Forum menu
Is the answer ‘All of the bands ever’ ?
Everyone has a lifetime of ideas for album one, then 12 months interspersed with touring etc to come up with the next one.
To be fair as the op, I didn't pitch it as 'bands that were great and then went downhill' but it's kind of gone that way.
I was just thinking of great debut songs/Albums/releases and celebrating them. 👍
Difficult not to compare it I suppose.
Rolling Stones, brilliant up to and including Exile. After that, not so much.
Arcade Fire – Funeral
Yeah it probably is their best, but to me they're a band that has stayed very strong throughout their later albums. Probably helps that they've taken their time over each.
Pixies up to Doolittle
Depeche Mode up to songs of faith and devotion
Wedding present up to George Best
Snow patrol up to Final Straw
Probably most bands I listened to in the late 80's early 90's have got shit as they aged.
Foo Fighters , (RIP Taylor) first few albums were brilliant, but after that just churned out the same old songs album after album.
Marillion -The Fish era was sublime, Market Square Hero's/Punch and Judy. Once fish left and Hogarth carried on they did one decent album (Seasons End) and then just humdrum forgettable stuff.
Before the bland syrupiness of Simply Red, the beautifully simple and raw Frantic Elevators:
+1 for Fleetwood mac. Then Peter Green left ......
Anyone remember the Incredible string Band? First 3 or 4 albums fantastic then they discovered Scientology .....
Stone temple pilots
and
Fronted by Scott Weiland that some might be more familiar with from Velvet Revolver
I'm a big STP fan, but for god sake do not listen to this.....
For Dorset_Knob - (great choice) Although I actually prefer the Turn To Red EP 😉
Fleetwood mac. Then Peter Green left …
I saw a documentary about Peter Green - sounded to me like they were just a dull whiteboy blues band early on. Not that their later stuff did much for me personally, but at least there was originality there.
I was just thinking of great debut songs/Albums/releases and celebrating them.
Yes indeed, that's what I thought. At least one person actually read your post anyway 😛
Biffy and Muse mostly. Muse genuinely seem to have forgotten/to no longer understand what made them great- I don't mean that in the usual "change is bad" way, but every time they say "we're going to be super heavy" or "this one's going to really have that Muscle Museum vibe" or whatever, it just never does. They seem to mean it too...
Biffy, meh, just evolved and I don't like what it evolved into as much. Those first albums were incredible. But at least it feels like they know what they're doing.
I saw a documentary about Peter Green – sounded to me like they were just a dull whiteboy blues band early on.
Hang the heretic!
Marillion, first two brilliant albums then mediocrity from Misplaced Childhood.
The Verve. Up to and including A Northern Soul, although that seemed quite a departure I did really like it, apart from "This is Music" which I have mixed feelings about, seemed to be over hyping itself.
The Gravity Grave single was a favourite, A Man Called Sun is unbelievably blissed out mellow! No Come Down was also a favourite once I got past how different the USA Mix of Blue sounded.
Never liked anything of theirs from when the drugs stopped working, it was just too bitter sweet 😉
The Orb: Little Fluffy Clouds, the Blue Room, UFOrb, Aubrey Mixes, Beyond the Ultraworld, Orblivion, Pomme Fritz. Also bought Bicycles and Tricycles but just never found as much enthusiasm for it.
Joy Division who then turned into new order and the first couple of albums were fantastic but then the 90s happened and I just couldn't really listen to new order. They still did make some ok stuff but it just wasn't for me.
Jane's addiction...the ep, then first 2 albums were marvelous and then they just went shite. Perry Farrell's solo stuff was so bad it's shameful.
Stone roses...first album was a master piece...second was like a naff homage to led zep...I'm sure they were going to release a third album a few years ago but the teaser songs were so bad they must have seen sence and canned it.
I quite like the idea that people don't consistently like a band's output. I'd imagine that for everyone on this thread bemoaning the change in direction, there's an equal group of people complaining that the earlier music wasn't to their taste, and how much better their latest album is.
'tis a good thing.
Shame this thread has taken a mildly negative turn from its intention, which was-
Bands that you love.
Tracks from debut singles/EPs/Albums/Downloads
It happens... 😂
Reason I thought of it originally was I was listening to 6 music and they played 'There's no other way' by Blur. A fantastic single (not their debut quite but it made me think of it. 'She's so high' was the debut) and of course they went on to be massive and all of them still are (except maybe the drummer who nobody knows his name...😉)
In fact, if you look at how Damon sings in she's so high, you could argue that Liam Gallagher nicked his stance directly. 😊
OK, towards the original intent. This was a Peel band, I'd heard some of their songs and session tracks on the radio and they had this new album out. I was 15 and on a shopping trip to town I went into Our Price and bought it, on cassette. I unwrapped the cellophane and passed the cassette to my mum who was in shotgun seat (although in 1984 she didn't have to call it, she just got it, that was the way), and we slipped it into the cassette stereo radio player of my Dad's car. And got 2 minutes and 11 seconds of "William, it was really nothing"
To me, it had everything - shimmering jangly guitars, the bouncing funky bass, just the opening line of lyrics of the rain falling hard on a humdrum town - summed up Reading in November perfectly. Although it came 2 years later - I knew the lyrics to Panic at that point; songs that 'say nothing to ME about MY life'. Well, these ones did. And the voice, ascending to the final falsetto finish.....and then straight into "What difference...."
Although I'd heard this before, I was absolutely hooked not just by how good it was but the effect on my parents' faces too - WTF is this was etched big.
By the time we'd got home and Handsome Devil had come on - I was, to my Neil Diamond and Elkie Brooks listening parents at least, a musical outcast; clearly not right. And that's just where I wanted to be.
They went on to be relatively successful, I think, before splitting up. Shame he turned into a dickhead (not my Dad, the other bloke "in the car" that Day)
Blackflag
Free Member
Black flag, I prefer the stuff pre Rollins so would have to say “the first four years” is their best work. Rollins brings in a shouty intensiveness that is sometimes too muchAmen to that. For me Dez was the best vocalist they ever had, followed by Keith, then Ron.
I can listen up to and including my war. After that I find them boring. The sludge of the output that came later is not my thing.
Didn't stop me getting a black flag tattoo at 17 though 🤣
Another vote for the manics. Peaked at the holy bible. Though I'd argue everything must go and it's b-sides are/is fantastic but the sound is just not the same.
Oasis is one. Not the same after the cocaine stopped and bonehead and guigsy left.
Pawel jam. After vitalogy they got so boring. Just boring.
David Essex's first single is a corker
@Blackflag - I love that Instigators album - played it recently and it's still brilliant. I thought I was the only one! Got the original vinyl.
Stereophonics first album was excellent. They've never matched 'Local Boy in the Photograph' since
Exactly as @blackflag says
You have all your creative impulses from your entire life to draw on for your debut. You then get to hone it for a few years of constant touring / gigging. The wheat gets cut from the chaff over and over again. By the time you hit the studio its the culmination of years of graft and inspiration.
You then have 12 months to record your follow up…
The rest of their work, imo, just seems boring
Oh yeah, the manic's early EPs - Motown junk, you love us, all the courting of controversy. Went downhill with their first album 😁
For me, I can't argue with the Stone Roses (even though I quite liked the second album)
There's also The Fratellis - Costello Music was glorious, since then it's a lot calmer.
Primal Scream.. Velocity Girl (from an EP I think) is such a wonderful archetype for 90s indie, then they found house and made Screamadelica... then it all went a bit rawk n rowl.
Does it ever go the other way? I'm struggling to think of a single band where I prefer the later stuff.
Not trying to be negative, but I remember when the Manics popped up and I took an instant dislike to them as cartoon punk tryhards.
Was I wrong? I'll admit I was a raging snob at the time, but I did have pretty good judgement.
Does it ever go the other way? I’m struggling to think of a single band where I prefer the later stuff.
For me Pink Floyd, someone else pointed out that Fleetwood Mac earliest form was a pretty generic (and let's be honest - forgettable) blues band, that could never had come up with The Chain or Go Your Own Way, and of course The Beatles. Radiohead from OK computer onwards have never stopped evolving - I think to keep getting better, I'll bet there's some who think they peaked at The Bends.
Was I wrong?
In every universe (expect this one) I should like MSP, they absolutely fall bang in the middle of "music I should like". I've tried a couple of albums and never really got any of it.
Does it ever go the other way? I’m struggling to think of a single band where I prefer the later stuff.
On that note, I was wondering if anyone had actually heard "Underneath the Radar" (1988) or "Change the Weather" (1989)... cos in 1994 came
and the brilliance continued (in fits and starts) until 2016
Does it ever go the other way? I’m struggling to think of a single band where I prefer the later stuff.
The Beatles? Sergeant Pepper generally regarded more highly than the poppier first albums
The Beach Boys? Pet Sounds
Nirvana? Bleach -> Nevermind
For me Underworld never did anything as amazing as dubnobass...
It's up there with the Orbital album I posted before as the GOAT.
Their later stuff was decent, if you liked that sort of thing. IMO obvs.
Does it ever go the other way? I’m struggling to think of a single band where I prefer the later stuff.
If you count "later stuff" as being later within their original era of mass appeal and cultural relevancy (not decades later when reformed or still touring), then I'd say yes.
The Stones' Exile on Main Street.
Beach Boys' Pet Sounds and Surf's Up.
Someone up there said Pulp got better with age. Have to agree with that too.
The Beatles? Sergeant Pepper generally regarded more highly than the poppier first albums
The Beatles were brilliant from start to finish. There I came out.
Underworld never did anything as amazing as dubnobass…
Some of the stuff they released on their website was well up there. Plus Second Toughest, Boucoup Fish, they were pretty consistently fab I reckon.
And, how can you not love this!
Anyway, maybe it's just me 😛
U2 up to and including under a blood red sky
And, how can you not love this!
That's very pleasant, yeah.
Not saying Second Toughest... and their subsequent stuff was bad, just I really loved the sleazy, mid-paced, nocturnal but still euphoric feel of dubnobass...
Their later stuff just felt a bit colder and harder and not my bag, baby.
Just thinking about being on the dancefloor at the Soundshaft when the DJ dropped Cowgirl or Rez, it'd always go off.
To stick to the the spirit of the original question REM. I like most everything they have ever done but for me Murmur, Reckoning and most especially Fables Of The Reconstruction will always mean the most to me.
Does it ever go the other way? I’m struggling to think of a single band where I prefer the later stuff.
Nirvana? Bleach -> Nevermind
I've generally thought that few bands ever make a really good first album, and that the best stuff happens between albums 2-4 but rarely later than album4. The first album may have great tunes (and great intent) on it but is often hampered by lack of money, lack of time in the studio or recording expertise. It seems natural to me that Nirvana's second album was far better than the first because of that, and also because of the presence of very talented producer Butch Vig.
You have all your creative impulses from your entire life to draw on for your debut. You then get to hone it for a few years of constant touring / gigging. The wheat gets cut from the chaff over and over again. By the time you hit the studio its the culmination of years of graft and inspiration.
You then have 12 months to record your follow up…
So true. I'm not an Oasis fan, but their first album has energy and edge. After that its just flabby pap. The first couple of REM albums have a raw edge to them but then they get less interesting. Arcade Fire's debut was a great piece of work but nothing since has had more than a couple of highlights.
It's not always true - Someone mentioned Underworld upthread - of course they'd had various iterations before Dubnobasswithmyheadman (and personally loved second toughest and thought BarbaraBarbara was a real return to form in 2016).
I think with some bands a single album of great music is enough. Sigur Ros Takk felt magical at the time, but I never really felt I needed a lot more (though bought their later stuff at the time).
And some bands/artists develop over time - MAH's LCD Soundsystem special last week had an interview with James Murphy where he said he didn't think he had enough talent when he was younger - he needed to mature.
I think Ezra Furman continues to put out album after album of great music. As does Gruff Rhys.
Has anyone done it the other way round? I mean, getting into a band late, and then discovering that you prefer their earlier stuff? I did this with Carter USM- I was vaguely aware they existed in their heyday, but never clicked at all, then I went and saw them in 96 and they blew me away. Got their mini album World Without Dave and love it to this day. They put out one more album- which was alright- but I was working backwards all the time from then.