Page 7 of 7
Re: Bands with One Album That is Much Better Than the Others
Posted: Fri October 17, 2014 7:07 pm
by Lament
stip wrote:Kevin Davis wrote:Yeah, I can't fathom there aren't hundreds of exceptions. In addition to what you are saying, I think with widely recognizable artists it is easier to identify a sort of widespread "perception" of certain records, which helps steer the conversation away from just being a list of artists that people (meaning individuals) generally dislike but happened to produce one record that they can tolerate. I think the only interesting spin on this conversation almost has to involve a recognition of these more widespread perceptions, such that it looks at artists who really managed to make a splash -- not just commercially but also critically and/or culturally -- with one record but otherwise ultimately ceased to be relevant. Otherwise the thread just becomes a list of various artists' best albums, or what I described above.
What about Liz Phair?
Liz Phair is a good choice
PryTo would vehemently disagree were he here.
I probably wouldn't though (even though I legitimately enjoy the first five records).
Re: Bands with One Album That is Much Better Than the Others
Posted: Fri October 17, 2014 7:44 pm
by stip
durdencommatyler wrote:stip wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:stip wrote:Hole and Bush
Bush's second album is only marginally worse than their first, I'd say. And some of the individual songs are better than anything on that first record.
yeah, but since we're not talking about game changing songwriting the first album is the one that was the never ending hit factory.
That's true. But I don't see how that fills the thread title requirement.
With all due respect to Greedy Fly, Sixteen Stone is the only Bush album anyone will ever need.
Now I want to go listen to machinehead.
Re: Bands with One Album That is Much Better Than the Others
Posted: Fri October 17, 2014 8:05 pm
by Alex
stip wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:stip wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:stip wrote:Hole and Bush
Bush's second album is only marginally worse than their first, I'd say. And some of the individual songs are better than anything on that first record.
yeah, but since we're not talking about game changing songwriting the first album is the one that was the never ending hit factory.
That's true. But I don't see how that fills the thread title requirement.
With all due respect to Greedy Fly, Sixteen Stone is the only Bush album anyone will ever need.
Now I want to go listen to machinehead.
i don't think people need that
Re: Bands with One Album That is Much Better Than the Others
Posted: Fri October 17, 2014 10:01 pm
by epilogue
stip wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:stip wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:stip wrote:Hole and Bush
Bush's second album is only marginally worse than their first, I'd say. And some of the individual songs are better than anything on that first record.
yeah, but since we're not talking about game changing songwriting the first album is the one that was the never ending hit factory.
That's true. But I don't see how that fills the thread title requirement.
With all due respect to Greedy Fly, Sixteen Stone is the only Bush album anyone will ever need.
Now I want to go listen to machinehead.
Real Talk: I put on Razorblade Suitcase far more often than Sixteen Stone. And that's been true since the album dropped.
More Real Talk: No one needs any Bush album.
Re: Bands with One Album That is Much Better Than the Others
Posted: Sun October 19, 2014 3:52 pm
by LoathedVermin72
durdencommatyler wrote:Kevin Davis wrote:What about Liz Phair?
I really love all of her first three albums. But it's probably fair to say that Exile is far better than the others. I'm just comfortable being the one to say it.
I think I might like her self-titled album just as much as Exile.
Also, all of Hole's albums are really solid.
Re: Bands with One Album That is Much Better Than the Others
Posted: Mon October 20, 2014 1:42 am
by PryTo
Lament wrote:stip wrote:Kevin Davis wrote:Yeah, I can't fathom there aren't hundreds of exceptions. In addition to what you are saying, I think with widely recognizable artists it is easier to identify a sort of widespread "perception" of certain records, which helps steer the conversation away from just being a list of artists that people (meaning individuals) generally dislike but happened to produce one record that they can tolerate. I think the only interesting spin on this conversation almost has to involve a recognition of these more widespread perceptions, such that it looks at artists who really managed to make a splash -- not just commercially but also critically and/or culturally -- with one record but otherwise ultimately ceased to be relevant. Otherwise the thread just becomes a list of various artists' best albums, or what I described above.
What about Liz Phair?
Liz Phair is a good choice
PryTo would vehemently disagree were he here.
I probably wouldn't though (even though I legitimately enjoy the first five records).
Exile seems to fit the description of what the OP was aiming for. It's a great album and really the only one that received widespread acclaim. Not my personal favorite though. For some reason, lots of metal bands come to mind here, but I'm not sure how acclaimed any of those bands were. And you've got bands like the Gin Blossoms. They had one big album and I never heard a peep out of them again. But there were some good little pop tunes on that album: Allison Road, Found Out About You, Hey Jealousy. I wouldn't kick those tunes out of bed for eating crackers. I guess most one-hit wonder bands would fit the description. There were a bunch of bands like that in the 90s -- Matchbox 20, Hootie, and so on. But again, I'm not sure how acclaimed those groups were and none of them lasted long, at least in the mainstream sense. But if the OP was after big acts that put out hit albums and had real careers, I can only think of two that fit the bill.
1. Van Halen - 5150. I'm only counting the Sammy Hagar-era VH here. It was a fantastic album, but the only good one they did with him.
2. AC/DC - Back in Black. Again, I'm only counting Brian Johnson-era AC/DC here. A terrific album, but it was one and done.
Both bands had a song or two afterwards that were decent, and both sold a gajillion followup records and had massive tours. But neither band released another album after these that was anything close to being as good. So I guess if you lose your original, better singer, you may have enough material still in the can to make it work with the new guy. I would not call 5150 or Back in Black the best albums from these bands, but they were easily the best albums released with those singers.
Re: Bands with One Album That is Much Better Than the Others
Posted: Mon October 20, 2014 1:56 am
by Lament
I've missed you around these parts. Hope all is well in the PryTo world.

Re: Bands with One Album That is Much Better Than the Others
Posted: Mon October 20, 2014 2:42 am
by PryTo
Thanks, bud. Life is busy, life is good. Not much time to post these days, but I check in on occasion to make sure McP and Chud are still curmudgeons with hearts of gold.
Re: Bands with One Album That is Much Better Than the Others
Posted: Mon October 20, 2014 2:40 pm
by BigRedLedbetter
Lament wrote:I've missed you around these parts. Hope all is well in the PryTo world.

I second this.
Re: Bands with One Album That is Much Better Than the Others
Posted: Mon October 20, 2014 7:57 pm
by PryTo
BigRedLedbetter wrote:Lament wrote:I've missed you around these parts. Hope all is well in the PryTo world.

I second this.
Awww, thanks guys!
Once this insane semester is behind me, I hope to be posting book-length opinion pieces once again!
BRL, did you go to the Lincoln PJ show?