develop as they continue, and some decline.
There are loads of bands who never get anywhere near matching the their debut (Oasis perhaps the most obvious example), loads who benefit from getting more sophisticated and accomplished during their careers (Pulp, SFA, Blur, Radiohead), and quite a few who almost seem to treat every album like another debut (Bowie, Prince, Madonna).
Machine Head is a correct answer
Not true
For:
The Strokes
The Sonics
Devo
Van Dyke Parks
Against :
pretty much everyone else who made a good record.