For example 1999 is probably his best work. Purple Rain was his breakthru.

The release BEFORE the "sellout" is usuallly their best music.

Sheer Heart Attack is the best Queen lp,
released right BEFORE the biggie, Night At The Opera.

1999 is his best.

Another example of this was with Madonna's first album. It was easily better than the breakthrough Like a Virgin and stood as her best until Like a Prayer.

origmnd said:

Sign O The Times.....hello

lilgish said:

1999 is better.

Moonbeam said:

this from a man who doesn't like the Beatles

lilgish said:

All the more reason to trust my opinion!

1999 is the best album of all time.

Act like ya know!
[Edited 8/30/05 19:48pm]

I agree. I think the critical success usually comes first, then the public jumps on. This is true in alot of genres.

Nas
Best Work: Illmatic (1994)
Breakthru: It Was Written (1996)

Jay-Z
Best Work: Reasonable Doubt (1996)
Breakthru: In My Lifetime, Vol 1 (1997)

Michael Jackson:
Best Work: Off The Wall (1979)
Breakthru: Thriller (1982)

lilgish said:

You got a point.....but I know you generally agree with the sentiment of the thread. Mother's Milk. Need I say more?

Stax said:

Yea, u got me there, it is a pattern for some artists.

Could it be an artist gets discouraged
cause his work doesnt get acknowledged
to their "satisfaction", and then turn to
a more commercially driven lp?

origmnd said:

I think can be part of it. The other part is just... consumers being late adopters.. getting the NEXT album after everyone has said how great they are.

This might happen to Arcade Fire.

lilgish said:

yeah i think Sign o the times is his best work

I love making sweeping generalizations, but I can't agree with this one. A couple of blindingly obvious examples:

Dylan's finest albums (Highway 61 Revisited, Blonde on Blonde, Blood on the Tracks, Love and Theft [yes, that last one belongs here I think]) came after his breakthrough - given you consider Bringing It All Back Home his big step into public consciousness.

The Stones' greatest period (Beggar's Banquet through Exile...) were recorded well after they initially became popular.


What I will agree with is that early recordings often have a raw quality, a crudeness that artist's hardcore fans tend to treasure. For example, The Fall's first album is still probably my favourite album by them. Even though they were kinda underdeveloped and green and the guitar sound is totally anemic through the entire album, it's got a coarse vulgarity that I find endlessly entertaining.

lilgish said:

Could be - but I don't know if a big commercial break is in the cards for them. Not that they haven't accomplished a lot already - loads of acclaim, the album is selling, the shows are selling out (though I was able to get decent tickets two days after they went on sale here).

But it seems all too possible that they'll end up being one of those bands that never improve on their debut...
[Edited 8/30/05 20:40pm]

damosuzuki said:

Yea, The Stones bunk this whole theory. They were still kicking ass till some girls and Tatoo.


and may I add Paul's Boutique from the Beasties.
[Edited 8/30/05 20:46pm]

lilgish said:

exceptions to the rule. For every Stones there are ten INXS'
[Edited 8/30/05 21:27pm]