Best Ever Albums

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

911Turbo — Sun, 25 Nov 2018 19:12:41 GMT

Author: 911Turbo

Posted: 11/26/2018 00:12

Fischman wrote:

I'm not sure there's a trend one way or the other in an overall sense. But for many the sophomore slump is real. I and others have given good reason why, most notably the pressure to crank out another one ... and fast. It's just not that easy, especially when you had your whole life to put together that first one.

On the other hand, many artists take time to grow into themselves. But for them, it's often an even later album when they come into their own.

Here's some good examples groups who never recaptured the magic of their debuts:
Boston
Guns n' Roses
Outlaws
Joe Jackson
Sex Pistols
MC5

There are literally hundreds more where the dropoff isn't quite as dramatic, but it is a dropoff nonetheless.

And although they were far from new to music, as solo artists I would add both Dio and Ozzy.

You make some valid points.
But i dont agree with you on the gunners.

Also daydreamer has contributed an excellent obsevation.

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

JOSweetHeart — Sun, 25 Nov 2018 18:11:02 GMT

Author: JOSweetHeart

Posted: 11/25/2018 23:11

Toby Keith is another country act who only got better as his career progressed.

God bless you and him always!!!

Holly

P.S. His first album is now 25 years old and will be re-released with newer material added to it this Friday. 😄 😄 😄

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

TheHutts — Sun, 25 Nov 2018 03:25:47 GMT

Author: TheHutts

Posted: 11/25/2018 08:25

I think there's a distinction between solo artists and bands too. Often rock musicians are best in their twenties - as well as rock being a genre fuelled by youthful angst, I think that once you hit 30 it's often time to settle down and start a family. I think it's easier for solo artists to adapt, and plan careers around their families, and easier to make drastic stylistic changes (you don't need to talk the rest of the band into it). A band's much more unwieldy.

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

AfterHours — Sat, 24 Nov 2018 20:39:17 GMT

Author: AfterHours

Posted: 11/25/2018 01:39

The fundamental reason is probably founded in Rock artists not often being great and/or multi-faceted composers from which they could develop and explore a variety of ideas to a culmination of expressive possibility.

They are limited in their freedom of technique, composition or expression by this and very often plateau with little further direction to go, thus end up repeating themselves or only minor changes/developments, etc.

The same problem doesn't generally exist in Classical music, wherein a good or great composer well founded in his Art, the theory behind it etc, tends to continue developing and creating upon it a very thorough library of expression and very often makes a higher concentration of great works or masterpieces parallel to his experience, aging and this development.

Similar with Jazz as well, where this plateauing is much less common than Rock -- particularly those Jazz artists that expanded as composers and didn't restrict themselves to standards or a single format, or more "one-dimensional" formats.

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

LebowskiRams — Sat, 24 Nov 2018 14:20:09 GMT

Author: LebowskiRams

Posted: 11/24/2018 19:20

elo269megv wrote:

Doomed or cursed? No. Held to a higher standard / higher expectations? Yes. Bands who release phenomenal debuts are under greater pressure to release subsequent "good" albums because they have set their own standards, which I think is a little unfair. But ultimately, good bands release good albums.

I disagree with the Weezer statement. They have more than two great records (Green, Red, White, & Make Believe are all good/decent enough). Oasis had arguably BETTER albums post-debut. Same for the Strokes, as I feel Room on Fire is on par with their debut and people forget First Impressions and Angels are solid as well (and overlooked).

Take the Stone Roses... their second album is completely overlooked.

I agree with Weezer. They're my favorite band, and I think Maladroit, Red, Hurley, EWBAITE and White are all fantastic, but I concede that I'm in the minority there

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

Daydreamer — Fri, 23 Nov 2018 13:51:58 GMT

Author: Daydreamer

Posted: 11/23/2018 18:51

I feel most bands peak either with their debut (carried by their energy, hunger and will to prove themselves) or sometime around their 3rd-4th album (when they've matured but still have some youthful energy left). There's very few of those who consisently produce quality albums late in their careers, and those artists are by far the most precious ones.
I've always had a soft spot for artists who produce masterpieces when everybody thought they were "past it".

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

craola — Fri, 23 Nov 2018 12:45:01 GMT

Author: craola

Posted: 11/23/2018 17:45

TheHutts wrote:

I did some stats on my ratings a while ago, partly because I find I generally don't prefer debut albums. My perception is that debut albums are often stylistically narrow and have more straightforward arrangements, and bands become more interesting to me as they get more comfortable in the studio and stretch out.

I looked through bands where I've rated at least their first six albums (a sample size of 24) and made a couple of blog posts about it:
Part 1 looks at my own ratings and concludes that I prefer bands around their 4th and 5th album.
https://albumreviews.blog/2018/08/21/when-do-bands-peak/

Part 2 adds a few more bands and compares my ratings with the ratings from RYM's database: https://albumreviews.blog/2018/09/04/when-do-bands-peak-part-2/

There are a few caveats:
- I only had a sample size of 24
- I only looked at bands where I enjoy their first six albums, so a band with an amazing debut that broke up after a handful of albums or quickly dove into diminishing returns wouldn't be included.
- I imagine bands that started before the mid-1960s, when the album was less established as a format, would take longer to peak. For instance, Revolver was The Beatles 7th studio album - they released a lot of albums quickly as they included a lot of covers.

i like the approach. i'd be curious to see what this looks like with 4+ albums rather than 6+. if a band can't follow up their first hit by album no. 4, odds aren't good for a sustained career. heck, i'd even consider doing 3+. nonetheless, that was an interesting read, and the data plots are kinda fun too.

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

TheHutts — Thu, 22 Nov 2018 22:48:56 GMT

Author: TheHutts

Posted: 11/23/2018 03:48

I did some stats on my ratings a while ago, partly because I find I generally don't prefer debut albums. My perception is that debut albums are often stylistically narrow and have more straightforward arrangements, and bands become more interesting to me as they get more comfortable in the studio and stretch out.

I looked through bands where I've rated at least their first six albums (a sample size of 24) and made a couple of blog posts about it:
Part 1 looks at my own ratings and concludes that I prefer bands around their 4th and 5th album.
https://albumreviews.blog/2018/08/21/when-do-bands-peak/

Part 2 adds a few more bands and compares my ratings with the ratings from RYM's database: https://albumreviews.blog/2018/09/04/when-do-bands-peak-part-2/

There are a few caveats:
- I only had a sample size of 24
- I only looked at bands where I enjoy their first six albums, so a band with an amazing debut that broke up after a handful of albums or quickly dove into diminishing returns wouldn't be included.
- I imagine bands that started before the mid-1960s, when the album was less established as a format, would take longer to peak. For instance, Revolver was The Beatles 7th studio album - they released a lot of albums quickly as they included a lot of covers.

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

21stCenturySchiz — Thu, 22 Nov 2018 18:43:51 GMT

Author: 21stCenturySchiz

Posted: 11/22/2018 23:43

I know some people may disagree with me. But I think Van Halen falls under this. While I don't think anything that they immediately did after the debut was awful. I don't think any of the other albums save for 1984 come anywhere close to the magic of the debut

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

JOSweetHeart — Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:21:18 GMT

Author: JOSweetHeart

Posted: 11/22/2018 00:21

Country singer Trace Adkins had a successful debut album released in 1996 named Dreamin' Out Loud and only continued to get more successful as his career progressed. 😄 😄 😄

God bless you and him always!!!

Holly (a day one fan of Trace)

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

craola — Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:42:17 GMT

Author: craola

Posted: 11/21/2018 18:42

rkm wrote:

Some debuts are so great because the artist is working through some personal problem, and the music is a kind of catharsis for the artist as well as the audience. In making the music, the musician heals themself, and their music thereafter is forever boring. As the audience, I sometimes feel selfish wishing the artist more personal suffering, so I can have some good music.

Actually, I think this is the key. Artists who have longevity, and continue to produce interesting music, are those who learn to write well about every aspect of life, their own and others.

you're right. an artist needs a purpose, for lack of a better word. it's like with sequels... it seems that most of the time, the sequel exists only to make money off the people who liked its predecessor. that said, a sequel is great if there's a reason for it. i appreciate that pixar was reluctant with the toy story films to continue the series without cause, waiting for the right story to dawn on them. and none of the films have felt like reboots or rehashes. they're three (four soon) separate, albeit consecutive stories.

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

Jasonconfused — Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:31:12 GMT

Author: Jasonconfused

Posted: 11/21/2018 16:31

Fischman wrote:

And although they were far from new to music, as solo artists I would add both Dio and Ozzy.

Have to disagree about Ozzy. Diary of a Madman is at least as good as Blizzard, if not better. I think Ozzy’s solo career quality decline resulted from Randy Rhoads’ death more than anything else.

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

Fischman — Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:22:01 GMT

Author: Fischman

Posted: 11/21/2018 16:22

bobbyb5 wrote:

I don't know. You always hear about "the sophomore slump", where their second album isn't very good. But whenever I think about it it doesn't really seem to be true. More often a person's second or third or fourth album is better. And just as successful as their debut was.

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

rkm — Wed, 21 Nov 2018 05:39:36 GMT

Author: rkm

Posted: 11/21/2018 10:39

Some debuts are so great because the artist is working through some personal problem, and the music is a kind of catharsis for the artist as well as the audience. In making the music, the musician heals themself, and their music thereafter is forever boring. As the audience, I sometimes feel selfish wishing the artist more personal suffering, so I can have some good music.

Actually, I think this is the key. Artists who have longevity, and continue to produce interesting music, are those who learn to write well about every aspect of life, their own and others.

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

RoundTheBend — Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:55:19 GMT

Author: RoundTheBend

Posted: 11/21/2018 02:55

craola wrote:

I think that you have your whole life to make that first record, but once the record label, the fans, the press and the expectations show up, you’re pressured to pop that next child out of the womb fairly quickly. You’re also now busy with celebrity life, tours, interviews and whatnot, and your life is not the same. Your creative freedom is not the same. Your indefinite, undefined release dates suddenly have deadlines attached. You go from feeling like you have to prove yourself, to earn peoples' love and adoration, and once your debut is critically acclaimed, there's a temptation to buy into the idea that you deserve peoples' love and adoration, but there's a stark difference there. One is based on confidence. The other is based on arrogance. That's a major turn off with some artists, particularly bands like Oasis or U2.

I wonder if it’s not better to have the first album critically derailed a la Talk Talk and Radiohead. Heck, I generally find my favorite artists have underwhelming first outings. Cocteau Twins, Depeche Mode, Sonic Youth, et al. It makes some artists stronger for it, as though they have to prove someone wrong, oftentimes because they know the critics are right. I wonder ... perhaps if your debut album is an attempt to say, "I have merit.", and you're rejected for it, you are cursed to spend the rest of your career putting the embarrassment behind you.

Indeed.

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

Luigii — Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:11:55 GMT

Author: Luigii

Posted: 11/21/2018 02:11

craola wrote:

Amen! 🙏

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

craola — Tue, 20 Nov 2018 02:10:41 GMT

Author: craola

Posted: 11/20/2018 07:10

I think that you have your whole life to make that first record, but once the record label, the fans, the press and the expectations show up, you’re pressured to pop that next child out of the womb fairly quickly. You’re also now busy with celebrity life, tours, interviews and whatnot, and your life is not the same. Your creative freedom is not the same. Your indefinite, undefined release dates suddenly have deadlines attached. You go from feeling like you have to prove yourself, to earn peoples' love and adoration, and once your debut is critically acclaimed, there's a temptation to buy into the idea that you deserve peoples' love and adoration, but there's a stark difference there. One is based on confidence. The other is based on arrogance. That's a major turn off with some artists, particularly bands like Oasis or U2.

I wonder if it’s not better to have the first album critically derailed a la Talk Talk and Radiohead. Heck, I generally find my favorite artists have underwhelming first outings. Cocteau Twins, Depeche Mode, Sonic Youth, et al. It makes some artists stronger for it, as though they have to prove someone wrong, oftentimes because they know the critics are right. I wonder ... perhaps if your debut album is an attempt to say, "I have merit.", and you're rejected for it, you are cursed to spend the rest of your career putting the embarrassment behind you.

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

Tha1ChiefRocka — Tue, 20 Nov 2018 01:35:25 GMT

Author: Tha1ChiefRocka

Posted: 11/20/2018 06:35

I think it's more of an issue of timing and age.

A band's first album is a hit; that's great. They're young, hungry, and full of energy. Then they sign to a record label (or maybe they were already signed to a big label) and they get a huge contract to make albums until their dead.

In the case of Weezer, their 7th album for Geffen records was the pitiful Raditude. That's a band who is now in their 30s and 40s instead of their 20s, that have been working for the same record company for 15 years. That album is most likely never going to be as good as the band's first few. The odds just aren't in favor.

Artists with longevity are ones that don't get bogged down in the business side of the record industry.

Take Nick Cave for example. He's released almost all of his albums on an independent label, Mute. Mute doesn't have to have a hit from Cave, they just let him make music.

A band on a Geffen label is going to be expected to make hits after they have already proven that they're capable of doing so. And that's how you get songs like "Beverly Hills"

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

bobbyb5 — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:36:54 GMT

Author: bobbyb5

Posted: 11/20/2018 04:36

I don't know. You always hear about "the sophomore slump", where their second album isn't very good. But whenever I think about it it doesn't really seem to be true. More often a person's second or third or fourth album is better. And just as successful as their debut was.

Re: Is a successful debut a curse?

Fischman — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:33:06 GMT

Author: Fischman

Posted: 11/20/2018 04:33

I think it depends on how big that first album was (thus generating tremendous pressure to follow up, and soon), and whether or not you'd shot your collective creative wad putting together that first album (think Boston).