What's to discuss? The answer is obviously Jason Falkner Presents Author Unknown.

In all seriousness, I can't speak to the Pere Ubu album (it's somewhere in my basement though), but X's Los Angeles wipes the floor with the freaking Cars. So does The Days of Wine and Roses by the Dream Syndicate.

I agree about the first Roxy running out of gas, but side one... whew. What a statement of purpose, what a kick in the balls to bloke-ists everywhere.

I thought about Los Angeles, but I quickly discounted that as a great debut album that was quickly overshadowed by their next two albums. That's just my opinion, but we'll have to assess all our best opinions to reach consensus on this issue.

The Dream Syndicate album was pretty good, from what I recall, but I'm not sold on it being the Greatest Debut Album Ever. I'm willing to continue considering that first Roxy Music album if The People make the case for it.

I don't think X should be penalized for making a completely brilliant, fully formed debut and then improving on it. After all, aren't there Pere Ubu albums you like more than the first?

I agree with you, Oats, I don't think they should be penalized, but I can't help but do so. Yes, I LOVE Pere Ubu's Dub Housing, but that's only one album I love more than their debut, not two. Plus, the reason I love the second Pere Ubu album more than the first has more to do with its tone than the quality of the music. I think the debut X album is fantastic, but for me it lacks the amount of memorable songs compared with the balance in peak quality between the first two Pere Ubu albums.

It goes without saying that this may be among the most difficult Once and For All issues that we've ever tackled. I respect and appreciate your willingness to hash this out. I'm not going to dismiss your suggestion of the first X album. The People may rush to its support, and that would mean something.

I suspect my suggestion will not cut it around here since anytime I’ve brought them up in the past the silence is deafening, but I suggest: MOBY GRAPE!

13 songs by 5 different songwriters in under a half hour. Great playing, great singing and hooks out the wazoo. I don’t think that there’s a bad song on there but some should have been stone cold classics: Hey Grandma, Fall on You, Changes, Come In The Morning, and of course Omaha.

I’d put My Aim Is True in second place (imagine that you haven’t heard it a million times). Even though it’s kind of slick, especially when compared to This Year’s Model (my favorite), it’s another one of those rare albums without a bad track on it, and it’s a pretty spectacular introduction to a new heavy weight contender.

Off topic, and maybe has been covered elsewhere, but the veneration of Pere Ubu I find incomprehensible and have never got anything from them. They reside in a box with the Smiths and other bands that I know Smart People like but which I will never, ever see why.

Roxy got much better after their first album, with apologies to Enophiles, though there are some terrific moments on it, it does not stand up to Stranded or Country Life.

I strongly support the first Clash in either incarnation and put forward the first Pretenders album.

I'm not going to get much support, I foresee for this one, but I think U2 Boy is brilliant, thought so then and think so now.

And what about #1 Record?

The first Pretenders record is right up there, but I take major points off for two of its turds. Is one called "Spaced Invaders," or something like that? Ugh! Then there's a kind of reggae-lite song, if memory serves, that has barely been worn down by my stereo needle.

#1 Record is my favorite Big Star album, but I didn't bother suggesting it because so many Townspeople seem to think themselves too cool to fully appreciate all the wimpy songs throughout. They'd rather listen to those rough song sketches that make up Radio City :)

Yeah. Space Invader. Unfortunate.

This is so funny! You know you're in a rock nerd forum when the initially proposed answer to the question "what was the greatest debut album of all time?" includes The Cars. Give me a break! Sorry to go Gergley on your ass, but the answer is -- very, very obviously -- Meet the Beatles. The answer is even "Please Please Me" or whatever the UK version was called, with all of its cover material filler. The precedent-shattering, groundwork-laying, who-gives-a-crap-about-that-rock-crit-nonsense-they're-just-incredible quality of the better songs on that album vault it to the top of the heap. Period. I scoff at any attempts to name one better. It can't be done.

Pere Ubu! You guys are hilarious!

HVB

misterioso -- I support The Pretenders.

I am swayed by having seen the first incarnation of the band live doing the songs -- incredible.

I was actually going to suggest Please Please Me or Meet the Beatles for at the very least creating the idea that a jaw-dropping debut album is something worth aspiring towards.

BUT, especially with Meet the Beatles you have to contend with subpar material like "Little Child" and "Hold Me Tight."

ON THE OTHER HAND, I don't think something like the first Pretenders album should lose points for having a few tracks that maybe wouldn't fit in during a drive time "More Music Marathon." Yes, most-to-all songs should be excellent. But to me, a great debut album is more about an artist finally getting down what it is he/she's been dying to say, the thing he/she thinks rock has otherwise been direly lacking, and doing so with an urgency that just cannot be denied.

That said, if you guys wanna go with #1 Record, go ahead and watch the sunrise till the cows come home.

Not only do I enjoy the wimpy songs on #1 Record I am a huge fan of the Bee Gees 1st. Anybody wanna arm wrestle?

this is a hard category to pick a clear winner. There are so many to choose from. I can certainly add to and stir up the debate.

My nominations:
Are You Experienced?
The Pretenders
Cheap Trick
My Aim Is True
#1 Record
The Clash
Music From The Big Pink
Bee Gees 1st
Black Sabbath
Please Please Me
Bauhaus' "In The Flat Field"
Outlandos d'Amour

there are so so many... I know I'm drawing a blank on some worthy candidates


Maybe we should do a topic of groups whose first LPs aren't great or are lame but whose second LPs are dynamite. I could pick a few of those too!!

And.. you guys must be from Ohio.. in the Big Easy we don't know from Pere Ubu...

Elvis Presley. Even the cover was GREAT.

Seriously, though, I feel that the citeria of a stunning debut should be defined. Elvis and The Beatles were born out of a singles driven market, and while their debuts may be pretty astonishing, they weren't crafted as albums per se. They were created to satisfy a certain commercial demand. This is why, to me, a vote for Big Star is more plausible as that was intended to be an Album and was created with that in mind. It wasn't simply a collection of what was around. If that makes any sense.

TB

The problem with this is that the artists' subsequent careers tend to affect how you feel about their debuts. The Dream Syndicate album is brilliant, but its category is really Greatest Debut Album By A Band That Never Recorded Anything Afterwards Even Remotely As Good. The Moby Grape album is another great example of this subclass.

It's hard to compare these with Big Pink or Los Angeles or Meet the Beatles, brilliant debuts that give lots of clues to the series of great records that would follow.

And mickavory I lived in thebigeasy for 55 years until moving to KC almst exactly two years ago, and I'm probably the most dedicated Ubuphile here.

Hrrundi...no. Stop trying to impress us with your "down-to-earth, no-nonsense" perspective and get real. Which debut from your Holy Trinity of Rock do you really want to propose?

Well, Please Please Me is pretty much a proper lp and not just a bunch of singles thrown together.

Regarding mickavory's nominations, I say (mocking deletions of albums I can't even begin to consider are my addition - all in good fun, I can assure you):

Are You Experienced? - Still worth consideration - what debut launched a more mind-blowing musician AND contained tight, cool songs? Maybe the first Van Halen album, if you actually get enjoyment out of Eddie Van Halen.
The Pretenders - Oats makes a good point - still worth consideration
Cheap Trick
My Aim Is True
#1 Record - the greatest power pop debut album, perhaps, but as much as I love it I don't think it's as much a statement of purpose, which is what I think Oats was getting at
The Clash - I can't get behind the UK release quite as much, and that's the only release that we are allowed to consider
Music From The Big Pink - As much as I love The Band, each year I come closer to the conclusion that this album is seriously hampered by a number of stiff, sludgy performances. I can't get behind this one as an entirely successful album.
Bee Gees 1st
Black Sabbath
Please Please Me - I'm not buying it.
Bauhaus' "In The Flat Field" - ???
Outlandos d'Amour - I'm not a big Police fan, but this album may be worth consideration for some of the reasons I would consider The Cars' debut as well as the reason I think Are You Experienced is worth serious consideration: From that first album The Police did a lot to open the vocabulary of mainstream rock 'n roll, even if it lead to usage we've come to regret (eg, Dave Matthews Band).

BigSteve wrote:

...I'm probably the most dedicated Ubuphile here.

That's a throwdown, if I ever heard one. I'm not saying that your Ubu collection won't indeed by bigger than mine, but we may have to compare. :)

I need to mention the first Funkadelic lp and also, at the other end of some spectrum, the first Modern Lovers album.

Speaking of getting groovy, I really dig the first Macy Gray album.

Mod, overlooking your deletion of the Bee Gees 1st, which makes me assume a sad, pouty, crybaby face, I suspect that when you say "as much as I love The Band" you mean the same thing I do (and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong): you mean you love the 2nd album more or less without qualification and most of Big Pink (I can do well without Lonesome Suzie and in fact their version of I Shall Be Released has never done much for me, either), and a handful of songs from Stage Fright until the bitter end.

Yes? Or?

The first Modern Lovers album is one I might be able to get behind. That's definitely a statement of purpose, totally focused release. However, aren't there two versions of that album? I'm afraid we might have to choose one, which could split our votes. Damn!

To answer your question, misterioso, a resounding YES! The reworkings of their catalog through the couple live albums also do wonders for their legacy.

BTW, I like the first Bee Gees album, but I find it nowhere near "essential," groundbreaking, or otherwise "perfect" (the latter category being one I might apply to the first Cars record, objectively speaking - I'm happy to hear those songs, one at a time, on the radio and never spin my vinyl copy again).

I am confident mine is bigger than yours. ;) I said dedicated because I have carried on buying all of their regular albums, up to and including the new one (plus the accompanying radio play), as well as the donwload-only live recordings from their website, AND all of the David Thomas studio and live material. It was my understanding that you were less interested in the more recent material.

You on the other hand have seen them play live, I believe, while I have only seen David Thomas in the Newark airport.

OK, OK... You're right, I stopped buying new Ubu releases after that Pennsyltucky album, or whatever that thing was called - and although I own the Monster box set and almost everything on it when each album first came out on vinyl, I only own one Pale Boys album. I have, however, seen them about 5 times and seen Thomas solo once. Nevertheless, yours is bigger.

There are various incarnations of the first Modern Lovers. I guess I have in mind the 12-song Rhino cd, which I think is the same as the lp plus Hospital, maybe? I forget.

1. Roadrunner
2. Astral Plane
3. Old World
4. Pablo Picasso
5. I'm Straight
6. Dignified and Old
7. She Cracked
8. Hospital
9. Someone I Care About
10. Girl Friend
11. Modern World
12. Government Center

Of course, this thread has no chance of coming up with a single answer.

I like Big Steve's point that the significance of a debut has a lot to do with what does or doesn't come later--it reminds me that I've always wanted to start a thread about bands who have one great record and not much else.

Also, can we really separate quality here from the question of the impact the album had upon being released--some of these records really "took over" upon release and others came out a bit more quietly.

Given the impossibility of the question though, I'd say that you should also be able to argue that the great debut record is simply a great record period, debut or no; if it can't meet that measure, then it doesn't belong in the field.

Does Never Mind The Bollocks count as a debut? If it does, it has to be seriously considered.

Also, The Velvet Underground. Can't believe it hasn't been mentioned--despite some of the overreaching at the end of the record.

Right now, for me, the other contenders seem like Modern Dance, Dream Syndicate (a record that just keeps getting better and better over time; why is that?), #1 Record, Are You Experienced?, The Pretenders, Modern Lovers. In no order for me as of yet.

I find it hard to support the British version of The Clash since I agree that the American version is better. How could it be the best debut record ever if it's not even as good as another version of the same record?

Cheap Trick's debut record is indeed pretty great, but just a cut below what's on the list.

Ditto with Los Angeles and Undertones: love 'em, but greatest ever I just can't see.

Big Pink: too boring.

The Cars and The Police just aren't good enough as bands, period.

Mwall, thanks for bringing this discussion further into focus. We're in agreement on most of the albums you've boiled down. I'll give The People that Dream Syndicate album, despite my always feeling it was too derivative of the VU to earn that status. Those of you who've seen me over the years will acknowledge that I am a bigger man than I once was.

What you say about this Greatest Debut Album Ever needing to be a GREAT album - period - is true. This is what I've been trying to get at.

I'm glad you brought up Nevermind the Bollocks. I too am shocked that the first VU album was not mentioned, but maybe we're too sophisticated to play that card.

Although I agree that The Cars and The Police are not "good enough," does that preclude their debut albums from being great? I'm still thinking The Cars' debut merits serious consideration.

Definitely agree on The Velvet Underground and Nico.

Am I the lone proponent for Los Angeles? Somebody please cosign? Wait, does a Once and For All thread need cosigns?

Hey, mwall, check out this thread I wrote a couple years ago.

http://www.rocktownhall.com/blogs/index.php/2008/02/06/one_and_done

Marquee Moon of course. Jeez.
But I can live with The Modern Lovers, Velvets, The Band´s Big Pink, Roxy Music, Ubu or Horses by Patti Smith.

Funny, ramone666, as I read your words "Prove It" just started playing on my iPod. I'm getting ready to throw my weight behind Marquee Moon, an album whose greatness is carried by side 1 alone!

Oats, the only thing that really matters on a Once and For All thread is that we arrive at the right conclusion. Future generations may rely on our decision. Keep fighting for what you believe to be true!

Ramones
Black Sabbath
The Stone Roses
Van Halen
Violent Femmes

The important title Roxy Music would hold is that of Best First Song On A Debut Album. Can anything really compete with "Re-Make/Re-Model" on that score?

If the Beatles are in contention, the original post means we have to look at Please Please Me, which does indeed have "A Taste of Honey", my personal choice for officially released Beatles song I'd most readily erase from history if I had to. Not that it's awful or anything, but I doubt there's a Beatles song I've skipped over more often. (Disagree that Hold Me Tight is upbar, whatever album you want to include it on).

Tying those two paragraphs together, what is the best Beatles opening track?

Re: Are You Experienced?, are we holding it to the same rules as originally stated, so it's the UK version without Purple Haze or Hey Joe? Even without those, I think it still has to be a strong contender. But something to consider.

Damn, I was just about to suggest Marquee Moon.

I disagree with the idea that Moby Grape should be disqualified because they've never lived up to the potential they displayed on their first album. That would also disqualify Television. And besides, this isn't a discussion of Great Debut Albums That Foreshadowed Even Greater Things To Come Later. Perhaps I'm a bit of a strict constructionist but Moby Grape is simply a great debut.

Also, none of you snobs have explained why My Aim Is True gets dismissed so easily.

The group Boston had a pretty killer debut. Not a huge fan but it was powerful.
Certainly the Cars.
Led Zeppelin's 1st was mighty, as was Sabbath's but I'm thinking Zep's was more effective at the time. Even though I am a HUGE Black Sabbath fan and not the biggest Zep fan. I certainly would agree that Van Halen's first was their best and made the biggest impact. Hendrix blew everyone's mind with his first, no question. Maybe that would be my ultimate pick but there are just so many.

OK, so I believe a few criteria for what may constitute our selection of the Greatest Debut Album Ever are beginning to come into view.

First a few criteria that we seem most in agreement over:

It must be a great stand-alone album. Any other qualities we may ascribe to it won't hold if the album itself is not GREAT.

The impact of the album, both upon its release and in the years that follow, must be weighed.

The album probably should sound like the artist needed to come out with this album for his, her, or its entire life. In other words, we could say its aim must be true.

There are also some considerations over which we may or may not be in as strong agreement:

The significance of what follows may be worth considering. Does the brilliant debut album, as BigSteve said, "give lots of clues to the series of great records that would follow," or is it just by far the greatest album that artist would ever release?

The debut album should introduce a stunning, new talent, either in terms of songwriting or musicianship or the like. (This criterion may not always be applicable in the case of already established artists releasing debuts in new configurations, such as Eric Clapton in Cream or Jimmy Page in Led Zeppelin following his prior career as a well-known guitarist in previous combos.)

Scoundrel! You are writing these rules after the fact in such a way that they deliberately exclude the Grape. Stop gerrymandering!

Alexmagic wrote:

The important title Roxy Music would hold is that of Best First Song On A Debut Album. Can anything really compete with "Re-Make/Re-Model" on that score?

You may have nailed that subcategory, Magic Man. Bravo!

So the UK release of ...Experienced came out first? Interesting...and a key detail!

cdm, I discount My Aim Is True because I think it's a bit underdone. I can easily go the rest of my life without ever hearing "Mystery Dance" again, and although I like "No Dancing," "Pay It Back," and a few other songs in that vein, one of them would have done just as nicely. It's a VERY GOOD album, to me - a giant Costello fan - not a GREAT album.

I do, however, tend to agree with you that the context of subsequent releases should only hold weight if you really need to knock another Townsperson's competing selection off the board. This card must be played wisely. The reason I don't agree with Moby Grape is because I don't think it's that great an album. I don't dislike it, but I simply don't find enough to love about it. Chalk it up to a matter of taste. Unlike some records I don't like, it's not morally objectionable or anything like that.

Writehearnow, welcome aboard! Thanks for showing The Cars album the support it needs - and that first Boston album as well. There's a time and place for being high and mighty, and this is neither the time nor the place. (You got me, Townsman Hrrundivbakshi?) Your distinction in favor of the first Zeppelin album relative to Sabbath is spot on.

Hey everyone, I can see how you may question its status as a "debut," but how about I Want to See the Bright Lights Tonight? Or is Richard Thompson's beret retroactively disqualify it?

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the first Doors lp - LOL!

Mr. Moderator, once again you have managed to organize threads that lead directly from one theme to another.

I´m all for the greatest album (though not by far) the artist would ever release. And that´s why My Aim Is True doesn´t make it in my book for instance: This Years Model is even better. And that´s quite rare too btw. You can count follow-ups that are better than great debuts on the fingers of one hand.

I think I have to go with Are You Experienced? A game-changer if there ever was one.

BigSteve, I agree that Are You Experienced? is looking really strong, maybe even without the singles that weren't on the UK release.

Is there any more support out there for Nevermind the Bollocks?

Is anyone surprised there's no support for the first album by The La's? That's right, E. Pluribus Gergely rarely plays ball with us these days.

Uh, shonuffnyesido, there's no master plan in terms of how we organize material and discussions each day - and rarely even a minor plan. That said, the first Doors album isn't that bad a suggestion.

BUT, especially with Meet the Beatles you have to contend with subpar material like "Little Child" and "Hold Me Tight."

I politely disagree with the above assessment of those wonderful songs.

Is one called "Spaced Invaders," or something like that? Ugh!

I like that song.

Are You Experienced?

Ok, now we have a winner. The US version over the UK version, definitely.

Marquee Moon and the First Boston Album have tremendous side ones, but are not stellar records.

I could be talked into the Cars 1st record, but would be happier with the Pretenders first record.

Additionally, I would like to be the first to make a controversial show of support for the first Romantics record.

Does Murmmer count or does Chronic Town disqualify it?

I'd add the The "Chirping" Crickets, since it kind of started group albums.

Tvox, according to the rules, if the UK version preceded the US version of any album we must go with the UK release. See, this could jeopardize ...Experienced?

I think we can count Murmur and disregard debut EPs, as we disregarded the debut singles and EP by Pere Ubu. That said...Murmur...The Romantics :)

Um, the US version was the version that a whole lot of people experienced first in America. Probably many more did at the time than with the UK version in Britain. Seems like a silly distinction. Next you're going to tell me that the Magical Mystery Tour album is a figment of my imagination.

Here's another one for you to strike out the Byrds Mr. Tambourine Man.

Just thought up a few more contenders: JD´s Unknown Pleasures, Burritos´ Gilded Palace Of Sin, Gris Gris by Dr. John, Culture´s mighty Two Sevens Clash, The Flatlanders More A Legend Than A Band, The Stooges, Neu!, and as a personal fave Fire Of Love by The Gun Club.

Mockcarr, why be so negative? You want The Byrds' first album to be considered, fine, let it be written, so let it be done. And let me know when they figure out the rest of the lyrics to their cover of the title track. Jeez.

Tvox, the US/UK release distinction was made, in large part, in response to the issue of the first Clash album, which had the benefit of appearing after the band's SECOND album in the US and including a series of singles that were also recorded after the release of the first album in the UK. You wouldn't disagree with the value of that rule in such a case, would you?

The rule, however, may seem arbitrary and pointless in terms of Hendrix - and come to think of it, have we even considered whether it applies to My Aim Is True and other releases discussed here? If it's simply a matter of UK/US releases that came out within a couple of months of each other, maybe we go with whichever version we feel is strongest and leave the shortsighted rule for situations like the first Clash album. I can live with that if others can.

RU Experienced, British incarnation: great but not super great.

Clash 1st, British incarnation: great but not super great.

Support for Mr. Tambourine Man: given.

The Soft Boys Can of Bees: mentioned.

The Stooges could be there, as well as the MC5' Kick Out The Jams. I say the latter since Saturn isn't ours lately.

Just wanted to note that while the Beatles were in a singles-driven market, their singles weren't on their albums - which you all know. So their albums were meant to be "albums," though still more collections of songs rather than having any kind of contiguous thread (other than awesomeness).

@Tvox

The Romantics suggestion isn't a bad one, but IMO, the Buzzcocks, Another Music in a Different Kitchen trumps it for power punk pop. Just had that right bit of snot.

The Punk thing is a funny thing, if you were a slightly more hip hipster, you were a Punk long before 1976 up New York way or maybe even down n Kentucky, but growing up as i did, Punk tasted best and most authentic British. Some kind of misconceived high school cultural inbreeding I suppose.

If that long filler track, "We Will Fall," or whatever it's called, only lasted 5 minutes - or if they'd filled out the album with lame Chuck Berry covers - The Stooges' debut may be my vote for Greatest Debut Album Ever, but I don't know... Can anyone actually justify it as GREATEST as long as we constantly skip 10+ minutes of "We Will Fall"?

As for The Beatles and the nature of the singles vs albums market in the first half of the '60s (and even through the Hendrix debut and as far into the punk era in the UK), this is why Andyr and I initially suspected that a lot of the great British Invasion bands wouldn't make the cut. In these circumstances I'm honestly surprised that there's been so much support for Please, Please Me.

Mod, that bass ending for Mr. Tambourine Man is much cooler than the other five verses that wouldn't fit on the 45.

If we apply this scrutiny, Meet The Beatles is one hell of an album.

Mockcarr wrote:

Mod, that bass ending for Mr. Tambourine Man is much cooler than the other five verses that wouldn't fit on the 45.

THAT, my man, is FUNNY!

Maybe the trouble is the debut UK album for the Clash is the second US album. With Are You Experienced, it's still the debut album, right?

I know this is Rock Town Hall, but Donny Hathaway's "Everything Is Everything" is immense!

I think one of the big guns would win this fight, but it's fun to think of contenders...

Unknown Pleasures?
77?
Funeral?

The Hendrix issue needs resolution, because the American version has an excellent shot of being the winner here, but the British version is a problem, like with The Clash: how can it be the best debut album ever if it's not even the best version of itself?

I think Ramone has really thrown in some late minute contenders: agreed that Culture, Flatlanders (but is it really rock and roll?), and Burritos all deserve at least an honorable mention, and Unknown Pleasures probably makes my list of top contenders.

The Stooges first record is too uneven, with what, four excellent songs, two decent ones, and 10 minutes of filler that hides the fact that the meat of the record is very short.

I think Mr. Tambourine Man belongs in the company but doesn't make the short list.

Right, mockcarr, but the UK RU X, which came first, is differs from the U.S. Dunno if that matters.

The first Stooges would absolutely be contender if the production didn't suck and if it had more than 3 or 4 good songs. However....

Mockcarr wrote:

Maybe the trouble is the debut UK album for the Clash is the second US album. With Are You Experienced, it's still the debut album, right?

That's correct. Worth consideration...

Mwall wrote:

The Hendrix issue needs resolution, because the American version has an excellent shot of being the winner here, but the British version is a problem, like with The Clash: how can it be the best debut album ever if it's not even the best version of itself?

Yes, good point - and who's to say that some US label honcho with tremendous foresight didn't see this Once and For All question coming sometime after the development of a revolutionary electronic communications system that not even Magic Alex (as opposed to alexmagic) could have pretended to have in development? "I'll show 'em," said the US label honcho, adding those key singles to the US release!

Who among us is wise enough to sort through the UK vs US RU X issue? Do we need to quickly set up an offshoot website in which to discuss and reach consensus on this matter?

I'm willing to lay out of the decision for now. I have made enough rules at key times in the process. I'm still trying to determine whether I have any cards left to play if things don't turn out my way:)

By the way, I have no problem with non-strictly rock albums being considered - eg, Hathaway et al.

cherguevara, the Everything is Everything is a great call. I only got around to it a few years ago: an eye-opener.

Birth Of The Cool by Miles Davis?

Not rock though.

6 Best Debuts:

1) Are You Experienced
2) England's Newest Hitmakers-The Rolling Stones (What is it with you knuckleheads? How was this left out?)
3) Please Please Me
4) The Who Sings My Generation
5) My Aim is True
6) Songs by Leonard Cohen

The above are all, pretty much, solid as a rock.

E. Pluribus

And for the record, if USA-version, post-UK "real debuts" count, then by the powers vested in me by the God Of Common Sense, I declare "Meet the Beatles" to be the best debut album ever. Period.

HVB, even if these later US versions count, Meet the Beatles is disqualified because they changed the title. That now counts as their "second" album. Sorry, Beatles.

I just thought of a debut album that, for me, still holds up as original, fresh, and solid as a rock: Gang of Four's debut. Can that challenge Are You Experienced, either version?

I'm still waiting for a sound POV on the UK/US release business. I think we've all made good points, but has any of us made THE BEST argument? Remember, this isn't about declaring the Beatles' first release - in either country - the Greatest Debut Album Ever.

You know, I've thought about this now for a few hours and there is more to *this* than meets the ear. Much more.

It's not about favorite groups, but rather the magnitude of impact the debut represents. How much did the debut represent in terms of measurable effect. Not just on the exceptionally obvious charts assuredly, but far beyond the face of the music business.

The problem with considering bands like the Rolling Stones and The Beatles with respect to debuts is not one of diminished glory or celebration of the phenomenal bands themselves. No, not at all because that much is no less than absolute fact. It's one that clearly demonstrates their debuts as being building blocks for MUCH greater future works and those effort's subsequent impact on both music and culture.

To be the "greatest debut", right out of the chute, right from the "get go" the effort has to be one that completely and clearly defines a paradigm shift in attention and influence. This being in a very encompassing sense. Culture, philosophy, unique musical creativity & an introspective projection so undeniably powerful that it permiates and forever changes the very perceptive consciousness of the people that listen to it intently. One that sets a new standard that can only be measured akin to sheer artistic aspiration within all those influenced by it.

You just can't do the same ol' same ol' Blues, Rhythm n Blues & Rock & Roll , whether you are doing it better than anyone before you or not, and expect to win such a title as "Greatest Debut". You have to be *you* so undeniably that no one but *you* could have conveyed your as of yet undefined artistic message.

I can honestly only think of one that could measure up to such scrutiny.

"Are You Experienced"

Hendrix never needed to be any "better" than his debut. This was it. The deed was forever done and "things" within Rock would never be the same. IMO the birth of the GREATEST era in Rock music had been officially born.

I'm just remembering that early on Oats asked if I Want to See the Bright Lights Tonight could qualify as the first Richard Thompson album. The answer is No, but I guess it's the first Richard AND Linda Thompson album. I'm presently listening to the first (and best) Richard Thompson solo album, Henry the Human Fly. I'll still take this over anything else he did after Fairport Convention, even the album Oats mentioned and the other one I like a lot by Richard and Linda, Pour Down Like Silver.

writehearnow, that was an excellent pleas for Are You Experienced? I hereby move that we allow for the US version of this particular album and any other US version of a debut album that a) did not trail the artist's SECOND album or b) did not get released with a new album title (sorry, Nick Lowe fans as well as Beatles fans).

Does anyone object to the airtight rhetoric of our newest Townsperson? Damn, this writehearnow came on like Jimmy Stewart at the end of one of those Frank Capra classics.

^^"It's just the right thing to do and a tasty way to do it" ;-)

The current version of Are You Experienced? that's available on CD is a 17-track monster with all the tracks from both US and UK versions. That should win.

I'd second Entertainment and mention Pink Flag.

The 8 song version of the Modern Lovers, as it was originally released long after the fact, is also one I can get behind.

As silly as the Doors can seem in retrospect, I think the power of the first album in it's time is undeniable. Also, when Classic rock radio had pretty much erased everything pre-69 from music history, the Doors were still hangin' around the playlist. There is something timeless about the sound of the band; even in its psychedelia, it didn't age unnaturally. Finally, I think it might have included the greatest cover of all time, Alabama Song. The way they expoited this great but arty obscurity and integrated it into their persona is brilliant. Seriously!

Finally, I'd like to mention Gergley's new fave, Fraser & DeBolt with Ian Guenther. That was also a debut album.

ePlurb is dead on with England's Newest Hitmakers. It changed everything. But the other debut that changed everything was Never Mind the Bollocks, and as much as I loves me some Stones, I can remember getting that Pistols album, being blown away and blowing away a few other people as well. The Pistols may have only had a few tricks up their sleeve, but they were truly great tricks.

I have to toss The Exploding Hearts Guitar Romantic on the pile, too. It's easily one of the best records of the past decade, and I think that's saying a lot.

Does actually wanting to ever hear the album come into play as a necessary quality? 'Cause obviously I acknowledge the importance of Never Mind the .... but the idea of actually listening to it? No thanks.

Geo's comments on the Doors are on target: though I find them a bit less silly in general than he, I think, and am less sold on Alabama Song for sure, the album as a whole is strong, distinctive, and still sounds good even with--at times because of--its more dated aspects.

Same goes for England's Newest Hitmakers or, if you are in the UK, The Rolling Stones: even with a couple of covers I can do without and a pretty useless instrumental, it is a major statement of purpose.

Funny, as much as I venerate the Kinks and they damn well belong in this conversation, their debut is really tough going for the most part and seldom gets played. They needed an album or two to get their bearings.

Finally, I doubt they get a lot of affection in this forum, but the Franz Ferdinand debut knocked me out a few years and still sounds good to me even if their subsequent albums don't excite me so much.

And thanks to whoever mentioned Songs of Leonard Cohen. Unfortunate backup singers aside, it is brilliant and still a joy to hear.

Mr. Mod,

You haven't nominated Pink Flag yet. What's up with that?

It's not my fave, but by the criteria we have developed, i'm gonna cast my vote for ARE YOU EXPERIENCED?

it broke new ground.
it defined the artist's intentions.
it is arguably his best work.
it totally changed the game.
i still like to listen to it on a regular.

Entertainment certainly belongs on the list. Pink Flag is also a strong debut, but I doubt very mcuh that it's quite in top ten.

Okay, firestorm time, but I just gotta say. England's New Hitmakers is a fine early rock and roll record, and it's not the blues... but it has some elements of the blues in it, and it's hard for me to see it as taking the crown here when it's not nearly as good as records that Howlin' Wolf or Muddy Waters were putting out at that time and a few years previously. I know the plastic cups are headed my way on this one, but it needs to be said.

Hey Mod, I hear what you mean about the VU influence on The Dream Syndicate. But here's another controversial claim, although I'm making it more as question than as absolute. It could be, it just could be, that the first Dream Syndicate record is better than any individual VU record, although over the long haul VU is obviously the better, broader, more challenging band.

Good thing I'm not in a room with y'all right now, that's all I can say.

Mark

Best one was Taco's "After Eight." Everything changed after his version of "Puttin' On The Ritz," and that was just the beginning of the revolution he caused in the music world. Way more influential than any of these other namby pamby albums you all are hyping.

While Cher makes a GREAT case for Taco's eponymous debut (Hey! I wjust sounded like a real rock critic!), I must say that persuaded by misterioso's closing arguments for Hendrix.

For further proof, Michael Nesmith was remembering speaking with Jimi towards the end of his life. He was telling about how upset Jimi was with the direction of his music and life in general. Nesmith's response? "Hey, man. You INVENTED psychedelic music!"

If it's good enough for Nez (and misterioso), it's good enough for me. I have been experienced.

TB

Love "Please Please Me," "Mr. Tambourine Man," "The Who Sings My Generation," "The Pretenders," and "The Las." I even have quite a soft spot for U2's first album (I say dodging the rotten vegetables).

But I have to cast my vote for "Are You Experienced."

I think it's a tie between VU and Nico and Are You Experienced.

But I'd go with VU because 1) its conceptual flair--taking from the best of Warhol's pop art vision--which has outlasted psychedelia and 2) as it has been said, everyone who bought the VU record started a band.

They're probably not contenders for the top spot, but for what it's worth, I think the dB's Stands for Decibels and the Feelies Crazy Rhythms should at least be mentioned in this thread. So there you go.

I'm throwing my lot in with The "Chirping" Crickets which boasts "Oh Boy!" "That'll Be the Day" "Maybe Baby" "Not Fade Away" and even the filler is very good. Its problem is that it came out at a time people don't generally think of proper albums as being released.

In terms of awesome debuts which seemed to come out of left field, I'd go with Camper Van Beethoven's "Telephone Free Landslide Victory"--to my ears it didn't sound like anything which had come before it and I can still listen to it end-to-end with great enjoyment almost twenty-five years later.

The Wedding Present's "George Best" is another start to finish fantastic debut and is in my all time top five, but ymmv.

Great stuff, Townspeeps. I think we're getting close to determining the Greatest Debut Album Ever...once and for all. Meanwhile, keep it coming!

If, as Dr John says, this is a tie between VU and Nico and Are You Experienced, then I suggest VU was the more influential album.

Everyone acknowledges Jimi's accomplishments, but few could hope to build on them because he was such a singular guitarist. And how long did psychedelia last anyway? The first album by the Band drove a stake through its heart.

The VU, on the other hand, had much more staying power stylistically and did level the playing field for us non-virtuosos.

Remember, we're trying to determine the Greatest Debut Album Ever, not the Musically Least-Intimidating Among Greatest Debut Albums Ever and Therefore Mot Influential Debut Album Ever. Just a thought...

I would like to expand on this thought at a later time, but I have long thought the whole "influence" thing is overrated and mostly bs. I mean (to move away from debut records for a moment), the notion that Highway 61's greatness (for instance) has anything to do with its influence, for good or for ill, is crazy.

Crazy, too, is the non-mention, at least, of Piper at the Gates of Dawn. Ok, so most of it is not as good as the first singles. But all the same.

On behalf of the estate of Jimi Hendrix, I'd like to express some offense at the idea that Are You Experienced even needs the singles added on to it to compete.

Entertainment is a pretty good suggestion that I considered mentioning earlier. And while I don't think it matches up with some of the suggestions here, I do agree with misterioso that Franz Ferdinand was a great (more) recent debut.

Follow-up to a follow-up Beatles question: which is actually better, Please Please Me or With The Beatles?

Ok, ok. Of course RUX is great in either form: but compare and contrast:

RUX-UK

"Foxy Lady"
"Manic Depression"
"Red House"
"Can You See Me"
"Love or Confusion"
"I Don't Live Today"
"May This Be Love"
"Fire"
"3rd Stone from the Sun"
"Remember"
"Are You Experienced?"

RUX-US

"Purple Haze"
"Manic Depression"
"Hey Joe"
"Love or Confusion"
"May This Be Love"
"I Don't Live Today"
"The Wind Cries Mary"
"Fire"
"Third Stone from the Sun"
"Foxey Lady"
"Are You Experienced?"

I mean, just the spelling change from Foxy Lady to Foxey Lady is huge. Huge.

Alexmagic: "Follow-up to a follow-up Beatles question: which is actually better, Please Please Me or With The Beatles?"

Tough call. In general, the really good songs on WTB (most of the album) are better than the really good songs on PPM, but the weak songs on WTB (Till There Was You, Hold Me Tight) are weaker than the relatively weak songs on PPM (A Taste of Honey, Chains).

Of course, a case can be made in favor of Till There Was You in terms of audience broadening, and there is nothing wrong with it as a performance per se. But I could never figure out how they settled for Hold Me Tight, which sounds like something the Knickerbockers would have been embarrassed to put out.

Forgive me, but I would have to completely disagree with the "staying power" of the Velvets. They are often lauded as "tremendously" influential, but frankly, I have never "seen" that in effect.

When it comes to debuts, definitively it would seem like what matters most is the artists initial and subsequent lasting impact.

There is no question that The Velvet Underground have remained an underdog favorite among aspiring lo-fi pop experimentalists and the folk infused psychedelic garage rockers, but to think of their musically lasting influence or impact as being akin to Hendrix just doesn't add up.

Hendrix was not so much a virtuoso as he was a highly imaginative innovator.He was a monsterous guitar player for certain, but at the time so was Jeff Beck, Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Alvin Lee, Peter Green, etc. The thing that made Hendrix so influential, and his debut so powerful is that he wasn't so much a product of the popular trends as were so many of the other comparably great contemporary guitar players of that era. Hendrix was a trend setter much like the Velvets were, but unlike the Velvet's whose initial debut impact was a complete fail, his trend setting from an immediate smash debut outset would powerfully influence and sculpt the electric rock guitar output of thousands of mainstream rock musicians for decades to come.

The Velvets not only greatly lacked in initial debut, their musical contribution is all but nil with respect to other actual instrument wielding musicians. Bearing more so on Rock & Roll history, a legacy of ongoing acceptability for aspiring writers of lo-fi based subversive artsy fartsy pop experimentalisms. Albeit within a highly progressive and powerful underground clique consisting of staunch appreciation from those who would carry their flag into far higher profile media based communications. Subsequent "buzz" ensues obviously.

If anything TVU&N was the ultimate "Rock Music anti-debut". The Velvet Underground's ultimate ongoing success can be astoundingly measured as ironically unbound from it's historic debut failure.

writeherenow, you make good points but only insofar as influence is or should be seen as a measuring stick. Personally, I don't give much of a damn--except from a historical perspective--what the influence of VU & N or anything else was. I kinda like the first Black Sabbath album a lot, but if I lingered a while on its influence I would loathe it. In fact, for many years, that influence--What Sabbath Spawned--blocked my even being able to listen the album on its own terms.

But, again, if VU & N was not so influential as, say, the first Guns & Roses album (which, mercifully, was not mentioned in the discussion), so what?

If RUX had stiffed and had no discernible influence, would you regard it any the less?

Can someone explain to me what's wrong with Hold Me Tight? I wouldn't say it's their greatest achievement or anything, but I fail to see a big difference in quality between it and any number of other early Beatles songs. It's got good call&response harmonies, a nice slowdown ending, a cool middle eight, and I like the way the song begins with the tagline from the middle eight ("it feels so right"). Great handclap utilization too. I think it's ragged but right.

BigSteve, to me it sounds like a song where they are forcing the exuberance that comes so naturally on a lot of those early songs; Paul's singing is uncharacteristically bad; and the album could maybe support Little Child or this but not both, and Little Child, while not a whole lot better, is at least not grating. I agree, though, the middle eight of Hold Me Tight is the best part.

The appeal of the VU is the idea that there's an alternate history of pop music. The mainstream proceeds from the Beatles, and that line of development continues to this day. But there's another stream that went underground after the demise of the Velvets, the Stooges, and other bands on the more garagey end of things. This influence came above ground in the 70s, and it periodically resurfaces, always there but never threatening the meainstream. This concept is irresistible to rock geeks who tend to be, or at least admire, outsiders. Read Greil Marcus' book Lipstick Traces for one approach to this alternate history idea.

I agree that the first Franz Ferdinand album was a good example of a recent debut. Now that it's all over but the shouting, I'm surprised the Strokes' Is This It never came up. I'm not a huge fan, but it sure placed high on a lot of those 'best of the 00s' lists that were everywhere in the past few months.

"If RUX had stiffed and had no discernible influence, would you regard it any the less?"

Within the content of the "best rock debut ever" discussion, ABSOLUTELY.

If you have 10 people standing around a small pond, or a big puddle and out of the sky a small pebble lands dead in the center, not many of those standing by are going to get wet. Try the same thing with something just a little smaller in diameter than the small body of water itself. The process of an artist's influence by way of impact is no different. The Velvets were tiny in terms of initial impact, Hendrix was huge and got a LOT of people wet.

Personal taste in music is a bit outside the context of my considerations here. Otherwise I would have chosen several different bands rather than Hendrix's Experience. I am more so concerned with "best" overall debut.

I feel that their are other notable contenders for the title, however IMO, the Velvet's are not among them. JMO.

I hear what you are saying, writehearnow, but shouldn't we be at least as interested in what's in the water as we are in how much gets splashed?

Yeah, BigSteve, I would have brought up a few of these if I didn't think they were already overshadowed. No Depression by Uncle Tupelo came to mind too.

I disagree with Misterioso regarding those specific examples, I prefer Til There Was You to A Taste of Honey, and Hold Me Tight to Chains. Plus the clunky Beatle-penned B-sides on PPM aren't up to par, like PS I Love You and Ask Me Why. I agree with the rest of his arguments, but I'd add that "you you you" business kills Hold Me Tight just as much as the boilerplated-ness of it.

Hold Me Tight cooks. Chains? A Taste of Honey? Please. I may have to break some legs.

One of the things I love about Hendrix with the Experience, especially on the 1st two records and bits of Electric Lady Land is his superb pop songwriting skills. He wrote fantastic, often soul-infused pop songs, people.

Big Steve,

While I like Marcus's Mystery Train and stuff on Dylan, I am not a big fan of Lipstick Traces, which for me is too nihilistic, too dismissive of the real costs of history and the real actors, in history, who incurred these costs, instead favoring a rather glib, superficial piling up of historical coincidences.