Is the debut album usually the best? more substance!

I would say no.
Most bands if they are any good at all develop as a band and can better realize their songwriting potential with touring/practice and becoming more accomplished players/performers with more opportunities/time in the studio to fully realize their ambitions.
Obviously there are exceptions..... Boston being a great example, but Tom had years and years invested in perfecting that first album and maybe said most of what he had to say right there.

 

I do not know anything about Moby Grape.

 

Pearl jam......yes

Nirvana....no

Radiohead....no freakin way

Smashing Pumpkins...no


It all depends

 

There's no real qualifying answer here. I think those artists that do put out an outstanding debut that's never topped just seem to stand out a little more because that's all they're generally known for. I think part of the reason is that some of these debuts have been long in the making, an artist has spent a long while creating and honing the material prior to the "big break", and they're a lot more focused on producing the work. Afterward, they never really are able to put in the same kind of time and effort towards new music.

Of course, other artists can be creative over a long period of time. It all boils down to the individuals.

 

Not for most of my favorite bands. Some bands only have one real good one in them, but they are not among my favorites.

The only exception I can think of among my top 50 bands would be CSN

 

Moby Grape - Hey Grandma

 

The Congoes - Heart Of The Congos

 

In most cases I don t think the debut is the best
but in sone cases yes like
Blind Faith
Sex Pistols

 

Well, considering the amount of time and effort it takes a band to make a first album, the answer would logically be yes.
The Doors, CCR, Santana and CSN&Y. to name just a few, are excellent examples.

 

I'm a big advocate for the second album. I like these better than the debut:
You're Gonna Get It, TP and Heartbreakes
Pretenders II
Communiqué, Dire Straits

 

I think it is to some bands credit they arrive fully formed and do not need to grow up in public ala the Beatles, Kinks, Stones, etc., That being said some bands are gems in their nascent form before they lock down a style ala Genesis, Yes, Crimson, etc.,

 

IMHO,
All bands have their own periods of development, maturation, gestation, creative peaks, band chemistry/interaction, etc

So, there is no one answer, since we can give examples for either side, arguably:

First Album Peak:
Boston
The Doors
The Pretenders
The Cars
Big Star

Post-First Album Peak:
Beatles
Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers
Elvis Costello and the Attractions
The Kinks
Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band
The Who
Talking Heads
Cheap Trick
Dire Straits
Steely Dan

 

Sorry your comment makes no sense to me, how can an album be "the best" if the artist released only one album ? - "the best" is a superlative , which ,by definition,needs something to compare it to

 

Cheap Trick and the Ramones are two examples of that as the bulk of both band's first 3 albums were written before they were signed/their debut was recorded. Cheap Trick/their producer dipped into their reserves fairly randomly during this period, but one of the Ramones (Joey IIRC) said that not only were all the songs for those first few albums written prior to recording the first album, they very consciously didn't pick and choose the best for the debut, leaving them with lesser songs/the rejects for diminishing returns on subsequent albums. Instead they recorded the songs pretty much in the order they wrote them which also showed the band's growth as writers (and to a lesser extent as players)

As for the OP's question, its definitely a case by case basis, but having said that - generally speaking (more often than not in my observations over the years/decades) what I notice most often is the first album is very good, the third album is a masterpiece and the second album is disappointing by comparison.

A group has their entire life to write the first album, and they/their producer/record company will usually cherry pick the best songs from that lifelong stash. The second album will often be the best of the leftovers (or perhaps even all of the leftovers with a few new hastily written songs to make up the balance). The band's and/or label's disappointment in the quality drop of the second album will push the band from either within (pride) and/or without (the threat of being dropped from the label) to deliver something incredibly strong. People generally speaking respond/create well under pressure. They also with two albums under their belt (full of both positive and negative experiences - what works and what doesn't) probably now have gained some perspective (the novelty of fame has mostly worn off, and they find it isn't really all about the sex and drugs after all), but are still young/naive enough to still have the burning passion to create rather than the later (almost inevitable) complacency that years of fame/being 'out of touch' with their fanbase, not to mention out of touch with who they themselves used to be prior to fame can do to one's creativity/output.

 

In the case of Santana, I would say that Abraxas is way more interesting than the eponymous first album.

 

I have found with newer/contemporary bands the debut is usually their most satisfying because the growth is usually limited to refining what they have have already shown, so there is usually no great leap forward. The benefit of the debut is they are hungry and offering songs they've lived with/in for a quite a while, rather than waiting 2-3 years for a followup of the same old.

 

But, when it come to Elvis Costello it gets more complicated. The songs were really strong on the first album and, although what followed was very very good, those early young songs really caught your ear. However, although the Clover musicians were fine on My Aim Is True, it was wonderful when the Attractions were formed and gave that really special frame to the newer songs on This Year's Model and the subsequent albums.

So, plenty of buts, althoughs and howevers in there. I don't really know what the answer is.

 

I can't think of very many bands where the debut was tops and everything after it was rubbish.

Often, that first album kind of stands as a manifesto of sorts. It's a statement of intent by young and hungry musicians who then have to grow up in the public eye, learn to deal with pressures of the marketplace, etc. Every once in a while, a band only has that statement of intent in them and it all falls apart.

More often than not though, the first album represents a manifesto that is either heavily revised as time passes or discarded entirely. Does Queen I sound like A Kind of Magic? Hardly. Does Piper at the Gates of Dawn even sound like the same band that recorded Dark Side of the Moon? Noper.

For me, the joy is in the exploration that follows the first statement, so it's hard to find bands that really fall flat. Personally, though I enjoy many debut albums, they represent to this listener an incomplete or imperfect glimpse of what a band is about. Doesn't mean the albums are bad, but it's not the pure, unfiltered, top shelf stuff they prove to be capable of down the road. Your mileage may vary.

 

Depends:
Yes

• The Cars
• Boston
• Guns N Roses
• George Harrison (unless you count those soundtracks)
• John Lennon
• The Pretenders
• Phil Collins
• New York Dolls
• The Strokes

No

• The Beatles
• The Rolling Stones
• The Beach Boys
• Judas Priest
• Aerosmith
• Pink Floyd
• The Stooges
• Black Sabbath
• AC/DC (especially if we are going by the Australian discography)

And then are debatable ones, so it all depends

 

Stop the clock.....Phil Collins!!.....very debatable this one.....sure Face Value is great....and it has that song.....but I can argue all day long that Hello I Must Be Going is a better album......however its bed time... so maybe another day.....but take my word for it.

 

Pearl Jams first is by far their best.

 

I’d beg to differ. It’s their most popular, but not their best

 

It's a case by case basis, though I think Howard Jones's debut is by far his best. People also consider Sting's first album to be his best, I believe.

 

Dire Straits, hard to argue they bettered their self titled debut. There is certainly no rule though and the more I think about it probably more the exception. The Alice Cooper band didnt hit their stride until 3rd album. Sometimes it could a new producer or change in band members like Deep Purple. Too many variables to make a blanket statement.

 

If you check my post again you will find a little smiley. That figure generally implies that the writing is made very jokingly: If the joke was funny or not is not for me to judge