Does A Brilliant Debut Hinder A Band

[Alex]

What am I talking about. Well generally when a band release a debut album it'll either be seen as bad, decent or having potential (or none)

But what happens when the debut is seen as a masterpiece, does that hinder the band's musical process from then on??

Example Guns N Roses released their debut Appetite For Destruction in 1987, it was seen as brilliant (I think its the fastest debut album ever) but since then with each album that followed has not been able to compare, have they been bad albums, no, its just they've had to live up to a brilliant debut.

Another example is Skid Row's self titled debut. Seen as a brilliant album when it came out, when I was getting into the band I was told 'That's all you really need' I mean the follow up Slave To The Grind (to me) is a great album but when comparing it to the debut, people don't really think it holds up.

So does having a strong debut album hurt a band more than helps it???

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

It could be argued that having a great first album could almost guarantee interest in the bands second release, as alot of fans who loved their debut album will almost certainly be interested in hearing their new material.

However, the obvious flip side is that having such a popular and successful debut album places alot of pressure on the band to ensure that their follow up is as good, if not better. If it turns out that their 2nd album is not of the same quality as the first, and it proves a disappointment (which it can be even if its good in its own right), then the criticism from fans and the press is usually fiercer than if the band had just released 2 very good albums.

BUT, I don't think there is any band out there who would rather their first album HADN'T been a phenomenal success, as having a release like "Appetite For Destruction", "The Stone Roses", "Definitely Maybe" or any other of the all time classic albums is something that musicians dream of. If you asked them, I think its pretty likely that they would say they would live with the pressure of making a good follow up to a classic album, than remaining in mediocrity and releasing average albums.

 

[Alex]

I'm not talking about staying in mediocrity per se. But slow burning bands who released a few albums before making a big one, their success seems to last longer. Example the Red Hot Chili Peppers had released four albums before Blood Sugar Sex Magik. Those previous four albums had varying degress of success (bad to good) and since BSSM all the Chili's albums have done very well and are all looked upon as very good, heck One Hot Minute still sold well.

 

[Dagger Dias]

It depends and can really both help OR hinder the band's future successes. If they have a brilliant debut album, then the good news is that it guarantees them decent sales for their second album since fans will want to know what it will be like. The bad news, however, is that the brilliant debut places an incredibly high standard on the second album. If the band is lucky then they will be able to meet those standards on the second album. If they aren't, then all of their work will forever be compared to the brilliant debut and they risk fading into obscurity.

While this isn't entirely fair, it's just how it goes in the music business. Brilliant debuts are a rarity and an awesome thing for the band involved, but if they are not able to capture that same level of greatness again, they are doomed to have every piece of work following the debut be compared to it in a lesser light. I personally think it's better luck for the bands if their first effort is not their best. They should always go into each recording with the mindset of making these new tracks become the best they ever made, regardless of how successful previous albums might have been.

 

[Ubiquitous]

You have to look at it from a skewered perspective. It's all about if they can follow it up or not. I know that's not what you're asking but it's true. If you start out red hot, and then follow it up with a lukewarm album, people are going to drop you like the plague. For a lot of bands, it's because they can't work under pressure. For most bands first album, they've literally had as long as they've been together to work on the songs. They tweek and perfect them over years of playing small shows to what sounds the best. When they finally put out their first album, it's a polished product. Now, on the other hand, once a band gets popular, they have to start touring, and for the most part play their "popular" music, while only getting the chance to throw in a couple new songs no one's ever heard of, but the masses are only interested in their "radio play" so to speak. The bands are more rushed to write music, under a lot more pressure from various places, and it's simply an issue of if they can deal. I've seen a lot of bands start out red hot and from sheer passion alone push through and not put out a shit album until the day they stop recording. I firmly believe starting out like a ball of fire has the ability to hinder a band, but I don't necessarily think the fault is entirely their own if they can't succeed it.

 

[¡Roján!]

Financially, the bands have it easy if their first album is a hit. People just presume it'll be as good as their first and rush out to buy it. It's basic economics. Music-wise, however quality tends to deteriorate. Whether that be down to pressure or just pure laziness as they're already guaranteed good sales, I don't know. This does tend to happen to newer Indie bands all the time. Look at MGMT, one minute they're the next best thing, they release their next album and they're failing to sell out 750 seater venues in the arse-end of nowhere. It's a shame, but one hit (album) wonder bands have been around since the beginning of music itself. There's exceptions to the rule, and I'm glad there are but, I think, in general, a good first album will hinder the chance of a band producing a better second one.