*Artist's* First Below Great Album

I like Mirror Ball. Arc was just tossed in as a freebie with Weld, so, whatever. It's his MMM album.

 

I assumed he meant than the one prior. So if you have someone who started slow and built up to greatness you'd only start counting when they backslid. That's my interpretation, anyway.

 

The OP clarified that "better than" meant "better than great", like "super-great", I guess!

I'm still interested to know if debuts are fair game or if we're looking for the first not-great album after the artist already made a great album... if that makes sense!

 

Bruce Springsteen - 5 albums - The River.

 

Kind of an odd premise for a thread. I think there is usually a curve for all artists, where it may take some number of attempts before reaching a peak of creativy or burst of productivity, followed by a tapering off period with occasional rebounds, and so on.

I would disagree with some of the examples given, like Black Sabbath, where in my opinion Master Of Reality is where they hit their stride and solidified the classic sludge sound. While a classic, Paranoid before it has more filler, and Vol. 4 afterward continues to briefly build on the momentum before drugs and the usual missteps got in the way.

Typically those bands that come out of the gate with a debut that is firing on all cylinders are those who were formed from previous experience, like Led Zeppelin or Bad Company, for example, whereas rookie artists may take a while before establishing themselves. The Rolling Stones are an example that floundered a bit searching for a direction before hitting their stride during the golden Taylor/Miller period.

 

Absolutely. I already stated that I don't think This Was was "great." Also don't think "Yes" was all that. Or "Go Now", "Bob Dylan", "The Rolling Stones" or any number of debuts from great artists.

 

Led Zeppelin II to Physical Graffiti was solid. I can't get into LZ I at all.

 

What are you talking about?
What's your angle?

 

The Black Crowes - 4 albums - Three Snakes and One Charm
Counting Crows - 4 albums - Hard Candy
The Cure - 9 albums - Wish
Depeche Mode - 8 albums - Songs Of Faith And Devotion
Indigo Girls - 7 albums - Come on Now Social
Natalie Merchant - 4 albums - The House Carpenter's Daughter
Pearl Jam - 2 albums - Vs. (I understand this one may be controversial)
R.E.M. - 11 albums - Monster
Sinéad O'Connor - 3 albums - Am I Not Your Girl?
The Smashing Pumpkins - 4 albums - Adore
Sting - 5 albums - Mercury Falling
Tori Amos - 2 albums - Under the Pink

 

The "loverboy" brought some songs to the talented musicians, that's why 5150 is the first truly great Van Halen album

 

Loverboy (who I enjoy, but hear me out please) could never write a song like "Mine All Mine", "5150 title track" or "Pleasure Dome"

 

Well, there's their first 3-4 albums, which while having their moments are no part of "great." Yes, I include 2112 in that - an it's the best of those 4. For me, the band really starts to find its stride from Farewell to Kings onwards. Roll the Bones is half excellent, half "meh."

 

Beatles didn't have a great album until Hard Days Night.

 

good points on both Beatles and Rush - especially in regards to songwriting and the quality of songs on the first couple of Beatles and Rush records.

both The Beatles and Rush had great energy in those early recordings though - that's a big part of the allure of rock 'n roll to me.

Roll the Bones was when Rush first started sounding a bit tired to me - even though the songwriting is still there, there's a blandness to at least 3 of the tracks.

 

You are correct!

 

If you say so! I think both are easily better than the next three.

 

I'm surprised to see anyone defend Time and a Word lol. Or are you questioning why I didn't start with their debut being below great?

 

Either way goes (but the latter is what I had in mind)

 

I give Rush a pass with RTB, I didn’t like Counterparts at all, and TFE, or VT, but thought Snakes was finally a return to form and good songs for the most part.

 

Keep on trying!

 

Okay - thanks!

I'd planned to post a bunch of debuts but I won't!

 

Ok, I'll Bite:

Big Star Third 3rd

Buffalo Springfield Last Time Around 3rd

Bad Company Desolation Angels 5th

Jefferson Airplane Bark 6th

Monkees Instant Replay 7th

Byrds Byrdmaniax 10th

Bee Gees Life in a Tin Can 11th (Worldwide)

Bowie Tonight 16th

Johnny Cash Look At Them Beans 52nd!

YMMV of course

 

I know what you mean actually. .. but what a great album it is!

 

Can’t say I agree. I know many bands who were great, or exceptional, from beginning to end. Even if that wasn’t the case, seeing how many albums it took for a band to make a not so great one is interesting to me.
And like I always say, filler’s in the ears of the beholder. I hear none on Paranoid. I do on their debut though even if I love all the songs on it. Master of Reality has a couple instrumentals that don’t really go anywhere (not that I have an issue with that, but if anything’s band produced filler, that’s it), and the others don’t click for me.
I know many people who’d argue the Stones were brilliant from the start too. Like The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Doors and more, who all had very little experience, besides gigs obviously.

 

Pink Floyd are a perfect (albeit unusual) example of a band (if you exclude the debut with Barrett, which is almost a different band) who spent some time searching for direction, finally clicking on Meddle, peaking on DSOTM and WYWH, then beginning the downward slide with Animals and the over-indulgent overblown The Wall, finally fizzling out with Waters leaving the band and some half-hearted attempts at carrying on as the same entity much as they did after Barrett's departure.