I prefer their earlier work

You think the first album/novel/movie/opera/series of paintings they produced is the best, contrary to general critical consensus. Possibly because it was the first you encountered. Possibly because you're a hopeless snob and make a point of not liking what everyone else likes.

Note: NOT just "Their first was their best" -- i.e., I think the first Violent Femmes record beats the others but so does most everyone.

For me:

David Sedaris (Barrel Fever)
Magnetic Fields (Distant Plastic Trees / The Wayward Bus)
Mountain Goats (Zopilote Machine)
Michael Chabon (Mysteries of Pittsburgh)
Jonathan Lethem (Gun, With Occasional Music)

(tried to think of a movie example, failed.)

Alan Moore.
Incredible String Band (first four or five only.)

Tortoise

"Incredible String Band (first four or five only.)"

does a 4th or 5th anything count as early?

good question.

does that make volume 4 "late" sabbath????

charles laughton
blind faith

DEFINITELY early meat puppets... first single and EP are the best iirc. puppets II good, up on the sun the last traces of radditude.

I can't stand anything of Soundgarden's after Badmotorfinger. When Chris Cornell stopped screaming and started singing, I threw down my headphones. But especially Ultramega OK & Louder Than Love. Love the screamy more than anything.

lol, I enjoy George Miller's early work. ie mad max.

Flaming Lips - Hear It Is

black eyed peas

"does that make volume 4 "late" sabbath????"

middle

"Flaming Lips - Hear It Is"

oh my gawd is their best and still pretty early.

i think most people's early stuff is the best. if they are talented to begin with. some people are less talented and need more time to grow. but a lot of very talented people's later work is just a refinement of what they already know how to do. and they often make good work, but it never has that initial spark of youth, desperation, anger, whatever, etc.

agreed. rawness, energy of first album is hard to replace if it's captured well.

Spiderbait - 'Shashavaglava' pwns all
Regurgitator - first Ep, 'New' ep, 'Tuplang'...and then I get off the bus.
Powderfinger - 'Parables for Wooden Ears' is all I'll ever need.

This probably doesn't count but in my mind, and in my ipod, AC/DC ends with Bon. Brian is for Raiders games and stripclubs.

Suggest Ban Permalink

DEFINITELY early meat puppets... first single and EP are the best iirc. puppets II good, up on the sun the last traces of radditude.

Mirage and Huevos both also completely f'in awesome imo esp. Mirage

(cards on table, not wanting to drag my own stuff in but hard not to if I'm joining this conversation, lots of people think I was at my best early on tho I always think the issue is actually "what did you hear first" and sometimes "when in your life was that." also & have said this elsewhere, this trope - "early stuff best" - is not entirely unique to pop talk, but is most prevalent there; you almost never hear it said about classical composers, only sometimes about novelists, sometimes about painters, but reliably about pop musicians. possible youth-cult reasons but I think it's more complex.)

i think its a sound aesthetics thing w/ pop music too--john is an extreme example but a certain kind of lo-fi 'raw' vs. a more polished/'produced'/'professional' sound even if territory covered is largely the same

not just mountain ghosts tho - thinking of like, bleach vs. nevermind and on, for example

for me Wes Anderson never got better than Bottle Rocket

I always think the issue is actually "what did you hear first"

i believe this to be true a lot of the time.

i seem to say 'early stuff blah blah' more than anyone i know :(

the issue is actually "what did you hear first"

well yes, but -- sometimes this is for good reason. if peoples' first contact with yes were 'union' (which used to have its own section in the used bin at poindexter records in durham), they're probably not going to seek out 'fragile'

...and therefore they're not gonna talk about that band at all, is what i'm sayin

(as far as pop music) I think a lot of it has to do with what you hear first, and also when you begin to follow an artist. you can look on ILM on the times new viking thread and see people saying that it's not as good as the earlier records, but i'd wager that all of the kids who hadn't heard them until the first matador LP can look at their last record with a different perspective.

that was one hell of a run on sentence :\

for me, though -- if a band has songs about having maps of the roman empire on all the walls and then stops having songs about having maps of the roman empire on all the walls, then to that band i say: good day

consuming art in the context of an oeuvre is for chumps anyway

Dunno about first thing, best thing. This is sometimes true, sometimes not. My favorite GBV record is Propeller, the first I heard. But the first Stooges record I heard was the ST, the second was Raw Power. And Funhouse wound up being my favorite.

(j/k dude xoxo)

I think a lot of writers tend to get better as they go along. IMO one reason Sedaris is an exception is he writes funny stories from his life, and he wrote about all his craziest experiences first (which makes sense).

Trying to think about vid game peeps here – say Shigeru Miyamoto or Will Wright – and it's hard to compare stuff in their chronologies bcz technology has changed so much over their careers.

d'angelo - brown sugar
earlier versions of leaves of grass

OP otm re: lethem

i feel like part of this thing comes out of the fact that there tends to be a simplicity to early stuff, before an artist decides to tackle their themes in a really ambitious way

is there a difference between words and music?

early music seems to benefit from passion, perhaps, whilst later words seem to benefit from experience/craftsmanship

I often get the sense, perhaps imaginary, that artists sort of "find themselves" in their earliest work, that this developmental process is exploratory and even naive, in a good way. But once they've figured out what it is they do, and maybe more importantly, attracted an audience interested in that thing, they become producers of their own house brand. Not that they can't continue to grow and explore, but a weird cover-band quality sometimes creeps in, a distancing type of self-awareness. Seems to be most crippling for artists whose brand depends on being quirky or "dangerous".

for what it's worth, i actually prefer the later autumnal john d. posts to the earlier funnier posts.

I wonder if the increased life experiences that come with aging help you prefer the later works of those who have done the same. Perhaps, for example, I'll like more of the Residents once moles try to take over my society.

"But the first Stooges record I heard was the ST, the second was Raw Power. And Funhouse wound up being my favorite."

so you ended up liking a record more that was recorded almost exactly a year after their debut was recorded. i think that would qualify as "early".

"Perhaps, for example, I'll like more of the Residents once moles try to take over my society."

i'm still waiting for cyberpunks to take over the world so that i can like this billy idol album.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/BillyIdolCyberpunk.jpg

i figure i'll like updike if i get to 50

I often get the sense, perhaps imaginary, that artists sort of "find themselves" in their earliest work, that this developmental process is exploratory and even naive, in a good way. But once they've figured out what it is they do, and maybe more importantly, attracted an audience interested in that thing, they become producers of their own house brand. Not that they can't continue to grow and explore, but a weird cover-band quality sometimes creeps in, a distancing type of self-awareness. Seems to be most crippling for artists whose brand depends on being quirky or "dangerous".

I like a lot of this although I think there's also this tendency to over-read what artists are doing later - to, say, read as though they're responding to their fanbase or their press or their own discography when I think for many they're really just sorta workin', you know - and there's a damned-if-you-do sort of thing, too, where if you try to branch out, you risk looking like a chump, and if you don't, you look like you're pandering. which is why, I think, the conclusion many artists come to is "I'm gonna just do what I can do," and there's more wile written into their decisions than may actually be there. But as far as "finding themselves," yeah, no question I think that early on musicians/bands tend to be figuring out how to do stuff, and you can hear them getting excited about it in the process, and that's a thrill that can't be duplicated or repeated.

which is what i said kinda up above:

but a lot of very talented people's later work is just a refinement of what they already know how to do. and they often make good work, but it never has that initial spark of youth, desperation, anger, whatever, etc.

you people don't even read my posts amymore do you? i'm just yesterdays news to you guys.

yeah I don't know man, long about your seventh post you lost the fire and I mainly skim since then

(also though scott you're talking about a "youthful spark of fire" etc. that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying, early on, it's a youthful spark of "I have no what idea what I'm doing," and there's a strong tendency toward primitivism in rock music - to liking that sound of an artist/band slashing at unseen enemies in the dark. this is why early death metal is so incredible! it's a bunch of guys figuring out a way to make a sound that'll sound cool to them. very little design to it, much more "maybe this? maybe this?" and a million happy accidents.)

i knew it! i was pretty once! you liked me then!

you know one arena you'll seldom hear "they were better earlier" is in the underrated field of TMI

Val Kilmer

okay to be serious and to say again what i kinda said already: people who are talented often do really exciting stuff right off the bat whether they know what they are doing or not and what they do later is build on what worked in the first place. and i often like that stuff a bunch too. cuz they learn new stuff but the core of what they do is what attracted me in the beginning. good example: m. gira. love the early screaming at a wall. later stuff just as powerful but seen thru the eyes of someone who has grown/lived/learned/etc. later can mean denser and more complex and more interesting. people with less talent or who have one good idea/trick up their sleeve often don't top that initial burst. these are the people whose first albums will always be best. first demos. first rehearsals. etc.

As someone who is almost 30 and still daydreams of maybe releasing some music one day despite having pretty much given up on making any, it pains me how much this "good records are made by angry 19-year-olds who then get boring" stuff seems to be true

especially since it is often wrapped up in some NME-esque coding of (youth, mental illness, spontaneity, passion) = GOOD, entirely incompatible with (aging, experience, knowledge, thinking about things) = BAD, which is all - particularly the "hey kids, it's cool and glamorous and productive to be crazy, especially if you are young and hott too" aspect - a whole barrel of troubling wrong as far as i've seen

Trying to think about vid game peeps here - say Shigeru Miyamoto or Will Wright - and it's hard to compare stuff in their chronologies bcz technology has changed so much over their careers.
Populous >>> Dungeon Keeper >>>>>>>>> Black & White, Fable, fwiw
(have never seen Molyneux's real "early work" tho)

Depends what you mean by early. What is Werner Herzog's early period, for instance?

Alan Moore.

no way you actually think this.

Sonic Youth
REM
Nirvana
Pink Floyd
Scritti Politti
Royal Trux
Will Oldham
Jesus & Mary Chain
Mercury Rev
Liars
Kraftwerk
Throwing Muses
Pixies
Unrest

Fugazi too.

jazz players mess this up, don't they? u have the 'apprenticeship' thing going on, w/ artists playing only a supporting role for a while, not even really leading their own bands until their early 30s, and career-defining work not being done until sometimes their late 30s/early 40s

Elvis P
Elvis C
John Lydon

Johnny Cash is the first that springs immediately to mind. Yeah the Rubin-helmed albums had some highlights, but you could just not fuck with this man's early catalog.

Iron Maiden

In Flames is the only example I can think of (more variety, less polish) - I don't have a habit of listening to everything someone's done, tend to obsess over a couple albums and then move on.

Oh wait, Oasis! Blindingly obvious answer to this question.

Marx Brothers

Kevin Smith

Woody Allen

x-post

jazz players mess this up, don't they?

otm and surely another factor in this is that you can't really just pick up a saxophone / trumpet / whatever and start boshing away and make a record (without it sounding dreadful). Unlike rock there's an level of technical virtuosity that *has* to be there before a jazz musician can even begin to channel their own artistry. Doubtless there are many kids trained from age 5 in the ways of jazz who disprove this.

re Alan Moore, imo he's much more a writer who exemplifies sustained general quality with sporadic excellence. Earlier work like Miracleman and Halo Jones is still superb, then obv Watchmen, but over the last few years From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen are a real return to form.

Returning to the thread proper: American Music Club and George Lucas.

jazz players mess this up, don't they?

Pharoah Sanders

jazz players mess this up, don't they? u have the 'apprenticeship' thing going on, w/ artists playing only a supporting role for a while, not even really leading their own bands until their early 30s, and career-defining work not being done until sometimes their late 30s/early 40s

I remember Davy Graham saying somethng along these lines about the type of music he played.

He is most famous for "Anjii", the first track of his first e.p. made for a local indie folk label.

what about when there's an arc? I feel like Neal Stephenson's gone from not so good to fantastic to not that great again.

Anathem was awesome!

somewhat pertinent: precocious geniuses vs late bloomers

http://www.gladwell.com/2008/2008_10_20_a_latebloomers.html

Anathem was really disappointing, what are you talking about!

do you wanna step outside
Anathem by Neal Stephenson: Kinda Like 'The Name of the Rose' If It Were About Pythagoreans

I was not disappointed at all by Anathem.

The name Anathem reminded me of another one: Rush

This thread took a surprising turn! For what it's worth, I didn't mean at all to ask "Why do artists do their best work first?" Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, and I don't see a clear pattern. What I was going for is more like -- "under what circumstances do we hold tightly to our convictions that the first work is the best?" Most everybody thinks "Kavalier and Clay" is way better than "Mysteries of Pittsburgh" -- why not me? Ditto "69 Love Songs" vs. the Susan Amway material. Does a real, heartfelt love for the debut actually block your ability really to appreciate what comes later?

Were there Fitzgerald stans in 1935 who were all "I recognize objectively the good qualities of Tender is the Night and Gatsby but it's gotta be This Side of Paradise for me?" If so, how should we feel about them?

Alan Moore.

no way you actually think this.

― RAPTOBER (sic), Tuesday, October 13, 2009 9:58 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark

I guess tbh I have not read any of is brit superhero stuff, but Swamp Thing is far & away my favorite. As far as League of Gents, I think it peaked with the second series & has been more and more a stuffy in-joke since. From Hell I never read because my apartment was always too dim to read it without straining my eyes. I do intend to remedy that tbh.

can see this way more with music, a bit more with films, and less with novels/books. Pop music, especially, is way more about youthcult and zeitgeist and fashion (hey, what about fashion? any designers bloom late? or do they all grow old playing off their early reputation?), whereas craft tends to be valued more in literature & jazz.

also, "earlier" work tends to have developed a critical consensus, ergo, easier/safer to self-i.d. as a fan

I guess tbh I have not read any of is brit superhero stuff, but Swamp Thing is far & away my favorite. As far as League of Gents, I think it peaked with the second series & has been more and more a stuffy in-joke since. From Hell I never read because my apartment was always too dim to read it without straining my eyes. I do intend to remedy that tbh.

From Hell is one of his best works. Also Top 10 and Promethea, have you read them? I'm not the biggest fan of LOEG either, but he has done some great stuff during the l0 years,

"the last 10 years"

Anyway, my answer is Mouse on Mars. The first three (or four, if you count Instrumentals) albums were all great, they had a unique and lovely sound, but after that they turned to boring IDM and indie electro and became less and less interesting with each album.

The nadir, of course, was working with that rock "singer" who can't sing.

I didn't care for Promethea, stopped reading during the third trade iirc.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Marx Brothers

Again, no WAY do you think twenty years or so of live vaudeville which no-one alive has seen is better than Duck Soup!

re Alan Moore, imo he's much more a writer who exemplifies sustained general quality with sporadic excellence. Earlier work like Miracleman and Halo Jones is still superb, then obv Watchmen, but over the last few years From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen are a real return to form.

From Hell is from 1988!

I guess tbh I have not read any of is brit superhero stuff,

even that was five years after his first professional comics work

As far as League of Gents, I think it peaked with the second series

which was TWENTY-FIVE years after his first comics! told you you didn't believe it.

Will Wright is a good one Abb! I know a lot of people who prefer SimCity3000 over later ones and I dont know ANYONE who likes the latest sim city travesty. I guess I cant call SC4 "early" though - but its easlier in HIS career, and I'd prefer SC2k/3k/4 and Sims/Sims2 over his latest stuff like Spore which was a bit of a disapointment, technology be damned.

Robert Crumb (but I haven't seen the new Bible adaptation yet)

From Hell is from 1988!

srsly? wiki says individual issues from '91 to '96 and the tpb was 1999, which is when I first read it, and I'd wager when it hit the radar of most other people. Exact dates aside, my main point is that his quality has never really dropped off.

srsly

started work in 1988, first ep may have been 1989 in Taboo, the first "issues" were collections. but started for centenary.

Started serialization in Taboo #2, 1989.

fair play, I had no idea it was initiated that early.

Were there Fitzgerald stans in 1935 who were all "I recognize objectively the good qualities of Tender is the Night and Gatsby but it's gotta be This Side of Paradise for me?" If so, how should we feel about them?

― Guayaquil (eephus!), dinsdag 13 oktober 2009 17:48 (2 days ago) Bookmark

As visionaries!

Wait, but I take this view re FSF to be indefensible on the merits -- you don't?

No, I don't. As good as 'Tender' and 'Gatsby' are (this is probably me 'recognizing objectively the good qualities'), 'This Side of Paradise' to me really is his best one ~ by far. Maybe 'objectively' it is indeed not defensible, but it's how I feel.

Great example for this thread, then.

Schönberg, Stravinsky

Somehow I forgot my very best personal example of this: my favorite Radiohead song is "Creep."