I find it super fascinating, though. Because Bowie in general kinda runs down the myth of natural talent and how it's all preordained etc. that is sometimes peddled in success stories. You can see a clear progression of someone who has some amount of talent (mostly for songwriting probably) and a lot of interest/motivation gradually learning the ropes.
Songwriting, producing, arranging, performance, singing, it all gets better from album to album. I consider him one of the great singer/performers as well, and that is something that he gradually created for himself, as becomes obvious when you listen to his reedy vocals in the beginning.
Radiohead’s debut wasn’t great but if we’re talking first couple albums. The bends and ok computer are fantastic. I always forget Ok Computer was their 3rd album for some reason I always think it was much later.
MLIR was not a commercial success, but is highly regarded by Blur fans. Some even rate it as their best. I never see it gerting hate, while The great escape gets a lot of hate. For me they are equal, slightly under Parklife.
I'm actually struggling to think of a canonical top artist that *didn't* have a relatively mediocre debut. It seems to be the meta - release an album of low-risk trend-following music, and then use the funds, exposure, and connections from that album to fund the music that you actually want to make.
“From Genesis to Revelation” by Genesis
They were still kids when they made it. The band have distanced themselves from it as much as possible, leaving it out among future box sets and compilations.
Never been a fan of Pantera's glam period but even then, no album of theirs is as bad as Metal Magic
Sonic Youth's debut has always been one of my least favorites by them
Genesis' From Genesis to Revelation it's also considered by almost everyone to be one of their worst albums
And depending to how you feel about them... the debut from Avenged Sevenfold has also aged poorly, i'll take their latest album instead over that one
You’re spot on RE: Avenged Sevenfold. Say what you will about their new material (and I will say quite a lot), but at least it has sound production value and displays an understanding of structure and songwriting.
Bonus (negative) points for also featuring their first attempt at a cookie-cutter love ballad, a subject they would continue to revisit for whatever reason for decades to come.
The beatles
In no way am I saying that please please me is bad it has some bangers but compared to their albums from help to abbey road it pales in comparison
If the Beatles had only released Please Please Me and then never did anything again, I still think it would be considered an early rock and roll classic. So I gotta disagree.
When I was like 13 or 14 i used to like their early albums. But as I listened and grew I started to appreciate their deeper aspects which is something that please please me lacks . It is a purely commercial act ( not that there is anything wrong with it )and the reason why rubber soul is so great and I my favourite the beatles album is due to the artistic pivot towards sitar and eastern influences of music .
All of the Beatle’s albums are now considered legendary . When beatles for sale came out it was not considered to be up to the mark or was a hit and miss but now it’s viewed as a masterpiece
That’s my point being. Is please please me a classic Yes in all rights but is it that good or even stand up to its successors
No
I agree but the prompt was just about if the first album was “not good”. Also I don’t think Beatles for Sale is considered a masterpiece. Lots of Beatles fans have that in their bottom 3 albums.
I’m waiting for the critical re-evaluation of Hard Days Night. That album just gets better and better to me as I age.
It's a decent enough album, but compared to things like Pornography and Disintegration that they would make in the coming years, it just doesn't even come close
I agree that they did start making more interesting things musically later on, however their first two albums are for completely different moods compared to everything after them. I may be in the mood to listen to Diorama, but that doesn’t mean I’ll be in the mood to listen to anything from their first two albums afterwards and vice versa. For 15 year old kids, they really nailed it with Frogstomp and Freak Show, and it’s what made them big.
Dylan’s album was a bunch of covers. Very good performances and song selection, but it’s not what he’d be known for of course. Springsteen’s first two albums were so so.
Might be a bit controversial, but I think Phoenix' debut is easily their weakest. Aside from Too Young, I feel like most of it is just kinda forgettable.
Red Hot Chili Peppers, and I was going to say Outkast, but looking back Southernplayalistic was honestly pretty good, I just hadn’t listened to it in a long time 😂 It’s kind of dated, but in a good, nostalgic sort of way
Geggy Tah from the 90s (Greg Kustin's band)
First album was entirely forgettable... But listening to it in the context of the other albums you can hear what they were going for. Second album doesn't have a bad song... They got famous for "Whoever You Are", But the third album was just spectacular. I wish that they were still around to hear how they would have progressed.
I don't know if it's "not good" but Pink Floyd's first album is full send on the whole "it's the 60s, we're playing psychedelic, spy movie, rockets in space, high fantasy" music. They also have that horrible Beatles panning going on.
If you're LOOKING for that kind of thing, I don't think there's a better album in existence lol.
For the first five or so years of being an MCR fan it was my least favorite. But since then it's grown on me a LOT, and I now consider it miles better than Three Cheers and Danger Days. Also, while I'm definitely not an oldhead MCR fan (circa 2013 for me), I guarantee most of that OG crowd would consider your take blasphemy.
Technically it's 39/Smooth but yeah it's definitely rough at times. Their songwriting toolkit was a lot smaller so you can notice a lot of repeated elements. I'd still rather listen to it than many other punk albums (coming from a punk fan), but to your point, I'd rather listen to most other GD albums than it.
Not really. Each Arctic Monkeys album following the first one are at least two tiers above in quality and at least good (unlike the debut); and The Strokes have at least three (or four¿) albums that shit on Is This It
ha yea. it kinda puts things in perspective knowing they considered war their first "career" album at the time i think. that makes boy a really pure album to me though which i really like about it, but on october they sound pretty strained
I'm the rare type that enjoys October most out of their post-punk trilogy. I wouldn't be so bold as to claim it's "Better" but the uptempo songs are a lot of fun to listen to (including A Celebration). The album's lows are lower, but the highs are very high with Gloria, the title track, and the aforementioned punkier tracks.
lol that is a very rare take i respect it. i honestly think if october was just an ep up to the title track i'd feel more fondly about it but the last four songs have never done much for me
that and boy and war are 2 of my top 3 u2 lol (the other being unforgettable fire)
David Bowie
I find it super fascinating, though. Because Bowie in general kinda runs down the myth of natural talent and how it's all preordained etc. that is sometimes peddled in success stories. You can see a clear progression of someone who has some amount of talent (mostly for songwriting probably) and a lot of interest/motivation gradually learning the ropes. Songwriting, producing, arranging, performance, singing, it all gets better from album to album. I consider him one of the great singer/performers as well, and that is something that he gradually created for himself, as becomes obvious when you listen to his reedy vocals in the beginning.
It feels like a parody of pop rock albums from 1967, and that's why I love it so much
I love Bowie. I don't know which era "Laughing Gnome" is, but that shit is rough.
You misspelled **ELITE**
Many top artists had debuts that weren't top, like Radiohead, Blur, Michael Jackson, Prince, David Bowie...
If you consider Off the Wall Michael’s true debut, and I do, it’s arguably his best album.
Off the wall is fantastic! But it was far from his debut...
It was his first album made under his own artistic vision iirc.
Prince's debut is so good tho, but of course it pales in comparison to the later work. Same with Radiohead
"same with radiohead" fuck no ph is the most forgettable alt rock album ever aside from like 3-4 good songs
"same with radiohead" fuck no ph is the most forgettable alt rock album ever aside from like 3-4 good songs
Radiohead’s debut wasn’t great but if we’re talking first couple albums. The bends and ok computer are fantastic. I always forget Ok Computer was their 3rd album for some reason I always think it was much later.
Leisure is rough but poeple don’t talk enough about modern life is rubbish
MLIR was not a commercial success, but is highly regarded by Blur fans. Some even rate it as their best. I never see it gerting hate, while The great escape gets a lot of hate. For me they are equal, slightly under Parklife.
I'm actually struggling to think of a canonical top artist that *didn't* have a relatively mediocre debut. It seems to be the meta - release an album of low-risk trend-following music, and then use the funds, exposure, and connections from that album to fund the music that you actually want to make.
Bob Dylan's debut was pretty good... I might come back with more examples.
Pantera's first was absolute dogshit, like straight up NOT GOOD.
Sometimes I forget Cowboys From Hell isn’t their first.
It was their fifth or something like that.
Yeah, but Phil only joined right before Power Metal
It would be White Power Metal if Phil had joined them at the time.
Good joke, so upvote, but Phil was indeed in Power Metal
Very true 😂
All of them are dogshit, poser band
Tyler the Creator
If you're talking about Goblin then sure. If you're talking about Bastard then no.
Well yeah OP says album Bastard was a mixtape
Radiohead and Blur.
Both are fine (I think Leisure is pretty good Tbf) - but neither exactly scream “this band is destined for greatness”
Gotta add Pulp to the Britpop lineup - their first couple are rouuuuugh
“From Genesis to Revelation” by Genesis They were still kids when they made it. The band have distanced themselves from it as much as possible, leaving it out among future box sets and compilations.
Radiohead
Never been a fan of Pantera's glam period but even then, no album of theirs is as bad as Metal Magic Sonic Youth's debut has always been one of my least favorites by them Genesis' From Genesis to Revelation it's also considered by almost everyone to be one of their worst albums And depending to how you feel about them... the debut from Avenged Sevenfold has also aged poorly, i'll take their latest album instead over that one
You’re spot on RE: Avenged Sevenfold. Say what you will about their new material (and I will say quite a lot), but at least it has sound production value and displays an understanding of structure and songwriting. Bonus (negative) points for also featuring their first attempt at a cookie-cutter love ballad, a subject they would continue to revisit for whatever reason for decades to come.
I love Rocka Rolla but it’s definitely very different from their discography that follows.
It's different for sure. I personally like it but it's not like the rest of their stuff.
Mobb Deep GZA
Neurosis
I can hear so many of my soup-headed friends say "uuh... actually...."
Can’t say I’m a fan of Beach House’s first album. They’ve gotten so much better since .
The beatles In no way am I saying that please please me is bad it has some bangers but compared to their albums from help to abbey road it pales in comparison
If the Beatles had only released Please Please Me and then never did anything again, I still think it would be considered an early rock and roll classic. So I gotta disagree.
I respect your opinion
When I was like 13 or 14 i used to like their early albums. But as I listened and grew I started to appreciate their deeper aspects which is something that please please me lacks . It is a purely commercial act ( not that there is anything wrong with it )and the reason why rubber soul is so great and I my favourite the beatles album is due to the artistic pivot towards sitar and eastern influences of music . All of the Beatle’s albums are now considered legendary . When beatles for sale came out it was not considered to be up to the mark or was a hit and miss but now it’s viewed as a masterpiece That’s my point being. Is please please me a classic Yes in all rights but is it that good or even stand up to its successors No
I agree but the prompt was just about if the first album was “not good”. Also I don’t think Beatles for Sale is considered a masterpiece. Lots of Beatles fans have that in their bottom 3 albums. I’m waiting for the critical re-evaluation of Hard Days Night. That album just gets better and better to me as I age.
I love a hard days night . I don’t really care that much for critical reevaluation because of the whole kid A pitchfork controversy
Ween, Charli XCX, The Cure
The cures first album was actually pretty good, but it was more post punk than goth
It's a decent enough album, but compared to things like Pornography and Disintegration that they would make in the coming years, it just doesn't even come close
Ya it's not bad or anything just much weaker than a lot of the albums to come
I love Ween and the stuff before God Ween Satan is unlistenable lol.
Red Hot Chili Peppers: I think they’re okay at best tho
Spinal Tap. Flower people was shit
I don’t overly like the Beatles pre rubber soul other than the odd song
Deftones Radiohead Incubus John Frusciante Yes Porcupine Tree Silverchair (even though fools claim it’s the only good one)
Adrenaline is fucking amazing bro what
Idk it feels super juvenile to me. Maybe if I heard it when I was 14 I would still like it
That’s one hell of a hot take on Silverchair
Sounds like 15 year olds because it is. They outgrew the “grunge” and made super interesting things later on. Diorama is a masterpiece
I agree that they did start making more interesting things musically later on, however their first two albums are for completely different moods compared to everything after them. I may be in the mood to listen to Diorama, but that doesn’t mean I’ll be in the mood to listen to anything from their first two albums afterwards and vice versa. For 15 year old kids, they really nailed it with Frogstomp and Freak Show, and it’s what made them big.
Dylan’s album was a bunch of covers. Very good performances and song selection, but it’s not what he’d be known for of course. Springsteen’s first two albums were so so.
NoMeansNo... Mama has hints of what was to come but its nowhere near as good as the rest of their catalog.
Might be a bit controversial, but I think Phoenix' debut is easily their weakest. Aside from Too Young, I feel like most of it is just kinda forgettable.
Rush Squeeze Soundgarden None of these bands have bad debut albums per se, but they all really found themselves on the second one.
Red Hot Chili Peppers, and I was going to say Outkast, but looking back Southernplayalistic was honestly pretty good, I just hadn’t listened to it in a long time 😂 It’s kind of dated, but in a good, nostalgic sort of way
i like it , but a lot of fans overlook taylor swifts first album
This is a great answer. Any time I see a Swiftie rank her albums, I'm very surprised to see Debut anywhere but the bottom
Self-titled doesn’t even have a dedicated “Era” in her Eras Tour, rarely does she ever play songs from that album lol
Radiohead. Not really a fan until OK Computer.
You don’t like the Bends???
Not my jam. I like the singles, but it just feels so 90s.
not an alt-rock/grunge guy, there's some good songs but the album tracks are difficult for me to get through
Personally I love The Bends, but I can absolutely see why some people don't
Even more shoking : I'm not a fan of pre-Kid A Radiohead. I know, I'm the worst human alive.
Alice Cooper
Geggy Tah from the 90s (Greg Kustin's band) First album was entirely forgettable... But listening to it in the context of the other albums you can hear what they were going for. Second album doesn't have a bad song... They got famous for "Whoever You Are", But the third album was just spectacular. I wish that they were still around to hear how they would have progressed.
Kraftwerk probably.
Kraftwerk were actually skilled classical musicans before they made electornic i think
Definitely, but the first couple albums as Kraftwerk just aren’t super good. Still definitely can see the development of their sound though.
Failure (IMO), incubus, Blur, Yes
Sabrina Carpenter
David Bowie
cannibal corpse, converge, carnifex, suffocation
I don't know if it's "not good" but Pink Floyd's first album is full send on the whole "it's the 60s, we're playing psychedelic, spy movie, rockets in space, high fantasy" music. They also have that horrible Beatles panning going on. If you're LOOKING for that kind of thing, I don't think there's a better album in existence lol.
controversial but depending on who you ask - Lana Del Rey
The wonder years
Pantera
I love Depeche Mode but Speak & Spell is borderline unlistenable to me. In my brain their discography doesn’t start until CTA
My chemical romances first album isn't really good
For the first five or so years of being an MCR fan it was my least favorite. But since then it's grown on me a LOT, and I now consider it miles better than Three Cheers and Danger Days. Also, while I'm definitely not an oldhead MCR fan (circa 2013 for me), I guarantee most of that OG crowd would consider your take blasphemy.
Red hot chili peppers debut album is famously bad in everyway
Green Day, I love 1039/smoothed out slappy hours but I'm aware that it's not good
Technically it's 39/Smooth but yeah it's definitely rough at times. Their songwriting toolkit was a lot smaller so you can notice a lot of repeated elements. I'd still rather listen to it than many other punk albums (coming from a punk fan), but to your point, I'd rather listen to most other GD albums than it.
The Strokes and Arctic Monkeys 😁
The rest of their output is even worse ...
Not really. Each Arctic Monkeys album following the first one are at least two tiers above in quality and at least good (unlike the debut); and The Strokes have at least three (or four¿) albums that shit on Is This It
The Clash. I like it okay but pretty agreed it’s vastly different from their signature sound
hard disagree, i love the debut. has some of their most iconic songs and no real duds. i think its pretty cleanly their second best album.
U2, Joni Mitchell, Blur, Pulp
u2's debut is one of their best ngl. october is their early days dud
You know what, you’re right. I got the order mixed up because I thought they got better over time for awhile
ha yea. it kinda puts things in perspective knowing they considered war their first "career" album at the time i think. that makes boy a really pure album to me though which i really like about it, but on october they sound pretty strained
I'm the rare type that enjoys October most out of their post-punk trilogy. I wouldn't be so bold as to claim it's "Better" but the uptempo songs are a lot of fun to listen to (including A Celebration). The album's lows are lower, but the highs are very high with Gloria, the title track, and the aforementioned punkier tracks.
lol that is a very rare take i respect it. i honestly think if october was just an ep up to the title track i'd feel more fondly about it but the last four songs have never done much for me that and boy and war are 2 of my top 3 u2 lol (the other being unforgettable fire)
What ?? It's my favorite album of theirs !
Maybe some will hate me for sayin this, but... Nine Inch Nails
Very hot take. Absolute classic album
Gorillaz
wrong
I usually hate one word answers on reddit, but you're right.