I agree that Led Zep #1 is fully formed and may be their best. Even more so for a 1st album is the Doors! This is fully developed and classic Doors! And May also be their very best! The Doors!
Interesting discussion / show, gentlemen, as usual 👍🏻 Thank you! My choice: the first King Crimson album "ITCOTCK" that is obvious I think 🙂 Fully introduced the band's unique style in this kind of music. And that riff in the beginning, we know 🙂
I think the obvious choice was Boston and I think they actually arrive more fully formed than Zeppelin. Boston never really evolved at all from the sound of the first album. They seem as though they've wrestled with trying to replicate it album after album and it also seemed to get harder to do over the course of their career. The painstakingly long process Tom Scholz used to create his music took a toll on the band itself costing them essential players that made the Boston sound in the first place. Starting with losing Barry Goudreau and eventually losing Brad Delp the voice of the Boston sound. Van Halen's debut was a good one but, I don't feel like anything that sounds like 1984 on through Sammy and VH III is on the debut so, I think they did evolve to another different level of songwriters and players.
I would have to agree that Led Zeppelin I is the most fully formed debut of the 60s and 70s, ruling out bands who got off to a great start and then spiraled into oblivion very quickly (Montrose, Angel, Moxy, Legs Diamond, Starz). I'm also going to rule out albums like Gamma 1 which was made by already seasoned musicians at the time of its release. I am also against the likes of Heep and VH here, even though those are extraordinary debuts. Heep's debut is great, but "Gypsy" stands head and shoulders above the remainder of ...Very 'eavy...Very 'umble in terms of production, and I would, actually cannot consider VH fully formed on their debut because they have three covers on it. Personally, I find KISS and Max Webster have what I consider the most fully formed debuts. Budgie and Queen I consider right up behind, because Budgie, although not having as technical of a sound as they would soon muster, basically have their album format and their musical tendencies and sound down from .0, and Queen, despite having many sounds, nails their heavy metal sound as combined with progressive rock, right out of the gate. Most heavy metal bands of the 70s do not have a good or great first album though. Rush, Nazareth, Judas Priest, Scorpions, Thin Lizzy, Sweet, Aerosmith, and UFO have pretty mediocre debuts, and really, there are many one-and-done (or close to it) albums of the 70s by much more underground acts that I consider vastly superior to what these classic acts did with their first albums. The likes of Lucifer's Friend, Leaf Hound, Bang, Black Widow, Hard Stuff, Toad, Bow Wow, Murasaki, Cool Feet, Desiree, Teaze, Alkana, Marseille, Legend, Trust, and Silvertrain. Another observation I have is that progressive bands typically don't have great debuts, and usually don't have very good follow-ups to the debuts. I'm talking about the classic prog bands. But by nature of being progressive, that raises the question: is their sound even capable of being fully formed on the first album? Lastly, I should add, I do love Led Zeppelin's debut, it's my favorite Zeppelin album, but I do think that the point of it being the most fully formed album of this approximate 10-year period of rock music is very difficult to challenge, because it does have all the ingredients that Zeppelin would become and is known for: acoustic guitars, the sweet high vocals of Robert Plant, the whittly riffs of Page, the power drumming of Bonham, the proto-heavy metal, the blues. I will concede the production quality as being poor. Anyway, being a band such as Zeppelin, to pursue so many musical directions in your career and have it all figured out from the starting line is beyond the ability of almost every band in history, which is probably what has caused them to become so immortalized.
Blues covers abound on this album which is difficult to asses many decades later. For me there are numerous albums that supersede Zep's debut due to the overwhelming 'borrowing' from other artists. Montrose, Van Halen, Wishbone Ash, Stray, Santana, BOC, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Riverside to name but a few.
Is it wrong to do cover songs? If you look back at that era, the Rolling Stones; The Beatles; Cream; Jeff Beck Group; Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac, to name a few, all recorded a lot of covers. I never quite understand why years later we mark that as a negative? It also seems to be worse in people's minds if its white guys covering- or stealing?- 'the blues'. I would just challenge that as a way of thinking that's all- not undermining your comment or saying you're wrong. I just think it's up for discussion. I rate it when a band can do a great cover version or adaptation of anything and make it their own. I think it's a harder thing to do 'artistically' than people might think and I wouldn't necessarily equate it with 'borrowing'.
In this example it was a case of plagiarising and to make matters worse they tried to cover it up for decades but were found out. As such i agree with some of your commentary but i dislike the band's dishonesty hence my negative opinion of their debut. @@jimmycampbell78
No. Too many covers of songs from black blues men who did not get credit at first and had to sue to get credit on reissues. Also with Dazed and Confused Jake Holmes did not get credit and had to sue.
only 2 songs were originally not properly credited and these were not Willie Dixon's, he was properly credited on the original release for You Shook Me and I Can't Quit You Baby. It was Anne Bredon's song that wasn't because Page thought Joan Baez recorded it and Dazed & Confused (Jake Holmes). Neither are black bluesmen. Willie Dixon sued to get credit on the second album for 'Bring It On Home' because they quoted his song at the beginning and he sued for lyrics Plant used on 'Whole Lotta Love' that came from his song 'You Need Love'.
May I suggest the incredible UA-cam channel of JCM- Led Zeppelin Stories. This guy put a ton of archives from late '60's and now is in 1994 for the episode of last saturday. For rock fans and Led Zep fans it's a must see ! Great discussion here !!! Thank you Lair and Pete !
Not sure Maiden's debut shows the sound that they became known for. It's a good debut album but that wasn't really the topic. It's a debut album where the band is 'fully formed' with their sound.
Martin, I can't believe you didn't offer up the first Max Webster album from 1976!! Everything you need to know about that band is there on that self-titled debut ...
Led Zeppelin I thats a start they are there but anyway a great album A Lot of great albums from Led Zeppelin SUPER BAND at the start. Jimmie Page know what he want`s so.... Led Zeppelin crew YES
Queen, Van Halen, Cars, Boston, The Doors, Montrose, ELP, Angel, Jimi Hendrix Experience, King Crimson, Sex Pistols, Lucifer's Friend, and Cheap Trick come immediately to mind.
Great Show.....I would say QUEEN 1 In 1973 got there sound right off the bat. Queen 2 and Sheer heart attack in 1974........Amazing start to a long career. They lost me in 1980. Great seeing you and Martin together.......
The Velvet Underground and Nico is the greatest debut in rock history, no contest. Mick Jagger - for one - said the reason Street Fighting Man and Stray Cat Blues rock so hard was the last two minutes of Heroin - he said it allowed them to go to that squalling intense place. The Doors comes close for sure.
It's unbelievable how many albums Pink Floyd took to "find their sound." The "industry" or what's left of it these days, chews up artists and spits them out faster than they can mature.
I personally would go with the first Van Halen, Black Sabbath or Montrose album over Led Zeppelin. The first Led Zeppelin album should be called Plagiarism.
It’s a great album, gets overshadowed by some albums after being even better. It would be one of the most fully formed. Kiss and van halen also fully formed.
@@TMINE100 I think the first two Kiss albums are just as good as Destroyer or anything that came after. I would agree that the production and sound is not very good. We need a proper remixing of the first three studio albums, no doubt.
The first BOSTON album, hands down!
Boston, The Doors and The Cars debuts are perfection from start to finish
Forgot about the Cars...that's a good one.
Agreed- very good picks.
Abit different but the Ramones self-titled was very fully formed and was very very influencial at the time and still.
The first Black Sabbath album is the best debut album and also my favorite album of all albums ever made, fully formed or not.
Would you throw in The Doors debut in this discussion?
I agree that Led Zep #1 is fully formed and may be their best. Even more so for a 1st album is the Doors! This is fully developed and classic Doors! And May also be their very best! The Doors!
That Doors album is a great example.
Van Halen, The Cars, and Boston are also very strong.
I think it's mainly because of the production. Beautifully recorded and produced for the time.
Interesting discussion / show, gentlemen, as usual 👍🏻 Thank you!
My choice: the first King Crimson album "ITCOTCK" that is obvious I think 🙂 Fully introduced the band's unique style in this kind of music. And that riff in the beginning, we know 🙂
Are You Experienced by The Jimi Hendrix Experience
Ah, Seventies. ;) I'd prefer Black Sabbath's debut.
First Boston album?
The Doors. Van Halen. Boston. The JImi Hendrix Experience. The Cars. Lynyrd Skynyrd. And maybe CCR and Blondie.
I forgot about Skynrd.
Really enjoyed this discussion
Thanks
The Ramones first album.
That’s exactly what they would look and sound like.
True
I think the obvious choice was Boston and I think they actually arrive more fully formed than Zeppelin. Boston never really evolved at all from the sound of the first album. They seem as though they've wrestled with trying to replicate it album after album and it also seemed to get harder to do over the course of their career. The painstakingly long process Tom Scholz used to create his music took a toll on the band itself costing them essential players that made the Boston sound in the first place. Starting with losing Barry Goudreau and eventually losing Brad Delp the voice of the Boston sound. Van Halen's debut was a good one but, I don't feel like anything that sounds like 1984 on through Sammy and VH III is on the debut so, I think they did evolve to another different level of songwriters and players.
Boston is a really strong one for sure.
Can’t agree, too many blues covers. Boston, Black Sabbath and Van Halen immediately spring to mind 🤷🏻♂️
The Doors and Boston
Both strong.
The first Lynyrd Skynyrd and The Doors albums fit the most complete fully formed debut album.
The more I think about it. The more I think you are right.
The first ELP album is a pretty well-realized debut.
I would have to agree that Led Zeppelin I is the most fully formed debut of the 60s and 70s, ruling out bands who got off to a great start and then spiraled into oblivion very quickly (Montrose, Angel, Moxy, Legs Diamond, Starz). I'm also going to rule out albums like Gamma 1 which was made by already seasoned musicians at the time of its release. I am also against the likes of Heep and VH here, even though those are extraordinary debuts. Heep's debut is great, but "Gypsy" stands head and shoulders above the remainder of ...Very 'eavy...Very 'umble in terms of production, and I would, actually cannot consider VH fully formed on their debut because they have three covers on it. Personally, I find KISS and Max Webster have what I consider the most fully formed debuts. Budgie and Queen I consider right up behind, because Budgie, although not having as technical of a sound as they would soon muster, basically have their album format and their musical tendencies and sound down from .0, and Queen, despite having many sounds, nails their heavy metal sound as combined with progressive rock, right out of the gate. Most heavy metal bands of the 70s do not have a good or great first album though. Rush, Nazareth, Judas Priest, Scorpions, Thin Lizzy, Sweet, Aerosmith, and UFO have pretty mediocre debuts, and really, there are many one-and-done (or close to it) albums of the 70s by much more underground acts that I consider vastly superior to what these classic acts did with their first albums. The likes of Lucifer's Friend, Leaf Hound, Bang, Black Widow, Hard Stuff, Toad, Bow Wow, Murasaki, Cool Feet, Desiree, Teaze, Alkana, Marseille, Legend, Trust, and Silvertrain.
Another observation I have is that progressive bands typically don't have great debuts, and usually don't have very good follow-ups to the debuts. I'm talking about the classic prog bands. But by nature of being progressive, that raises the question: is their sound even capable of being fully formed on the first album?
Lastly, I should add, I do love Led Zeppelin's debut, it's my favorite Zeppelin album, but I do think that the point of it being the most fully formed album of this approximate 10-year period of rock music is very difficult to challenge, because it does have all the ingredients that Zeppelin would become and is known for: acoustic guitars, the sweet high vocals of Robert Plant, the whittly riffs of Page, the power drumming of Bonham, the proto-heavy metal, the blues. I will concede the production quality as being poor. Anyway, being a band such as Zeppelin, to pursue so many musical directions in your career and have it all figured out from the starting line is beyond the ability of almost every band in history, which is probably what has caused them to become so immortalized.
Historically speaking yes. The musical roots of the album and Led Zeppelin as a project can be traced 10 years prior. :)
the first
boston
album.
Yeah, we should have thought of that one.
Cheap Trick debut
Another great shout
Blues covers abound on this album which is difficult to asses many decades later. For me there are numerous albums that supersede Zep's debut due to the overwhelming 'borrowing' from other artists. Montrose, Van Halen, Wishbone Ash, Stray, Santana, BOC, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Riverside to name but a few.
Is it wrong to do cover songs? If you look back at that era, the Rolling Stones; The Beatles; Cream; Jeff Beck Group; Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac, to name a few, all recorded a lot of covers. I never quite understand why years later we mark that as a negative? It also seems to be worse in people's minds if its white guys covering- or stealing?- 'the blues'. I would just challenge that as a way of thinking that's all- not undermining your comment or saying you're wrong. I just think it's up for discussion.
I rate it when a band can do a great cover version or adaptation of anything and make it their own. I think it's a harder thing to do 'artistically' than people might think and I wouldn't necessarily equate it with 'borrowing'.
In this example it was a case of plagiarising and to make matters worse they tried to cover it up for decades but were found out. As such i agree with some of your commentary but i dislike the band's dishonesty hence my negative opinion of their debut. @@jimmycampbell78
No. Too many covers of songs from black blues men who did not get credit at first and had to sue to get credit on reissues. Also with Dazed and Confused Jake Holmes did not get credit and had to sue.
only 2 songs were originally not properly credited and these were not Willie Dixon's, he was properly credited on the original release for You Shook Me and I Can't Quit You Baby.
It was Anne Bredon's song that wasn't because Page thought Joan Baez recorded it and Dazed & Confused (Jake Holmes). Neither are black bluesmen.
Willie Dixon sued to get credit on the second album for 'Bring It On Home' because they quoted his song at the beginning and he sued for lyrics Plant used on 'Whole Lotta Love' that came from his song 'You Need Love'.
Zeppelin 1 ❤ couldn't agree more. Dazed and Confused!!! My god. The POWER of that 🎵 Incredible
i knew about your channel but I didn't know you had Popoff gravitas. That'll get you some free refills at Tim Horton's for sure.
Nice...I'll keep that in mind next time I'm in Canada, love Tim Hortons...:)
A lot of good ones mentioned, would throw out zztop for consideration.
Yeah...good one.
May I suggest the incredible UA-cam channel of JCM- Led Zeppelin Stories. This guy put a ton of archives from late '60's and now is in 1994 for the episode of last saturday. For rock fans and Led Zep fans it's a must see ! Great discussion here !!! Thank you Lair and Pete !
Led Zeppelin 1 ..bad company 1 Foreigner 1 and Queen 1 for me
Iron Maiden and Allman bros debut
We kept it to the 60s and 70s but the Allman Bros. is a good one.
Dang it right .. Maiden 1980 ..
Not sure Maiden's debut shows the sound that they became known for. It's a good debut album but that wasn't really the topic. It's a debut album where the band is 'fully formed' with their sound.
@@jimmycampbell78 I agree, especially with Paul Dianno on vocals but it does for see their prog/long epic songs meets speed and aggression formula
The Stooges did five albums. There's also The Weirdness (2007) and Ready to Die (2013).
The Beatles
Please Please Me
March 1963 #1 (8 months)
Love a bass player and drummer talking music ! Good job boys 💪
What about the first Ramones album,gentlemen?
Martin, I can't believe you didn't offer up the first Max Webster album from 1976!! Everything you need to know about that band is there on that self-titled debut ...
Led Zeppelin 1 & 2 weren't released in the 1970s. They were both released in 1969.
Boston’s first album is pretty great too.
Boston's first for the 70s, and The Doors first for the 60s.
Led Zeppelin I thats a start they are there but anyway a great album A Lot of great albums from Led Zeppelin SUPER BAND at the start.
Jimmie Page know what he want`s so.... Led Zeppelin crew YES
King crimson, the Doors and Boston!
Jeff beck TRUTH album to me is more ground breaking by far
I’d go Boston and the Cars.
Queen, Van Halen, Cars, Boston, The Doors, Montrose, ELP, Angel, Jimi Hendrix Experience, King Crimson, Sex Pistols, Lucifer's Friend, and Cheap Trick come immediately to mind.
Definitely not Queen.
They developed.
Actually the second album is closer to what their normal style would be .
Late to the discussion on this, but Mercyful Fate came out of the gate fully realized and steamrolled everybody.
True...I've actually been listening to the first two M.F. albums recently and it's pretty incredible how strong and together those albums are.
No
😮 No.
Great Show.....I would say QUEEN 1 In 1973 got there sound right off the bat. Queen 2 and Sheer heart attack in 1974........Amazing start to a long career. They lost me in 1980. Great seeing you and Martin together.......
The Velvet Underground and Nico is the greatest debut in rock history, no contest. Mick Jagger - for one - said the reason Street Fighting Man and Stray Cat Blues rock so hard was the last two minutes of Heroin - he said it allowed them to go to that squalling intense place. The Doors comes close for sure.
It's unbelievable how many albums Pink Floyd took to "find their sound." The "industry" or what's left of it these days, chews up artists and spits them out faster than they can mature.
Actually Pink Floyd got their original psychedelic sound on their first record. Though it took them several records for their progressive sound
I personally would go with the first Van Halen, Black Sabbath or Montrose album over Led Zeppelin. The first Led Zeppelin album should be called Plagiarism.
I agree LZ1 is great ach is almost a covers album.
L.Z. haters at it again !
'Stamp'
@@paulkazakoff9231 Indeed, and even when it comes to this topic they don't get it right. I've responded to a similar comment above.
It’s a great album, gets overshadowed by some albums after being even better.
It would be one of the most fully formed. Kiss and van halen also fully formed.
Van Halen is great pick. I think u could make argument that Kiss didn't truly come into their own until Alive or Destroyer but i do love that debut.
@@TMINE100 I think the first two Kiss albums are just as good as Destroyer or anything that came after. I would agree that the production and sound is not very good. We need a proper remixing of the first three studio albums, no doubt.