Musicians/Bands who's first release was by far and away their best

First of all, not every song on there was a hit. It was a groundbreaking album no doubt.

Biggie "Ready to Die"
Tupac "Me Against the World"
Eric B and Rakim "Paid in Full"
EPMD "Strictly Business"
Jay Z "The Blueprint"
Outcast "Southernplayalistic"
LL Cool J "My Radio" and "I'm Bad"
Public Enemy, second album can't think of name
Tribe Called Quest "The Low End Theory"

Take your pick

If these don't satisfy I could name dozens more.

 

Don't do my boys like that...you gotta mention Bone Thugs-N-Harmony's E. 1999 Eternal with such tracks as...

E. 1999
Eternal
Budsmokers Only
Tha Crossroads
Mo Murda
1st Of Da Month

...all making radio play.

 

That was Smeg. You would think that a Kiwi would realize that Australia is also south of the equator.

 

You're right, in that I am not a big fan of rap. In my opinion, License To Ill is the best rap album. If I were heading out to buy a rap album now, it would be that one. You are free to disagree. Taste in music is purely subjective. There are those who think Brittney Spears is the greatest musicain ever. Some people like the Beatles. Many regulars around here love the Dave Matthews Band. None of them are wrong (except the people who like the Beatles, I HATE the Beatles )

 

Okay that's fair. But say its your favorite, not the best. I know its subjective, but somethings can be insulting.

 

Strong argument...I quit.

 

I can't believe Jay-Z's album was just listed side-by-side with the other guys on that list.

 

Dude....none of you guys know anything about rap.

The best rap EVER is "just a friend" from the diabolical Biz Markie

 

My point is anyone saying any album is the best is, in reality, only saying it is their favorite. Either that or they are looking at something like album sales, radio requests, or reviews, in which case they are saying it is someone else's favorite.

 

The Texas Longhorns are my favorite college team. Are they the best? Even more realevant, if Jack in the Box was my favorite reastaurant, I would still look like a fool if I said it was the best.

 

The Longhorns is a bad analogy, because there is an objective way to measure College Football teams, they play games. If you think Jack in the Box is the best restaurant, then it is your favorite restaurant. There is no objective way to measure food preference either.

 

No, not true. I, for example, like Elvis Costello more than Dylan. Elvis Costello is my favourite singer-songwriter. However, I am willing to concede that Dylan is a *better* and more significant songwriter than Elvis Costello. I just happen to like Elvis best.

That's the thing. That's why I don't agree that all musical taste is subjective. I mean, you not liking the Beatles is *valid for you*, but they're still, objectively, the best band ever. It's impossible for you to argue convincingly against that point, even if you don't like them.

Why do people still listen to Beethoven and not the dude down the street who wrote a couple of symphonies? Because Beethoven was, objectively, better. And the fact that the dude down the street might have had his own fans doesn't change that.

By the way, I try to forget that Australia exists as much as possible. Sorry Smeg.

 

Nobody mentioned the Sex Pistols.

Good call on Candlebox.

Bad call on The Cars. "Candy-O", yeah.

I almost feel like mentioning Garbage, but their second one is decent, I guess.

Living Colour maybe, although I liked the song "Type".

 

I disagree. It only means that his music appealed to more people/more influential people. There is no set way to test if one piece of music is better than another. The Birthday Song, for example, has outlasted plenty of music, but I would not say that it is because the music is better. The great thing about art, at least IMO, is that it affects everyone differently. It is up to me to determine what is the best music, just as it is up to you. The same is true of any matter of taste.

 

No. It's up to you to determine what you *like* more. It's up to certain other factors to determine what's accepted as 'the best'. There is a critical musical canon or a literary canon for a reason.

I'm all for anti-elitism in music or any art, generally. That's cool. But there are certain things that are obvious. Shakespeare is better than Jackie Collins. He just *is* better. He writes more fluently, using a greater vocabulary, with more timeless subject matter. Now, you can *like* Jackie Collins better all you want. But she isn't a better writer.

That's like the Beatles. They are better than Herman's Hermits. They just *are* better. They're more creative, more innovative, they have greater longevity. And you can *like* 'Mrs. Brown You've Got a Lovely Daughter' more than 'She Loves You' but that would have nothing to do with any measurement of their relative worth.

Now, where this gets dodgy is when there are two bands that are both pretty awesome. So, for example, I would say that the competition between, say, the Kinks and the Rolling Stones is a tough one, and it would depend on how well their respective proponents argued for them (Batman vs. ?). *That* would be a matter of taste. That's why some of these arguments get boiled down to the 'it's subjective' thing. But a lot of the time... well, these things *aren't * subjective. Because some things *are* better than others, even in art. *Especially* in art.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

No. We'll just have to agree that you're wrong about this.

 

your mean

 

Sorry Hydra but I agree with dimsie.

I mean I have several Bob Dylan CDs and I have several Goo Goo Dolls CDs. I can listen to the Goo Goo Dolls CDs a lot more than I can the Dylan CDs.

That doesn't mean that the Goo Goo Dolls stuff is better than Dylan; it just means to me that it is more pleasing to my ear. However, you can tell the greatness and originality of Dylan by listening to his stuff.

To me that is why pop music is something that is not enduring for the most part. It is catchy and everything but it isn't original for the most part because there are other acts that sound the same (Backstreet Boys, N Sync, 98 degrees, etc). I guess some will take that as a slam, but I don't think in 20 years, people will still be listening to those groups' albums. They will still be listening to Dylan, Beatles, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, etc. as well as Beck, Radiohead, Smashing Pumpkins, etc. Okay, so those last 3 are my "projections", but you get the jist.