|
Post by kds on Nov 4, 2020 14:15:53 GMT
The discussion about Surfin USA got me thinking about other legendary artists who may not have had legendary beginnings. For the most part, The Beach Boys first two albums aren't usually included with their best work (even if each album does contain a couple iconic songs). Not every band can be The Doors, Boston, or Van Halen and kick the doors down with their debut. Here's a short list off the top of my head of groups who may have stumbled out of the gate for one reason or another.
The Who - The early Who have some great, legendary songs. But, several of them - Anyway Anyhow Anywhere, I Can't Explain, Substitute, etc were non album singles. Their first two albums are quite patchy. My Generation includes several R&B covers, and for A Quick One, the band decided that all four members should contribute songs equally (not a good decision).
Deep Purple - Deep Purple began life as the UK's answer to Vanilla Fudge, with their first three albums filled with extended psych'ed out versions of rock and pop songs. The additions of Ian Gillan and Roger Glover helped pave the way for classic Purple.
Pink Floyd - Now, I know there are fans of the original Syd Barrett era of the band, and that's fine. But, I highly doubt Pink Floyd would've been rock royalty had they continued with that path. I think Piper at the Gates of Dawn is decent, but in recent years, I find myself listening to the Syd version of the group less and less. And, the band was sort of listless after firing Syd, and didn't really find their footing until the 1971 album Meddle.
Scorpions - The debut album from a band that would become metal legends is hard to describe. But, it's definitely a far cry from what they would become. It took the band two or three albums to really find a direction.
Alice Cooper - The original Alice Cooper band released their first two albums on Frank Zappa's label, and the music was experimental and odd. It wasn't until Bob Ezrin took over as producer that the band focused more on hooky hard rock.
Billy Joel - A couple great songs came out of Billy's first three albums, but he didn't really hit his stride until Turnstiles.
Queen - Now, I'm in the cult of fans who love their first two albums (I feel the same way about Queen II that theprofessor feels about Surfin USA), but I'll admit that the band didn't really capture the public's imagination until their third album - Sheer Heart Attack.
Rush - Rush's debut album has some good songs, but they sound more like a Sabbath / Zeppelin clone band. Neil Peart's arrival for their second album Fly By Night gave them their signature sound but, that album and Caress the Steel still sound like a band trying to find their way, which they did on their fourth album 2112.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 4, 2020 14:43:17 GMT
I've always had in my head that bands take three albums to really get it together--with the exceptions of those rare ones who come out with a classic on the first try. I was trying to remember where I got that idea in the first place, and figured I probably read it in some corny hard rock or heavy metal magazine in my tween years.
Upon further reflection, I'm almost sure that the band in question would have been a good one for this thread.
Bon Jovi.
The 1984 debut was fine: it hit #43, and its single "Runaway" snuck into the Top 40 (#39).
The 1985 follow-up 7800 Fahrenheit did better, reaching #37, but still didn't exactly set the world on fire. The singles didn't crack the Top 50 in the U.S. (except on the rock-specific song charts).
But the third time around? In 1986, they released a little album you've probably heard of, Slippery When Wet. It reached #1 in the US and many countries around the world and two of its four singles also topped the charts. The band went from a run-of-the-mill pop-metal group to an industry-leading superstar group that churned out huge hits for a decade.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 4, 2020 14:52:00 GMT
I've always had in my head that bands take three albums to really get it together--with the exceptions of those rare ones who come out with a classic on the first try. I was trying to remember where I got that idea in the first place, and figured I probably read it in some corny hard rock or heavy metal magazine in my tween years.
Upon further reflection, I'm almost sure that the band in question would have been a good one for this thread.
Bon Jovi.
The 1984 debut was fine: it hit #43, and its single "Runaway" snuck into the Top 40 (#39).
The 1985 follow-up 7800 Fahrenheit did better, reaching #37, but still didn't exactly set the world on fire. The singles didn't crack the Top 50 in the U.S. (except on the rock-specific song charts).
But the third time around? In 1986, they released a little album you've probably heard of, Slippery When Wet. It reached #1 in the US and many countries around the world and two of its four singles also topped the charts. The band went from a run-of-the-mill pop-metal group to an industry-leading superstar group that churned out huge hits for a decade.
I'm not sure how I forgot about Bon Jovi, but I'd also include Jon's fellow NJ native Bruce Springsteen. Bruce's first two albums offer glimpses of greatness, but it was the third album - Born to Run - that turned Bruce into a legend.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 4, 2020 14:59:48 GMT
I would argue U2 is another example, though there are plenty of people who regard their first few albums highly as well. And certainly they had some great songs on those early albums. But just looking at US chart success, consider:
Boy, 1980, #63 October, 1981, #104 War, 1983, #12 Unforgettable Fire, 1984, #12 Joshua Tree, 1987, #1
Now, whether you want to say the real change was at the third or the fifth album--there were jumps with each--it is safe to say the first two were on another, lower level altogether despite some good material on each.
But they were given the time and space to grow as a band and really grow into themselves. Something that is missing now--it's harder to imagine a major label giving a band that time and money to make multiple albums before they paid off.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 4, 2020 16:45:51 GMT
One band that is an interesting one in this respect is Metallica.
On one hand, their first two albums (Kill 'Em All, Ride the Lightning) are widely regarded as classics ... now. They're both 5 stars in Allmusic, for example. Their third, Master of Puppets, is often considered their masterpiece.
But their commercial breakthrough was their fourth album, ...And Justice For All. And it was bested by their fifth, "the black album."
So in one respect, they came out of the gate full-force. But at the time, nobody cared. Chart positions in the US were:
Kill Em All - 66 Ride the Lightning - 48 Master of Puppets - 29 And Justice For All - 6 Metallica (black) - 1
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 4, 2020 16:54:32 GMT
One band that is an interesting one in this respect is Metallica.
On one hand, their first two albums (Kill 'Em All, Ride the Lightning) are widely regarded as classics ... now. They're both 5 stars in Allmusic, for example. Their third, Master of Puppets, is often considered their masterpiece.
But their commercial breakthrough was their fourth album, ...And Justice For All. And it was bested by their fifth, "the black album."
So in one respect, they came out of the gate full-force. But at the time, nobody cared. Chart positions in the US were:
Kill Em All - 66 Ride the Lightning - 48 Master of Puppets - 29 And Justice For All - 6 Metallica (black) - 1
I was thinking of including Metallica, but I decided not to since their first album is generally regarded as a game changer in the metal genre, but if you solely go by sales, they're a good candidate. Personally, I'm not a big fan of Kill 'Em All. I think it's got a few good songs, but in general, it's a little too thrashy for me. Within metal, I also thought about Iron Maiden. Granted, their first two albums with Paul Dianno on vocals have a lot of great songs, but I fully believe had they not switched vocalists, and hired Bruce Dickinson, they'd be another NWOBHM band that had a short shelf life.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 4, 2020 18:02:29 GMT
Was Kill 'Em All considered a game-changer at the time though? Hindsight is different, I think. Bands don't avoid being dropped by their label with arguments that in a few decades, people will look back fondly on some poor-selling album.
(Well, for Captain Beefheart they did: they always knew he was a critical prestige signing, not a sales signing.)
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 4, 2020 18:07:05 GMT
Was Kill 'Em All considered a game-changer at the time though? Hindsight is different, I think. Bands don't avoid being dropped by their label with arguments that in a few decades, people will look back fondly on some poor-selling album.
(Well, for Captain Beefheart they did: they always knew he was a critical prestige signing, not a sales signing.)
I don't think that anyone knew the impact that Kill Em All would make back in 1983, but I do think it was at least recognized as being a pioneer for a new scene / subgenre of heavy metal. And considering that Kill Em All really contained no songs that would be considered radio friendly heavy rock at the time, the fact that it made it to 66 is actually pretty impressive.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 4, 2020 18:08:21 GMT
And considering that Kill Em All really contained no songs that would be considered radio friendly heavy rock at the time, the fact that it made it to 66 is actually pretty impressive. I agree with that whole-heartedly! It's remarkable, in fact.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 6, 2020 14:50:14 GMT
This one only counts on an indie scale, to some degree, because the band never had any REAL commercial success. But (as longtimers will recall) I'm historically a big fan of the band Of Montreal. They began as a twee little outfit, moved into an even more twee but bigger and far more ambitious psychedelic kind of thing, then moved into Prince-influenced synth RnB, and then across every other subgenre known to man.
They received some critical acclaim early on. However, their first album to chart in the Top 100 was their eighth album, Hissing Fauna, Are You the Destroyer? Their ninth and 10th albums were their first (and only) Top 40 albums. That was a full 10-year recording career before any chart success at all.
And that, my friends, is what having a cult following and being relentless performers can get you on an indie label! I think it's fair to say a Warner Bros or Capitol would not have tolerated a decade of fruitlessness.
|
|
|
Post by jk on Nov 7, 2020 11:32:26 GMT
I would argue U2 is another example, though there are plenty of people who regard their first few albums highly as well. And certainly they had some great songs on those early albums. But just looking at US chart success, consider:
Boy, 1980, #63 October, 1981, #104 War, 1983, #12 Unforgettable Fire, 1984, #12 Joshua Tree, 1987, #1
Now, whether you want to say the real change was at the third or the fifth album--there were jumps with each--it is safe to say the first two were on another, lower level altogether despite some good material on each.
But they were given the time and space to grow as a band and really grow into themselves. Something that is missing now--it's harder to imagine a major label giving a band that time and money to make multiple albums before they paid off.
Your last paragraph rings true. In the days when I played CDs, I'd hardly ever listen to Boy and October -- and only a little more frequently to War. The big three for me were/are TUF, TJT and Achtung Baby, although some of the later albums are not far behind.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Nov 7, 2020 12:16:18 GMT
Pink Floyd - Now, I know there are fans of the original Syd Barrett era of the band, and that's fine. But, I highly doubt Pink Floyd would've been rock royalty had they continued with that path. I think Piper at the Gates of Dawn is decent, but in recent years, I find myself listening to the Syd version of the group less and less. And, the band was sort of listless after firing Syd, and didn't really find their footing until the 1971 album Meddle. Good topic, kds, and I wanted to comment on The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn. I think it is an excellent album, with the brilliant Syd Barrett at his creative best. On a side note, I continue to wish "Arnold Layne" and "See Emily Play" would've been included on the album. In keeping with the thread topic, I think TPATGOD does deserve legendary status. The album was critically acclaimed and went Top 10 in the U.K. though it didn't sell well in the U.S.A. Wasn't/isn't it popular with other musicians like David Bowie and Robyn Hitchcock? There haven't been many albums like it, and as you mentioned, Pink Floyd themselves eventually gravitated in another direction. However, from what I've read, didn't Syd and maybe this album create some kind of spark, lay the groundwork, or provide the inspiration for their future work. Yes, in some ways TPATGOD itself was a one-off, but its influence - and specifically Syd's - remained with the band forever.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Nov 7, 2020 18:43:12 GMT
Pink Floyd - Now, I know there are fans of the original Syd Barrett era of the band, and that's fine. But, I highly doubt Pink Floyd would've been rock royalty had they continued with that path. I think Piper at the Gates of Dawn is decent, but in recent years, I find myself listening to the Syd version of the group less and less. And, the band was sort of listless after firing Syd, and didn't really find their footing until the 1971 album Meddle. Good topic, kds, and I wanted to comment on The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn. I think it is an excellent album, with the brilliant Syd Barrett at his creative best. On a side note, I continue to wish "Arnold Layne" and "See Emily Play" would've been included on the album. In keeping with the thread topic, I think TPATGOD does deserve legendary status. The album was critically acclaimed and went Top 10 in the U.K. though it didn't sell well in the U.S.A. Wasn't/isn't it popular with other musicians like David Bowie and Robyn Hitchcock? There haven't been many albums like it, and as you mentioned, Pink Floyd themselves eventually gravitated in another direction. However, from what I've read, didn't Syd and maybe this album create some kind of spark, lay the groundwork, or provide the inspiration for their future work. Yes, in some ways TPATGOD itself was a one-off, but its influence - and specifically Syd's - remained with the band forever. While I don't share your enthusiasm for Syd's output, I will agree that the debut was influential. But, the main reason I included it in this topic is because I think fans who lean more towards the classic lineup might be less inclined to consider Piper legendary. (This is also based on some time I spent on Floyd MBs in the late 90s / early 00s).
|
|