When Does An Act Record Its Best Album?

[Satchmo Distel]

Statistically, it must be the first because so many acts only ever record one; but it's also true of some big acts: arguably Chicago, The Band, Nick Drake and perhaps The Smiths (lyrically if not production-wise). Marvin Gaye and Stevie Wonder were 8-10 years into their album careers when they recorded theirs, but they were responding to the greater creative freedom given them in the early 70s in contrast to the mid-60s. I assume very few acts hit their peak after their 10th album. As we've noted before, this is the opposite of classical music where the highest regarded work often comes in the act's last phase (like Mozart's Requiem, and Beethoven's late string quartets). Acts seem to lose their intensity and edge once they've "made it".

[Stumpy Pepys]

I imagine most bands hit their creative peak in their early 20s, in which time they produce their best work, then spending the rest of their musical lives never being able to repeat it.

[Snake Plissken]

I used to always think that usually the second album was the best, because they'd got the hang of the whole thing by then.

[caja-dglh]

Yeah - with Snake. Album one is always stuff gathered over way too long. Then - if it connects - album two is when the stride gets going before drugs & touring destroys at least that phase of the band.

Statistically you cannot include bands that recorded only one album.

[Sporting]

I used to always think that usually the second album was the best, because they'd got the hang of the whole thing by then.

With The Beatles may be an exception,

[caja-dglh]

It is going to be very easy to pick exceptions based on the nature of the question.

[3 Colours Red]

I used to always think that usually the second album was the best, because they'd got the hang of the whole thing by then.

Terence.



Trent.



D'Arby.

[WOM]

I generally subscribe to the '2nd Album' theory. But I can't discount what, I think, HP or Inca said about Vampire Weekend years ago, along the lines of "No matter what else they do, we'll never be as excited about them as we are with this album." Which is generally true. Will anything Lorde does be as monumental as Pure Heroine solely because it was such a fresh surprise? I doubt it. Bands with a fresh or angry or urgent first album rarely recapture that lightning. Nor, frankly, need they try.

[San Bernardhinault]

Dylan was somewhere between 5 and 15 depending. The Beatles were somewhere between 8 and 10 (assuming only UK releases). The Stones were probably somewhere up around 10-ish.

I think, along with the Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye examples, it suggests that while Second Album Theory is mostly good it probably only applies to bands who started once the modern music scene was fairly mature.

[Amor de Cosmos]

I used to always think that usually the second album was the best, because they'd got the hang of the whole thing by then.

There's a theory that some artists — Dylan and Joni were mentioned — deliberately left their best material off their first albums for that reason.

[Snake Plissken]

That would kind of make sense if you have the material, especially when artists were actually a longer term investment.

[steveeeeeeeee]

Not always the case, but I find first albums are typically collections of singles, whereas 2nd albums are more a complete body of work.

Last year Cannibal Corpse released their 15th album, generally regarded as their finest to date.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Occasionally it's their last album, which is probably accidental but you can't be sure. Many would claim both of Elecktra's top 60's bands fall into that category, I suspect Jac Holzman thinks so.

Forever Changes was the original Love line-up's last studio effort. Though it was largely held together by session musicians and Arthur Lee's strung out determination. Similarly there are claims there was a feeling of finality in the studio during The Doors,' LA Woman sessions, though that feels a bit like retrospective romanticism to me. Still they are, by consensus, their best work.

[Duncan Gardner]

Dylan- 6th

Kinks- 5th

Creedence- 4th

[Gangster Octopus]

And Bowie's best is?

[Duncan Gardner]

Whenever Hunky Dory was released

[Satchmo Distel]

There's a theory that some artists — Dylan and Joni were mentioned — deliberately left their best material off their first albums for that reason.

There's also a strong chance that, as with Joni, your first album will be badly produced because you're not a priority act for the label or you haven't sussed out which producer(s) will work best for you (or your boyfriend produces it) and of course you're new to the layout of a recording studio and you don't have enough confidence to give instructions to the engineer.

[Amor de Cosmos]

All true, but kind of covered by getting the "hang of the whole thing" in the original post.

[DPDPDPDP]

I think this will vary widely from artist to artist. A lot of my favourite albums from some favourite artists have been there first albums, eg, Aztec Camera- High Land, Hard Rain; Lloyd Cole - Rattlesnakes; Deacon Blue - Raintown. Other artists’ later work is far superior to their earlier stuff eg, The Beatles, Rolling Stones

[gjw100]

Zero 7 (Henry Binns and Sam Hardaker) wouldn't spring immediately to most people's minds, but I always think of them as the perfect example of a band who appeared to put every great idea they had into their debut album. 'Simple Things' from 2001 was (is) a superb record and there's not a sub-standard track on it. Nothing on any of their subsequent three rather disappointing albums was worthy of a place on that record.

[jwdd27]

Prince - a bit like Bowie, it depends on your opinion and he was prolific, but it's probably between #6 (Purple Rain) and #9 (Sign O The Times). As in it's one of those two, I'm not advocating for Around The World In a Day or Parade, although they're fine records. Plus an honourable mention for #13 Diamonds and Pearls.

But he recorded 42 studio albums, and rarely came close to Diamond and Pearls' standard in albums 14-42.
He was only 33/34 when that one was released.

[Various Artist]

And Bowie's best is?

The Best of Bowie

</partridge>

[Sits]

I generally subscribe to the '2nd Album' theory. But I can't discount what, I think, HP or Inca said about Vampire Weekend years ago, along the lines of "No matter what else they do, we'll never be as excited about them as we are with this album." Which is generally true. Will anything Lorde does be as monumental as Pure Heroine solely because it was such a fresh surprise? I doubt it. Bands with a fresh or angry or urgent first album rarely recapture that lightning. Nor, frankly, need they try.

The Stone Roses are another example of this.

[Various Artist]

There's also the issue – more of one for bands than solo artists, to be fair – of personnel changes that can make or break a group in terms of their balance, their songwriting, musical abilities and production capabilities etc. Is Rumours Fleetwood Mac's best album, for instance? It's certainly by far their most popular, which isn't necessarily the same thing of course, but counting them as the same band as Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac who started off in the late '60s then they were about a decade in and on roughly their 12th album at that point. It's fair to say though that it required the arrival of Buckingham & Nicks to spark thing off. On the other hand, you can equally claim that for that lineup it was only the second album.

Or to take the example of their contemporaries Pink Floyd, one of the few mainstream acts with a similarly convoluted personnel history, the upheavals around Syd Barrett were long past by the time they hit their hottest streak but they certainly informed it. The Dark Side of the Moon is their 8th album, Wish You Were Here their 9th, The Wall their 11th.

Depeche Mode had at least two false-starts in that initial songwriter Vince Clarke left after their debut album and their second album was more or less Martin Gore trying to write like him, so it's only from album #3 (or, again, the second album for this iteration of the band) that the latter starts to find a distinct voice and replacement instrumentalist Alan Wilder starts to come to the fore in the studio. The really hot streak lasts from album #5 (Black Celebration) to #8(Songs of Faith and Devotion). And Violator ends with a song (Clean) inspired by the bassline in Pink Floyd's One of These Days. What goes around comes around...

[jwdd27]

The Stone Roses are another example of this.

It reminds me of Joseph Heller's line, when asked why he hadn't written anything as good as Catch-22 - "neither has anyone else".

The Stone Roses should count as album #1.5, as they'd already recorded an album in 1985 with Martin Hannett, featuring a few of the same songs, but weren't happy with the sound and it was unreleased at the time. So they had another 4 years to iron things out, and then got the perfect producer in an old hippy John Leckie, while Hannett gained more suitable employment for a raging drug addict on Happy Mondays' Bummed (album #2, their best IMO).