Jump to content
Barking Spiders

Debut stinker followed by a stonker

Recommended Posts

those whose first is generally seen as a total stinker which almost put you off them but next came their stonking sophomore effort and from then on you've stuck with them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this counts, due to the artist having a previous career with the band, but...……...

Lou Reed's first solo album was not up to much, but the follow up "Transformer" was a classic.

Helped having Bowie and Ronson on board I guess!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was never a big fan of the Clash's White Riot but loved everything (up to the final album) they did from there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

not realy a Stinker... but Motorheads first album (although didnt get released till later on... or the On Parole versions of the tracks) with them finding their feet.. Then followed up by the Stonker that is Over Kill... 'prolly my fav Motorhead album. Such a change in pace and dynamic.

Edited by PaulThePlug
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ministry started as a pretty underwhelming synthpop outfit in the early eighties. With their second album 'twitch' they leaned far darker and more 'wave', introducing Paul Barker who would take them in a far more industrial direction.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faith No More’s debut ‘Introduce yourself’ is dog stinky poo, their next effort ‘The Real Thing’ is amazing!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, paul_5 said:

Faith No More’s debut ‘Introduce yourself’ is dog stinky poo, their next effort ‘The Real Thing’ is amazing!

1. You are bat guano crazy

2. You missed a record.

The real thing is a great record but Patton shouldn't have sung it so nasal. Chuck was amazing on Introduce yourself and We care a Lot, like a different band as it were. 

Edited by Bolo
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had the pleasure of listening to some of Rob Zombies early recordings once, glad I dont have to again. 
 

Supports the theory that everyone should be given a chance tho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one seems to have much to say about the debuts from PJ Harvey, Amy Winehouse and Nirvana. Have to admit I've never listened to any of them! But very very happy with the three follow ups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ricky Rioli said:

No one seems to have much to say about the debuts from PJ Harvey, Amy Winehouse and Nirvana. Have to admit I've never listened to any of them! But very very happy with the three follow ups.

Hmm, Dont know about the first two but Bleach was a classic, eclipsing Nirvanas later work IMO. i guess this is another one f them subjective threads

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don’t like the first Red Hot Chili Peppers album but I really like the George Clinton produced Freaky Styley.

Bleach by Nirvana is probably my favourite Nirvana album. It is also widely critically acclaimed so not one I would think is easily dismissed as a stinker. 

Also, I dislike all four of the first Pantera albums pre Cowboys from Hell!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ricky Rioli said:

No one seems to have much to say about the debuts from PJ Harvey, Amy Winehouse and Nirvana. Have to admit I've never listened to any of them! But very very happy with the three follow ups.

No real knowledge of the other two, but Amy’s ‘Frank’ is IMHO a great debut album. I bought it shortly after it’s release after hearing one track. Very different to the follow up ‘Back to Black’ and more rooted in her jazz background, but don’t let that put you off. 😉

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ricky Rioli said:

No one seems to have much to say about the debuts from PJ Harvey, Amy Winehouse and Nirvana. Have to admit I've never listened to any of them! But very very happy with the three follow ups.

A vote here for Harvey's Dry. I liked it when it came out -- it was quite well-received, as I remember, so I wasn't exactly swimming against the tide -- but I think it is terrific when I listen to it now.

Outside of personal antipathy and taste, I doubt there would be much of a consensus that Harvey or Nirvana started weak and became strong. The follow-ups, as you rightly indicate, are magnificent, so it says a lot that they do not really eclipse their precursors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Roger2611 said:

I was never a big fan of the Clash's White Riot but loved everything (up to the final album) they did from there

You heathen!

Their first album was a classic, the second was quite good but it all went downhill from there. 

Personal taste and all that; I was a punk.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dylan's eponymous debut seems to get written off. Freewheelin' is where it really started for most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite the same vein, but I remember the music press at the time really hyping the heck out of the forthcoming debut album by The Sundays, really spreading it on thick they were. So I bought it on the day it came out and couldn't have been more underwhelmed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ricky Rioli said:

No one seems to have much to say about the debuts from PJ Harvey, Amy Winehouse and Nirvana. Have to admit I've never listened to any of them! But very very happy with the three follow ups.

Not trying to be the cool hipster here, but I genuinely loved Frank when it came out. Must dig it back out to see how it has aged.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst not a full-blown stinker, I found Pablo Honey a bit on the ‘shrug-of-the-shoulders’ side when it came out. Creep was interesting, but other than that, not a lot going on. 

As a follow up/second album, I thought The Bends was fabulous... 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bolo said:

1. You are bat guano crazy

2. You missed a record.

The real thing is a great record but Patton shouldn't have sung it so nasal. Chuck was amazing on Introduce yourself and We care a Lot, like a different band as it were. 

I don't like the Real Thing much but FNM hit the target every time with the rest. Just don't like Patton's nasal vocals on it but what a turnaround on thereafter.

Underworld Mk1's stuff was pretty uninspiring but then came Mk2 with Dubnoheadwithmybassman which is a bona fide techno, whatever classic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FM

Indiscreet - meh

Tough it Out - sublime AOR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saxon

Saxon - meh

Wheels of Steel - classic metal

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IME if subsequent albums are better than the debut, it is because there has been a major change in the line-up of the band accompanied by new song writers, or a general change in musical direction, and even then it is highly subjective.

For instance is synth-pop of Depeche Mode's "Speak & Spell" a lesser album than the much darker "Construction Time Again"?

Similarly the Cure's "Three Imaginary Boys" and "17 Seconds"? Apart from Robert Smith's singing you wouldn't know that they were from the same band.

Someone once said something along the lines of: bands spend 10 years making their debut album and 10 months for the follow up. 

So it's not surprising that there's the "difficult second album" syndrome.

For me a lot of the time if I prefer a later album to a band's debut, it's usually because that's the point at which I discovered them and I'm more familiar with it, rather than it really being better.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Bleach fan here! As great and significant as the follow-ups were, Bleach encapsulates what I want from a grunge-rock band much more. It sounds like it was birthed in a garage rehearsal space and honed at gigs, while still having that mix of pop and sludge with a huge influence from the bass in the mix that made Nirvana what it was. Cobain sounds more sarcastic and nihilistic on the record too, rather than that strained melancholy he laid all over the rest.

Morbid Angel's first record wasn't even released at first, being issued as a 'demo' after the success of their first couple of releases. I like it, as it has a less polished, more 'heavy metal' sound and feel, but I think it is fair that the death metal juggernaut which followed is considered to have utterly crushed Abominations!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...