Seems like cheating to replace “horrible” with “fairly mediocre.” Lots of bands weren’t at the top of their game when they released their first album.
Most of the examples that come to mind aren’t really that bad, unless comparing them to their sophomore effort. I almost posted The Stooges first album…which has “I wanna be your Dog” and “1969”! There’s nothing wrong with that album except Fun House is ten times better. There are a whole lot of totally awesome second albums out there.
Seriously. I used to run with that album in my discman, and there’s all sorts of terrific songs on it.
I gotta go with I Saw Her Standing There from Please Please Me, the Beatles’ debut album. That ‘1, 2, 3, 4!’ as the opening song just tells you this band is here to stay.
I like all regular Hüsker Dü albums, but their debut “Land Speed Record” is just 20 minutes of indistinguishable noise played at breakneck speed, recorded live. Now, I like noise rock, that’s why I like Hüsker Dü, but I could never listen to “Land Speed Record” a second time.
Squeeze’s debut album was fairly dreadful despite being produced by John Cale. Apparently the band wasn’t crazy about it either, as evidenced by the following comment (via Wikipedia):
"According to Glenn Tilbrook the process for making their first album was rewarding but also frustrating: “For me, U.K. Squeeze wasn’t really very representative of what we were doing at the time. When we worked with John Cale in the studio, he threw out all the songs that we had written. When most bands make their first album, they go in and do a lot of stuff that’s been going down well in their sets; well, that wasn’t the case with us. He told us to write new songs – which we did. He was an inspirational guy to work with, but I felt that it was almost like we were writing for what he wanted rather than what the band itself was.”
Genesis’ first album “From Genesis to Revelation” had a few nice tunes, but is probably at the bottom of most Genesis fan’s list.
Without disagreeing with any of these examples, it’s kind of amazing that this happens. By the time an artist gets a recording contract, they’ve been around a while, and SHOULD have some decent stuff in their repertoire. It’s the second album that’s usually the hard one: all the good stuff went on #1, and now they have to either use the rejects from that or write new stuff.
Yeah, you’d think so, but when I think of my favorite bands, a lot of times the second and third albums eclipsed the first album. It seems to be about 50-50. Gish was a great album, but Siamese Dream and Mellon Collie that followed were even greater. Sleater-Kinney’s debut was mediocre, but showed great promise. The follow-ups, Call The Doctor and Dig Me Out made me fall in love with them–an absolutely perfect and powerful band. Radiohead had a so-so debut with Pablo Honey, but the next three albums, at least, were top-level work. Nirvana’s Bleach was certainly solid, but not the breakthrough classic Nevermind was. Etc.
I think while perhaps the great first album/sophomore slump or steadily worse albums arc might be more common (though I’m not sure it is), it seems the arc of mediocre-to-decent debut to greater albums is also a common arc.
I can’t think of an example, but I need to go on record as saying Rush’s Self-Titled debut is a good album. Not remotely ‘horrible’.
Not rock, but I can’t help but bring up John Denver.
After going solo and signing up with RCA Records, his first album (Rhymes & Reasons) didn’t sell well and peaked at 148. His second album flopped even more. His third album didn’t even chart.
RCA was frustrated and ready to drop him. He released his fourth album - Poems, Prayers & Promises - and it peaked at #6.
Yeah, the couple songs I’ve heard from early Rush are definitely warmed-over Zeppelin, but a little warmed-over Zeppelin isn’t horrible in the hands of Rush.
I came in here to mention ELO, too.
Though I’d say that they didn’t really hit their strike until their fourth album (Eldorado)…
(I think that’s meant in reply to @kenobi_65 post above the post of mine you replied to.)
I would agree with that; the run of four albums from Eldorado to Out of the Blue is their best work, and the core of the classic ELO sound. But, at least IMO, ELO II and On the Third Day (particularly the latter) are very listenable, if a different sort of sound compared to where they then evolved to.
Whoops! My mistake; yes.
What rock group has four old men who don’t even sing?
XxXxX Mount Rushmore XxXxX
If I had more ambition, I would start a thread about their first album…
We’ll see. It’s gonna be HOT this week. Nothin’ else to do.
Exactly. Hüsker Dü are one of my absolute favorite bands, but I don’t think I managed to listen to Land Speed Record all the way through, even when I had the CD (which wasn’t even divided into individual songs, just had two tracks for the two sides of the vinyl). There’s a box set of early Dü that I never bothered to pick up because it all comes from that era. I don’t mind noise…I like a lot of music that sounds like someone threw the china cabinet down the stairs, like Einstürzende Neubauten or Captain Beefheart or Throbbing Gristle, but Land Speed Record is just screaming and indistinguishable power chords.
Back to the OP…pre-acclaimed solo career, Tori Amos had a group called Y Kant Tori Read, whose sole album is reportedly terrible (and a collector’s item now).
And Lou Reed’s first solo album was basically blandly-produced, warmed-over Velvets outtakes. His second, Transformer, was tons better.
Early Blue Oyster Cult is pretty weak - sounds like a bad biker bar band. Nothing really good. Not even really a hint of what was to come.
There ought to be a thread about bands whose second album is just a remake of the first one. Van Halen II would be the standard bearer, but Boston Don’t Look Back is a top contender.
Now, it so happens that both of those are actually good albums, but they are near-clones.