Author Topic: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great  (Read 1645 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Zook

  • Evil Incarnate
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13050
  • Gender: Male
  • Tordenperle krall. Literally.
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #70 on: June 10, 2018, 02:10:11 PM »
:lol

I don't at all agree that radio play is indicative of any sort of quality. Popularity, maybe. But if it's quality, you need to explain why Five Finger Death Punch gets radio play.  :lol
I can't believe Sham Pain isn't a huge meme yet, easily the most embarassing and cringy thing to come out of the 'metal' industry this year. I used to be able to laugh at FFDP's ridiculousness but this has gotten out of hand man

SHAM PAIN :metardica:

This is the worst damn thing I have seen since the ICP video about miracles.

You have to wonder what their intentions were here. If they were parodying Nickelback's Rockstar, they're 10 years too late. On top of that, Rockstar is already a satire, and FFDP managed to make a worse song than Rockstar. Was it on purpose? They were clearly taking the piss, but it was executed TERRIBLY. I should know. :neverusethis:

Offline nobloodyname

  • Posts: 407
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #71 on: June 10, 2018, 02:39:38 PM »
Metallica *ducks and runs*

Rightly ignored for the first two pages of the thread.

Get out, sunshine :lol
Gamer, rocker, humanist, womble.
@spacedyemeerkat

Online Snow Dog

  • Posts: 531
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #72 on: June 10, 2018, 10:34:25 PM »
A couple of these might ruffle feathers, but itís just my opinions.

Symphony X - Granted, Divine Wings is a decent album, but it still never gripped me the way V, The Odyssey, and Paradise Lost did.

Skillet - I donít expect this will kick up a lot of discussion given their subject material and I never see them mentioned here. But a look into their past revealed to me their first four albums were industrial shite, and it wasnít until Collide/Comatose that they became the guitar-oriented, riff driven band they are today.

Threshold - Psychedelicatessen was decent, and Clone was a good transition into the Mac era, but Damienís delivery on Wounded Land and Extinct Instinct is just something I still canít tolerate. It isnít until we get to Hypothetical onward that each release is solid to stellar (except maybe For the Journey, but I enjoy even that one too).

Offline Anguyen92

  • Posts: 1752
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #73 on: June 10, 2018, 11:18:51 PM »
Skillet - I donít expect this will kick up a lot of discussion given their subject material and I never see them mentioned here. But a look into their past revealed to me their first four albums were industrial shite, and it wasnít until Collide/Comatose that they became the guitar-oriented, riff driven band they are today.

I mean I like Alien Youth, despite the industrial vibe at times, but yeah, with Collide and especially, Comatose, that's when they really hit their stride.

Offline erwinrafael

  • Posts: 2596
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #74 on: June 11, 2018, 12:22:11 AM »
Savatage. Paul O'Neill really brought them to another level with Hall of the Mountain King.

Offline MirrorMask

  • Posts: 5843
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #75 on: June 11, 2018, 02:11:18 AM »
Savatage. Paul O'Neill really brought them to another level with Hall of the Mountain King.

Not gonna argue with that, but there are so many kickass songs on those first three albums (Fight for the Rock indeed sucks).
I use my sig to pimp some bands from Italy! Check out Elvenking (Power / Folk metal), Folkstone (Rock / Medieval metal), Arcana Opera (Gothic/Noir/Heavy metal) and the beautiful voice of Elisa!

Offline Cruithne

  • Posts: 391
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #76 on: June 11, 2018, 02:37:07 AM »
Symphony X - Granted, Divine Wings is a decent album, but it still never gripped me the way V, The Odyssey, and Paradise Lost did.

I think I might agree with that. I've just been in the midst of a grand CD cull and the only one of the first four Symphony X albums I ended up hanging onto was Divine Wings and I definitely eyed that CD up with a degree of suspicion. With the rest I think I really only liked about one or two songs per album.

Offline Nekov

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8930
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #77 on: June 11, 2018, 06:04:44 AM »
I'll jump in the bandwagon with Pink Floyd and Porcupine Tree. And I will mention Anathema in spite of the threats...
IQ is another band I would name. Their first 4 aren't bad but what comes after is waaay better.
When Ginobili gets hot, I get hot in my pants. 

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4434
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #78 on: June 11, 2018, 11:06:31 AM »


That's cool.  I just never liked "old-school thrash."  Same reason I don't like Kill 'Em All, or earlier albums from other thrash bands that I otherwise think had some great later output (e.g. Flotsam & Jetsam and Testament).  And that sound was Megadeth's wheelhouse for those first four.  Just, for some reason, it really worked and clicked with me on Rust.  Mid-'80s to early-'90s is when Thrash evolved to a point, and my tastes evolved to a point, where the two were compatible.

Fair to say that you like thrash influenced metal, more than thrash metal..?

Maybe.  But I'm not sure specifically what you are referring to when you say "thrash influenced metal."  If you are talking about modern metal bands that were influenced by, say, Metallica and others, like Dream Theater, Epica, and on and on, then yes.  But can you elaborate?

Symphony X - Granted, Divine Wings is a decent album, but it still never gripped me the way V, The Odyssey, and Paradise Lost did.

Yes!  GREAT call!  For my tastes, this band may as well have had V be their debut.  I pretty much ignore everything before.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online pg1067

  • Posts: 1089
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #79 on: June 11, 2018, 11:42:34 AM »


I agree with Kev about Styx.  The debut is almost completely forgettable.  Lady was a minor hit twice, but Styx II also largely nondescript (although you can start to hear the "classic" Styx sound on a couple of songs).  There's nothing remarkable about The Serpent is Rising (unless you find some entertainment value in Plexiglass Toilet).  Man of Miracles has a couple of good songs, but Styx really didn't get its legs under it until Equinox.

There are some gems on those early albums:

Father O.S.A.
The Grove of Eglantine
Winner Take All
Best Thing
You Need Love
I'm Gonna Make You Feel It
Man of Miracles

Your list of songs encompasses at least three of the songs I was thinking about when I said that "you can start to hear the 'classic' Styx sound on a couple of songs" on Styx II and "Man of Miracles has a couple of good songs."  A lot of it has to do with Wooden Nickel being a shitty record company, but there was really very little on those first four albums that foretold what was coming.  The funny thing about it is that the only real change was swapping out Curulewski for Shaw.  Maybe the real impetus was the band acting as its own producer, which is a rather remarkable thing for an otherwise relatively unknown band with virtually no solid track record signing onto a major label.
"There's a bass solo in a song called Metropolis where I do a bass solo."  John Myung

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 27805
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #80 on: June 11, 2018, 06:32:10 PM »

Your list of songs encompasses at least three of the songs I was thinking about when I said that "you can start to hear the 'classic' Styx sound on a couple of songs" on Styx II and "Man of Miracles has a couple of good songs."  A lot of it has to do with Wooden Nickel being a shitty record company, but there was really very little on those first four albums that foretold what was coming.  The funny thing about it is that the only real change was swapping out Curulewski for Shaw.  Maybe the real impetus was the band acting as its own producer, which is a rather remarkable thing for an otherwise relatively unknown band with virtually no solid track record signing onto a major label.

I've always said that Styx would occasionally stick their feet into the prog pool during their heyday, but on those first four albums they were leaving them in a bit longer, and I do wonder if they had stayed on the most "artsy" path had those early albums done well, aside from Lady.  Equinox, the last album with Curulewski, was a departure from those first four albums in several major ways, yet history now shows it as the first in their classic albums run.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13130
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #81 on: June 12, 2018, 09:46:39 AM »


I agree with Kev about Styx.  The debut is almost completely forgettable.  Lady was a minor hit twice, but Styx II also largely nondescript (although you can start to hear the "classic" Styx sound on a couple of songs).  There's nothing remarkable about The Serpent is Rising (unless you find some entertainment value in Plexiglass Toilet).  Man of Miracles has a couple of good songs, but Styx really didn't get its legs under it until Equinox.

There are some gems on those early albums:

Father O.S.A.
The Grove of Eglantine
Winner Take All
Best Thing
You Need Love
I'm Gonna Make You Feel It
Man of Miracles

Your list of songs encompasses at least three of the songs I was thinking about when I said that "you can start to hear the 'classic' Styx sound on a couple of songs" on Styx II and "Man of Miracles has a couple of good songs."  A lot of it has to do with Wooden Nickel being a shitty record company, but there was really very little on those first four albums that foretold what was coming.  The funny thing about it is that the only real change was swapping out Curulewski for Shaw.  Maybe the real impetus was the band acting as its own producer, which is a rather remarkable thing for an otherwise relatively unknown band with virtually no solid track record signing onto a major label.

Well, Shaw is a beast, so I don't know if that's a minor change (I'm not a huge Styx fan, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

Honest question, though:  what did Wooden Nickel have to do with the music?  Were they telling the band what they could and could not release?   Again, honest question, not trying to be sarcastic here; I've already said, not much of a Styx fan.

Online pg1067

  • Posts: 1089
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #82 on: June 12, 2018, 10:24:28 AM »


I agree with Kev about Styx.  The debut is almost completely forgettable.  Lady was a minor hit twice, but Styx II also largely nondescript (although you can start to hear the "classic" Styx sound on a couple of songs).  There's nothing remarkable about The Serpent is Rising (unless you find some entertainment value in Plexiglass Toilet).  Man of Miracles has a couple of good songs, but Styx really didn't get its legs under it until Equinox.

There are some gems on those early albums:

Father O.S.A.
The Grove of Eglantine
Winner Take All
Best Thing
You Need Love
I'm Gonna Make You Feel It
Man of Miracles

Your list of songs encompasses at least three of the songs I was thinking about when I said that "you can start to hear the 'classic' Styx sound on a couple of songs" on Styx II and "Man of Miracles has a couple of good songs."  A lot of it has to do with Wooden Nickel being a shitty record company, but there was really very little on those first four albums that foretold what was coming.  The funny thing about it is that the only real change was swapping out Curulewski for Shaw.  Maybe the real impetus was the band acting as its own producer, which is a rather remarkable thing for an otherwise relatively unknown band with virtually no solid track record signing onto a major label.

Well, Shaw is a beast, so I don't know if that's a minor change (I'm not a huge Styx fan, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

Honest question, though:  what did Wooden Nickel have to do with the music?  Were they telling the band what they could and could not release?   Again, honest question, not trying to be sarcastic here; I've already said, not much of a Styx fan.

In hindsight, Shaw coming on board was obviously huge since many of the band's best known and most highly regarded songs are his.  At the time, it was no big deal, and Shaw was a last minute replacement for Curulewski.  I'll have to try and dig up what I read about Wooden Nickel, but I recall having read disparaging comments about Wooden Nickel by DeYoung, Young and Shaw.
"There's a bass solo in a song called Metropolis where I do a bass solo."  John Myung

Offline erwinrafael

  • Posts: 2596
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #83 on: June 12, 2018, 07:39:49 PM »
Savatage. Paul O'Neill really brought them to another level with Hall of the Mountain King.

Not gonna argue with that, but there are so many kickass songs on those first three albums (Fight for the Rock indeed sucks).

Well, the OP is about bands whose first four albums aren't THAT GREAT, so yeah, lots of kickass songs on those good albums. :D

Online TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28835
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #84 on: June 12, 2018, 07:51:24 PM »
I'd say Savatage's first four, middle four, and last four weren't that great.  ;D
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24369
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #85 on: June 12, 2018, 09:05:13 PM »
I'd say Savatage's first four, middle four, and last four weren't that great.  ;D

I think you typed Saxon wrong.
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline IDontNotDoThings

  • Posts: 2326
  • Gender: Female
  • warflwwcesfw
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #86 on: June 12, 2018, 09:54:56 PM »
Queensryche










(ok not really lol)

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13130
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #87 on: June 13, 2018, 08:04:51 AM »
I'd say Savatage's first four, middle four, and last four weren't that great.  ;D

I think you typed Saxon wrong.

I thought he meant "Slayer".   My bad.

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24369
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #88 on: June 13, 2018, 08:41:57 AM »
I'd say Savatage's first four, middle four, and last four weren't that great.  ;D

I think you typed Saxon wrong.

I thought he meant "Slayer".   My bad.

Potato ... potahto
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6171
  • Gender: Male
  • My wife is a cabriolet
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #89 on: June 13, 2018, 11:14:33 AM »
Pantera.

Yup.

I agree with Styx as well.

Offline DragonAttack

  • Posts: 1373
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #90 on: July 06, 2018, 04:34:26 PM »
As groundbreaking as they were, and even if you include their non LP 45s......The Beatles.  Even if one does include their non LP 45s, just because of 'For Sale', one would have to include their first four offerings as 'not so great'. 

Kind of an interesting division, depending on who one talks to, in regards to Journey.  'Next', their third LP, became quite a hit to many of us once the band hit it big.  Those who love Steve Perry would consider their first two (or three) releases weak.  Some people think those three offerings were their strongest.  Hmmmm?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2018, 10:22:20 PM by DragonAttack »
'Discretionary posting is the better part of valor.'  Falstaff

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 27805
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #91 on: July 06, 2018, 05:09:58 PM »
Compared to what came later, you probably could say the Beatles, but it feels odd to say them since those early album are loaded with so many pop classics.

I would throw XTC in as a band that fits this thread well.  To me, they didn't hit their stride to their 4th album.  I have little to no use for the first three.  But albums 4 through 14 (counting The Dukes) are mostly money.

Offline WildRanger

  • Posts: 227
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #92 on: July 07, 2018, 04:37:24 AM »
I'd say Savatage's first four, middle four, and last four weren't that great.  ;D

I think you typed Saxon wrong.

Saxon >>> Savatage

Offline Peter Mc

  • Posts: 221
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #93 on: July 08, 2018, 03:24:59 AM »
Not actually sure if this is correct as Iíve never heard their first four albums but would Amorphis fit into this category? My collection only runs from Eclipse onwards and I have all their albums since but never got the impression that I need to go back and listen to their earlier stuff. Like I said though, Iíve never actually heard any of it so I could be very wrong!

Offline Luoto

  • Posts: 749
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #94 on: July 08, 2018, 08:52:41 AM »
Not actually sure if this is correct as Iíve never heard their first four albums but would Amorphis fit into this category?

No chance. Tales from the Thousand Lakes in particular is a melodeath classic, and Elegy is just as good as the Joutsen albums too.
Always too soon, always too late, always in between.

Offline Indiscipline

  • Musidian
  • Posts: 338
  • Gender: Male
  • Life Is a Cabaret
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #95 on: July 08, 2018, 10:08:45 AM »
The first four Tyrannosaurus Rex albums were so poor they had to change name to T-Rex.

The following four were all kinds of fabolous.

Offline ?

  • Apparently the best username
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11524
  • Gender: Male
  • Less=Moore, Even Less=Wilson
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #96 on: July 09, 2018, 04:15:55 AM »
Pink Floyd is the most logical answer.
Yup. Rush would fit this category too if 2112 wasn't so great.

Offline ReaperKK

  • Sweeter After Difficulty
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 11151
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #97 on: July 09, 2018, 04:57:56 AM »
I think Pink Floyd and Porcupine Tree jump to mind. There are some gems among those records but they are few.

Offline Kattelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 4052
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #98 on: July 09, 2018, 06:29:37 AM »
Symphony X - Granted, Divine Wings is a decent album, but it still never gripped me the way V, The Odyssey, and Paradise Lost did.

Threshold - Psychedelicatessen was decent, and Clone was a good transition into the Mac era, but Damienís delivery on Wounded Land and Extinct Instinct is just something I still canít tolerate. It isnít until we get to Hypothetical onward that each release is solid to stellar (except maybe For the Journey, but I enjoy even that one too).

I actually agree with these. I don't really like pre-Paradise Lost Symphony X (even V and The Odyssey), and Threshold... well, I like Psych, but it's not excellent, and everything else I've heard is just not that compelling. Dead Reckoning and Legends of the Shires, however, are fantastic.
RYM || Last.FM
"No Christ, God, nor religion gave me the answers I was looking for" - Timo Tolkki

Offline ytserush

  • Posts: 3332
  • Like clockwork...
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #99 on: July 17, 2018, 04:37:39 PM »
Wow. This is the craziest thread I've read in a while.

Pink Floyd?

King Crimson?

Journey?

Rush?


Seriously?