|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 16, 2020 20:10:03 GMT
We've got the "best debuts" thread, which is always fun. We could have a "worst debuts" thread if we were all as nasty as I am. But what about something a little more complicated?
Sometimes debuts aren't necessarily bad, but they don't capture what the band seems to be about once they hit their stride (whether on their second time out or later yet). I'm not talking about a band that changes its direction after 10-15 years as a stylistic choice. Rather I mean those groups were subject to the whims of an unsympathetic producer, or didn't really have their own style down yet, or some similar situation.
But the result is where a person who listened to their first album would have no reason to expect the sounds found on their best album.
I'll start with an easy and obvious one: The Beach Boys' Surfin' Safari has its charms for some, but I don't think anyone listening to it would have expected Pet Sounds four years later. Not that there aren't elements of some of what they did later and better, but from the quality of the songs to the quality of the recordings to the complexity and originality of the arrangements to the quality of the vocal performances, it's just a different universe.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Apr 16, 2020 20:45:12 GMT
I'm sure there are more extreme examples out there, but I consider Bob Dylan to be a companion of sorts to Surfin' Safari. I suppose the association isn't hurt by the fact that they were both released in 1962, but Dylan hadn't quite found his voice yet (as Brian hadn't) and he certainly hadn't found his...pen? Only two originals and neither prepared us for the greatness that was immediately to follow.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 16, 2020 20:54:12 GMT
I'm sure there are more extreme examples out there, but I consider Bob Dylan to be a companion of sorts to Surfin' Safari. I suppose the association isn't hurt by the fact that they were both released in 1962, but Dylan hadn't quite found his voice yet (as Brian hadn't) and he certainly hadn't found his...pen? Only two originals and neither prepared us for the greatness that was immediately to follow. That's a really good one. I had considered it, too, but figured I'd take the easy one (for this kind of board, anyway). Not that the Dylan debut wasn't good--it was!--but it was just nothing compared to what he'd become even when he was still just doing the acoustic folk stuff, to say nothing of his rock and other music that lay ahead.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Apr 16, 2020 21:07:56 GMT
You'd think there'd be a ton of examples, but I think the reality is that most successful groups' debuts were years in the making. To then create something different and better, well, most people just don't have another gear like that.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 16, 2020 21:15:41 GMT
Absolutely. There is the old cliche that people have 20 years to create their debut record and then 1-2 for their sophomore record. I think it's true to some extent. The budgets often aren't big for the debuts, maybe it's not a big name producer, but you can often get the gist of it. But that's why I thought the exceptions would be interesting for a thread!
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Apr 16, 2020 22:20:18 GMT
This should have come to me sooner, but Cat Stevens released his debut, Mathew and Son, and its follow-up, New Masters, in 1967. Then after a very serious illness he returned in 1970 with a new label, new producer, and new collaborator. We all know the sound that he's known for, but if you were to listen to his first two records you'd probably be a little surprised by what you hear. More baroque pop than folk rock. The orchestration is quite heavy-handed. The quality of the songs is notably poorer. The only song that is truly reminiscent of his best '70s work is "The First Cut Is The Deepest" off New Masters. "Portobello Road" also wouldn't have sounded out of place on an early '70s album. It's clearly the same person, but overall the quality, production, and style is pretty far off from his later work.
Honestly, despite being a fan, I don't own or listen to those first two albums. I pretty much pretend they don't exist (bar a song or two).
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 17, 2020 12:28:58 GMT
Scorpions - Lonesone Crow - I don't really know how to describe the musical style of this debut, but it's a far cry from the hard rock albums of the 1970s or the radio friendly metal albums of the 1980s.
I'm sure I'll think of more once the coffee kicks in.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 17, 2020 13:40:11 GMT
Thinking back about this topic, I just relistened to Bon Jovi's 1984 self-titled debut, and I would put it in this category.
It isn't a terrible album for the times, and it doesn't sound nothing like Bon Jovi. But if I'd heard it at the time (which I didn't, as far as I can remember), I would have predicted this band would never top "Runaway," the leadoff track and big single from this album. The band has a lot more Journey in it than Springsteen, which is interesting if not an especially good fit.
The keyboard sounds aren't great, the guitar riffs don't sound like they would later, the background vocals are oddly clean and just not a fit for the band's sound. Really mechanical, not remotely organic. Stiff. Awkward.
Not in 100 years would I guess that three years later this band would dominate the radio, MTV, and record stores. I guess thank you, Desmond Child. (And JBJ's pretty face.)
|
|
bellbottoms
Pacific Coast Highway
Posts: 727
Likes: 201
|
Post by bellbottoms on Apr 17, 2020 13:50:18 GMT
Pre-1969 David Bowie, specifically his self-titled 1967 debut LP.
Bowie’s an interesting one because he was always a weird chameleon, trying out different styles of music and even different styles of singing. He doesn’t have one album that I would call representative of his general work, but his take on each style that he worked with is the common denominator. It’s hard to put a finger on, and I like to think it’s just Bowie being Bowie.
From Space Oddity onward, I would call him authentically “Bowie” - confident, someone who knows who he is, working with deliberate purpose, pulling inspiration from whatever he was into at the time, and often collaborating with some of the key players of those styles - Marc Bolan, Iggy Pop, Brian Eno, Trent Reznor, are a few examples. He never made it a secret that he was imitating and incorporating styles of artists he was fascinated with, something he did for his entire career.
He always did that right from the beginning, but the early years are a mess. His earliest work from 1964-1968 shows an obvious lack of confidence, and a shaky sense of what he wanted to achieve. It’s especially evident in his 1967 debut. What was he into during that time? Mime and vaudeville. Who did he try and imitate? Anthony Newley. A clownish, slapstick singer/comedian. Okie dokie.
We know that game-changing new genres do emerge from combining musical styles (jazz harmonies and surf music anyone?) But Bowie trying to combine vaudeville with rock ‘n’ roll was a fail. The better of the two singles, Love You ‘Til Tuesday, is… cute, likeably weird, but also kind of embarrassing. And yet he recorded two versions of it! I mean, whatever dude, follow your bliss, but there is a reason he didn’t break through until Space Oddity. It’s not his best album either, but it’s a massive step up, and of course it did generate an enduring, signature hit and set him on course for the rest of his career.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 17, 2020 14:07:23 GMT
Def Leppard - On Through the Night - Some like Hello America offer a brief glimpse to the brand of commercial rock Def Leppard would be known for, but this debut is still very much in line with the New Wave of British Heavy Metal. Produced by Tom Allom of Judas Priest fan, before Mutt Lange took over.
Pink Floyd - Piper at the Gates of Dawn - Of course, there was a major personnel change, but this album with it's mix of psychedelic jams and space rock is very different from the pastoral, progressive Floyd.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 17, 2020 14:19:48 GMT
This is an odd one probably mostly just for KDS and me, but ... Europe.
They are obviously best (and almost only) known for their 1986 megahit The Final Countdown and its larger-than-life riffs and choruses, its pop metal heavily supplemented with keyboards.
Their 1983 self-titled debut, which I am listening to right now for the first time in my life (despite The Final Countdown having been a favorite of 10-year-old me, the first cassette I ever bought), is a far cry from that sound. In fact, surprisingly enough, it's a heavy metal record. Not an especially GOOD heavy metal record, but it is heavy metal. The drumming is often a propulsive gallop. The riffs are heavy stuff. The lyrics are oh-so-Nordic (and pretty embarrassing at times, which was always the case with this band).
The thing is, while it's metal, it's not especially heavy, because apparently Erik Videgard either wasn't good at his job (engineer and co-producer) or lacked budget and/or equipment. (Co-producer Thomas Erdtman gets no breaks, either.) The sound is thin throughout, with no depth at all. The drumming is thunderous; the drum sound is like beating on cardboard. The guitar playing by John Norum is spectacular; the guitar sound is thin and buried in the mix. The keyboards are far, far less prominent than on future releases and the sounds are hilariously corny (especially the choir sound in "Seven Doors Hotel"), like presets on $99 Casios.
Any material would have sounded bad here, but the material is also not as radio-friendly as what the band became successful with a few years later on their American debut on Epic Records. It is interesting to hear this version of Europe, though, even if they aren't well presented.
|
|