Some of these are more arguable than others, but tons of people:

Marvin Gaye (What's Going On), Stevie Wonder (Innervisions, or anyway something from the '70s), Aretha Franklin (the Atlantic years), Michael Jackson (Thriller, and I'm counting from the J5 releases), The Beatles (The Beatles)... There are a lot of jazz musicians that could be placed into this category, too.

The Who-Who's Next was about 7 years into their existence.

Could a case be made for Bruce Springsteen after Born in the USA came out?

The Kinks didn't really hit their stride until '68 - '70 or so with "Village Green", "Arthur" and "Lola".

This is a tough question, so many artists do seem to peak in their first few years and then sort of trail off into being nostalgia acts.

For some bands it depends on listener's taste/line-up, doesn't it? Pink Floyd's two "best albums" were numbers 8 and 9 - Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here; although my favorites come a bit earlier, I would consider these to be the peak albums.

Wait, if we don't count soundtracks then Dark Side was their 6th album, and if we throw out Piper at the Gates of Dawn because it's pre-Gilmour, then Pink Floyd still makes the cut, but only barely.

The Red Hot Chili Peppers peak album is undeniably Blood Sugar Sex Magic, their 5th studio album.

It's probably worthwhile to mention the difference between critical consensus and our own opinions, too. I mean, I think Desire is a better Bob Dylan album than Blood on the Tracks, but I recognize that this is, uh, a minority opinion (Dylan's sixth album, btw, is Highway 61 Revisited).

I think Jay-Z's sixth album, The Blueprint, is his best, but I think most people would pick his first, Reasonable Doubt.

But again with the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Blood Sugar was only the second album with John Frusciante on guitar and Chad Smith on drums, so can we even count the ones before they joined?

Sorry, I'm sort of obsessed with rock bands and the history thereof.

Tom Waits, Swordfishtrombones and Big Time. I think he still has his best album in him.

I think The Roots' sixth album, Phrenology, is their best, but I think most people would pick their fourth, Things Fall Apart.

I agree w/mullacc re:Jay-Z, too. Hip-hop seems to trade in its immediacy, and so I think it provides a lot of occurrences of the first or second album being the best (Nas, Public Enemy, De La Soul, Wu-Tang, etc.). Heads talk about third-album curses, for crying out loud.

A really interesting case could be made for the Johnny Cash American albums, too.

The Flaming Lips are another odd example - the released 4 albums with a no-name label before signing with Warner Bros. I think it's too early to tell which of the Warner Bros. records will be considered their "best", but their breakthrough record was The Soft Bulletin, which was technically their 9th studio album (their 5th on a major label). Again, they are a band with lots of line-up changes, not to mention genre changes, so it's hard to say where to start counting.

I prefer David Bowie's run of studio albums from 1975-1980 (Young Americans, Station to Station, Low, Heroes, Lodger, and Scary Monsters) to any of his first five albums (which include Ziggy Stardust and Aladdin Sane), but others would disagree. Depending on my mood, I sometimes think his best album was Outside, which came out sometime in the late '90s.

Stevie Wonder's best run of albums (in the mid-'70s) came well after his first five studio albums, but note that he started recording at the age of 12 or so.

Paul Simon immediately came to mind. Graceland was what, 1988? Almost 20 years after his hay day, and the launching of a third career as a world musician. Part of folk duo > solo artist > elder statesmen/poet.

To clarify my assumptions: 1. Only studio releases of new material count as an album. So "Under A Blood Red Sky" doesn't count for U2 and "Got Live If You Want It" doesn't count for The Rolling Stones. 2. I'm thinking chiefly of acts that perform original material in a popular music context - so no jazz. Maybe no Aretha either. 3. As a less subjective alternative to "best album", we can substitute "album that would be mentioned first in an obituary". Which in Springsteen's case means Born in the U.S.A., I guess, and in Pink Floyd's case definitely means Dark Side of the Moon.

That discounting-the-indie-releases thing--I never understood why people did it (the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame people do, too). It totally screws up the counting--think of R.E.M., whose fifth album is either Document or New Adventures in Hi-Fi, or Sonic Youth, where it's either Sister or A Thousand Leaves--unless you consider the DGC reissues, or count Made in USA, or the EP, or... man, this stuff is complicated.

Could a case be made for Bruce Springsteen after Born in the USA came out?

I don't think so; Born to Run (his third record) was really his breakthrough album, and it came in 1975, nine years before Born in the USA. Between the two, he also released Darkness on the Edge of Town, The River, and Nebraska, all of which were highly critically acclaimed and had some commercial success as well, even if none of them approached the mega-platinum status of Born in the USA.

Could a case be made for Bruce Springsteen after Born in the USA came out?

Nope.

Which in Springsteen's case means Born in the U.S.A.,

Nope.

Heh heh heh.

On preview, heh heh heh.

As a less subjective alternative to "best album", we can substitute "album that would be mentioned first in an obituary".

But even that's subjective: for David Bowie, some obituary writers might mention Let's Dance first, since that was his biggest commercial blockbuster, while others might mention Ziggy Stardust, since that's the one that made him a star.

Hunky Dory! Hunky Dory!

I'm thinking chiefly of acts that perform original material in a popular music context - so no jazz. Maybe no Aretha either.

I'm curious.

Hunky Dory! Hunky Dory!

Oh, totally. His first truly great album (and one of the three best he's ever done, IMO), and he was all of 24.

Yeah, I guess the obituary angle obscures more than it illuminates. So let's forget I ever said that...

Here's another way of thinking about it. The music for which The Ramones were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is the music they made on their first four albums. Or, if you prefer, if they had stopped making records after Road To Ruin, they would be an equally strong candidate for induction.

Likewise in R.E.M.'s case, the music for which they were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is the music they made at IRS records.

I'd agree with Prospero on Stevie, but I'd disagree on Bowie, since he'll always be Ziggy to me.

Blur's albums from 1997 onwards - Blur, 13 and Think Tank (their fifth, sixth and seventh) - are in my opinion better than their earlier material, although that's partly to do with them moving away from Britpop towards other influences. Different Class by Pulp was their fifth album (although I have a soft spot for His 'n' Hers, their fourth).

Aretha sang a lot of songs that other people had written. Then again, that same thing could be said about the first few Beatles and Stones records.

I think the narrowing down of "assumptions" to make the choices less "subjective" makes anyone's answers less and less worthwhile. Of course, I'm just bitter because I was about to say Eric Dolphy and then go on and on about Aretha, but damn.

On preview, what box said. Is it that artists who cover others' stuff or who don't write their own music don't count as "musicians?"

Steve Earle isn't pop, so I don't know if he fits the question anymore, but he definitely matured as an artist.

I think a related topic might be great artists who had strong and/or particuarly interesting "second acts" to their careers... Tom Waits comes to mind (the "Asylum years" of the '70s transitioning into the "Island years" of the '80s), as well as Leonard Cohen. Joe Strummer might qualify, too -- he was in the wilderness for quite awhile after the Clash (though he had some great moments, intermittantly), and didn't really hit his stride again till he put together the Mescaleros in 1999.

EVOL is my favorite Sonic Youth record, but a very strong case can be made for them peaking with Daydream Nation, their sixth record. It was certainly their breakout record. (And it was all downhill after that, anyway...)

Is it that artists who cover others' stuff or who don't write their own music don't count as "musicians?"

[sighs...]

No, it's not that they're not musicians. It's that vocalists and jazz improvisers are generally on a faster schedule of album releases and/or slower schedule of artistic decline than are rock bands.

If we were discussing, say, Sarah Vaughan, the question of what was her best work would be even more subjective than what we're wrestling with now. Would we be judging on voice quality? Interpretive depth? Quality of material?

At least in the case of The Velvet Underground, we can say with authority that Loaded is canonical and Squeeze is not.

Guided by Voices.

Oh, one more--Prince. Purple Rain was his sixth album, and generally the run of "canonical" Prince albums is considered to include (at the least) 1999, Purple Rain, Around the World in a Day, Parade, and Sign o' the Times.

See, the trouble is, there are lots of folks who think Full Moon Fever is Tom Petty's best work, because it was such a success, and I think that sort of thinking would put him into this category, but I'd say anyone who thinks that missed the boat entirely and probably thinks Petty's supposed to sound like Jeff Lynne and California, not the Heartbreakers and Florida. But that's just me; it's cut-and-dry, utterly objective as far as I'm concerned, but I also recognize that it's totally subjective. What I mean is, we're ultimately talking about tastes here, and the only way we can pretend to objectivity is by excluding things on a case-by-case basis, which is another way of saying we pick the answers we like.

Here's one: Solomon Burke, the King of Rock and Soul, is what you'd probably call a vocalist. Like Elvis, most (maybe all) of his big hits were written by others. But I'd say the dude grew as a vocalist, I mean in 1965 he was great, but in 1985 he was stellar, just incredible. And that's the kind of interesting answer a question like this should elicit, but he's disqualified. So should Elvis be.

Since we're talking about albums, and a lot of real long-lasting bands did their best early work on singles, how does that work? I mean the Stones, for example, had a slew of great singles from different early albums (and for the record, I agree that later Stones is better, though I currently favor Beggars Banquet and Sticky Fingers over Exile). Hell, my favorite Stones track is an early cover, "Going to a Go-Go." Sure those are on albums, but that's not how music was being consumed until later, when the Stones started paying close attention to albums as albums, not just as vehicles for singles.

I really do think there's an interesting question here, and though it sounds like I'm all frustration and nitpicks, I'd like to enjoy the esoteric and varied answers everyone's got for this question. I mean, Dolphy, Vivaldi, Burke, Yoakam, Earle. I think they're all valid answers, but maybe not to this question as it's evolved. Please don't take my criticisms to heart (and please don't sigh at me either); I wouldn't say anything if it wasn't interesting to begin with, so above all thanks for asking.

Could a case be made for Bruce Springsteen after Born in the USA came out?

Nope.


Oh, I definitely think so, so much so that I almost posted it - but I decided it was futile, because there are so many Born to Run adherents out there. And I do have a couple pre- BITUSA favorites. But arguably, some of Bruce's best work, from an artistic rather than pop-culture-sensation standpoint, is post-BITUSA. I mean, look at this discography:


Greetings From Asbury Park, N.J. - 1973
The Wild, The Innocent & The E Street Shuffle - 1973
Born To Run - 1975
Darkness On The Edge Of Town - 1978
The River - 1980
Nebraska - 1982

Now, you can't say the person who made those 6 albums hadn't hit his stride yet. But BITUSA was his biggest-selling album. And though there was a lull in quality after that (the Bad Marriage/Aftermath Years):

Born in the USA -1984
Tunnel of Love - 1987
Lucky Town - 1992
Human Touch - 1992

Then look at this:

The Ghost Of Tom Joad - 1995
The Rising - 2002
Devils & Dust - 2005
Magic - 2007

All of which are towering records - The Rising and Magic are basically perfect albums, both very powerful and relevant and musically awesome, and the other two are meditative and dark with incredible songwriting. I think you could argue that he has had two long eras of greatness punctuated by some struggling in the middle from which he totally bounced back. The early stuff is great and I love it like you can't believe, but it's also callow. The maturity in the later stuff is an aesthetic of its own. A lot of artists never arrived at this second phase. Most, in fact.

For some bands it depends on listener's taste/line-up, doesn't it? Pink Floyd's two "best albums" were numbers 8 and 9 - Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here; although my favorites come a bit earlier, I would consider these to be the peak albums.

Wait, if we don't count soundtracks then Dark Side was their 6th album, and if we throw out Piper at the Gates of Dawn because it's pre-Gilmour, then Pink Floyd still makes the cut, but only barely.

Thanks for the segue - I think The Final Cut is their best album and could hardly come later in their career, being the final album and having been made while one member had been ejected and the rest were barely speaking to one another. That's a personal preference, though - no doubt most would consider Dark Side of the Moon to be their "canonical" album, if only becuase it's the one everyone knows and it also came fairly late in their career, although they didn't achieve must mainstream recognition until that time.

That's exactly right, and I couldn't disagree more. De gustibus non est disputandum.

Oops, I meant that for Miko.

Oh yeah, I certainly think Springsteen has put out a ton of amazing music beyond that first phase of records -- The Ghost of Tom Joad is actually my favorite record of his. So I wonder if that really puts him in the "amazing second act" category rather than the "took awhile to hit his stride" category?

On the way home, I thought of someone else who had an interesting second act: Willie Nelson. He'd been a songwriter and performer for going on a couple of decades before he really broke through critically and commercially in the early/mid-'70s.

I wonder if that really puts him in the "amazing second act" category rather than the "took awhile to hit his stride" category?

Yeah, I would agree with that.

And Willie Nelson.

I think it's going to be pretty rare from here forward, though. No record company is going to let someone put out 5 albums before really producing traction. The documentary Before the Music Dies goes into the reasons why this doesn't happen any more, and gives a bunch of examples of artists who took a while to develop.

I first misread that title as The Way the Music Died. That's a different music-biz documentary, and it's both informative and hilarious.

Second acts:
Zev Love X/MF DOOM
David Johansen/Buster Poindexter/David Johansen

Just browsing through my mp3s:

AC/DC - Back In Black
Aerosmith - Pump arguable
Alice Cooper - Billion Dollar Babies
Black Sabbath - Sabbath Bloody Sabbath arguable
Beach Boys - Pet Sounds
Bob Seger - Night Moves
Chicago - V or VI - take your pick
Deep Purple - Machine Head
Doobie Brothers - Minute by Minute somewhat arguable
Dusty Springfield - Dusty in Memphis
Eagles - Hotel California
Elton John - Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
Grand Funk Railroad - We're An American Band
Judas Priest - British Steel
King Crimson - Lark's Tongue in Aspic
Kraftwerk - Computer World
Miles Davis - Kind of Blue - Miles is beyond jazz.
Nazareth - Hair of the Dog
Scorpions - Blackout
Styx - Grand Illusion
Tangerine Dream - Stratosphere
Ted Nugent - Cat Scratch Fever if you count the Amboy Dukes albums (and I do)
Thin Lizzy - Jailbreak
Three Dog Night - Harmony arguable
Uriah Heep - The Magician's Birthday
Who - Who's Next
ZZ Top - Eliminator

Highly arguable (depending on the age of the fan: those who were there versus later generations)

Frank Zappa - Roxy & Elsewhere
Jefferson Airplane - Volunteers or Long John Silver
Led Zeppelin - Presence or Physical Graffiti
Lynyrd Skynyrd - Street Survivors
Supertramp - Breakfast in America

I think it's going to be pretty rare from here forward, though. No record company is going to let someone put out 5 albums before really producing traction.

This is an excellent point. I seem to recall reading an interview with U2, and they said essentially the same thing about their own career -- that in the current recording climate, they would never have been allowed the time/latitude they were given to get to the point of recording The Joshua Tree, and in fact would very likely have lost their contract after October.

Tom Petty's best work is, in my opinion, on his later albums. While he wrote hits early on, Wildflowers from 1995 was an incredible piece of work. Then he did the soundtrack to She's the One, which is great, but his next real album, one from which he rarely plays songs because they were written during his divorce, is fantastic. (Echo) And his most recent, Highway Companion, may be his best work yet.

I think that you can tell whether an artist is doing something important if his career lasts a long time, and if each new album does well. Maybe better than the last. There are a few bands I'd put in this category, but Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers are definitely in the top spot.

(Admittedly Wildflowers is technically solo work, and part of the reason Stan Lynch quit the band. Furthermore, how do you account for the Howie Epstein era? He was in the band for most of its career, but he's been replaced by his predecessor! It's very confusing.)

Tom Petty... wrote hits early on...

See, it's unfathomable to me that someone might consider anything other than Damn the Torpedoes or Hard Promises to be Tom Petty's greatest album, and the fact that I am almost revolted by your opinion proves to me how powerful and individual tastes are. Which is why all this postulating about artists "best" work is so much smoke up the Muse's ass. I don't believe in consensus about music and I think most anyone who does simply needs reassuring; so here it is: You're right about the music you like, and why you like it.

That's a big hug from a big asshole.

Ever write something and read it over and say, "Geez, I meant that to be funny, but it comes across wrong, all abrupt and almost nasty?" That's me all day today.

A few more from outside the US:

Yes - Close to the Edge
Rush - Farewell to Kings
Jethro Tull - Thick as a Brick
Renaissance - Scheherazade and Other Stories
Hawkwind - Warrior on the Edge of Time
Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel - Love's A Prima Donna

Motorhead - Ace of Spades

Shit, I'll lay awake all night coming up with bands that peaked late.

Billy Joel - The Stranger or 52nd Street over Piano Man? Easily!

That's it! I'm turning off the computer...

I don't know about best, but the Meat Puppets greatest commercial success didn't arrive til around their 7th album.

Ever write something and read it over and say, "Geez, I meant that to be funny, but it comes across wrong, all abrupt and almost nasty?" That's me all day today.
Welcome to my world. Not just today, either.

Frank Sinatra. He'd been a hit-making heart-throb for a decade before In the Wee Small Hours, Songs for Swingin' Lovers and Where Are You? were released.

Also, Warren Zevon's My Ride's Here and The Wind were damn good records made while the man stood in the shadow of death. They didn't produce any hits, but they're mighty fine, IMO.

Too often artists' most commercially successful albums come out later in their careers, and to many fans they are considered their best output. Personally, I see Springsteen's BITUSA as marking the end of the Bruce I love. I'm dismayed that so many see it as his best. Similarly for Aerosmith. 70's Areosmith is the band I love, and their later success with weaker music isn't justified (IMO Toys in the Attic is an almost perfect album...hardly a weak track on it).
I don't gauge mega sales as an indicator of quality music...more likely quality marketing. Let's not forget that Chuck Berry's one and only #1 hit was My Ding-A-Ling and came 17 years into his recording career.

Responding to dg: Personally, my favorite Pink Floyd albums are Piper at the Gates of Dawn and Division Bell (which would probably get me kicked out of the fan club). That's why I'm trying to separate personal opinion from critical success, which I'm trying to separate from commercial success.

rocket88: I agree about Aerosmith's best being Toys in The Attic, but a lot of old fans think Pump is the band's overall best and I think it is a very close second.

Then we have bands like Rush. Early fans prefer 2112 and a case can be made for Caress of Steel, but we early fans are far outnumbered by fans who came later. The same is true of Billy Joel. Early fans will go down swinging for Piano Man, but the later Big Three including Glass Houses are each superior with stronger songwriting and better musicianship.

What we really are asking here is: what bands enjoyed long careers and managed to maintain the song quality that made them popular in the first place?

A really good example is Alice Cooper whose last 4 albums, released since 2000 on an independent label, are among the best of his career, but they are known only by the most loyal, and the oldest, of his fans.

Or Steppenwolf. Since the first album that band was really John Kaye with a backing band, and again his best work appeared long after he fell off the public radar.