Ah, the double album: home to musical over-reach in the highest order. Whether it's Axl deciding Guns N Roses biggest flaw was that not enough of their songs went over 9 minutes, or The Clash abandoning any primitive notions of punk's accessibility with the triple-album Sandinista, when a band make's an album that goes over the allotted running time, it tends to be a sign that they've gotten ambitious, and sometimes it means they've gotten too ambitious.


If you read the reviews for most double or triple albums, you're going to find countless critics talking about how much better things would've been if they had just left it at one disc. There's always that thought of "well, it was good, but there's so much filler." In a way, that's understandable; double albums are a heavy undertaking for the listener, but when critics go after the double album for its scope they tend be missing the point. Sure, it's easy to look at some of the worse tracks on Use Your Illusion I and II ("Back Off Bitch" and "Shotgun Blues" in particular just come of as dull), but there's something to be said for the scope of the project. Guns N Roses didn't want to just show that they were serious musicians, they wanted to show that they fully deserved the title of "biggest band on the planet." Did they succeed? Not entirely, but they made an intriguing album that, despite its flaws, should be admired having such a broad scope and trying to make something truly epic.



And let's be honest, suppose those overreaching double albums were brought down to single-disc status. Would we really be in pieces? I doubt it. The whole point of criticism is to find some holes to poke in whatever it is your reviewing. Take Weezer's self-titled debut album. There really isn't a single weak track on there, but "Holiday" is a bit less awesome than the rest, so it gets singled out as the "bad" song on the album, even though it's a perfectly fine power-pop number that would've been the best song by far on any Weezer album since Make Believe. Same goes for every classic Beatles albums. At various points I've heard "Within You Without You," "When I'm Sixty Four," and "Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite" referred to as the black sheep on an otherwise flawless record. Really though, all of those songs have some value, and contribute to the album's feel in one way or another. Critics are always going to find things to not like about albums. Turning double albums into single albums won't change that. Maybe some lengthier efforts do get over-stuffed with second-rate material, but if that's the price I have to pay to see musicians expand their horizons, I'm more than happy to pay it.

There's something special about a debut album. No matter what kind of band you're dealing with, there's something exhilarating about hearing their sound for the first time. Even if it's the type of band that borrows, there is a good chance that there's at least one component to their music that you haven't heard elsewhere.

But what really makes debut albums fun? The guys making them aren't super rich yet.

Take U2, for example. When they made Boy, they were a bunch of working class Irish kids desperately hoping they could make it as rock n rollers. When they made October, they were a bit more financially secure, and even more so when they made War. By the time they got to Achting Baby, they were richer than most of us will ever be, and probably desperately clinging to a sense of reality.


To be clear, I enjoy plenty of U2's later albums, and Achtung Baby might actually be my favorite thing they've ever done. It's just that the raw, primal feel of Boy never really showed up in their later works. Most bands get a bit comfortable after album two or three, once they started having enough money for a mansion or five.

So, what's the definitive example of the gloriously unrefined debut album? Well, there are certainly more than a few quality contenders. Appetite For Destruction has to be in the mix, as do the debut albums by The Ramones and The Clash. Any metalhead can tell you that Metallica was never as blisteringly fast as they were on Kill 'Em All, even if their later albums ended up being superior due to stronger songwriting. The same goes for Iron Maiden. I love the soaring anthems of the Bruce Dickinson, but the grimey, underdog of their self-titled debut (when Paul Di'Anno was the lead singer) can't be forgotten. When bands grow up, there's a primitive element that they often never get back.


I have to think that has something to do with getting rich. Once you've made it as rock star, you're not hungry anymore, and you struggle to find song topics that people can relate to. It's not the bands can't make great stuff afte rthey become millionaires, it's just that a debut album, from a bunch of starving kids living in a van, has a certain magic to it. Luckily, there will always be new bands, so I suspect this is a phenomenon that will never die.

I still buy CDs. I suspect I'm the minority when it comes to that. It seems like most of my friends fall into one of two groups: people who only get their music from the internet, and the more hardcore fans, who pay the big books for that shiny, 180-gram vinyl. I see the advantage in either of these choices, but I just like CDs. Admittedly, they don't have an immediate cache. They aren't the obvious preferable choice of casual fans or hardcore fans.

So, what keeps the CD from being completely dead? The reissue! There's nothing I enjoy more than hearing that one of my favorite classic albums is being reissued in a glossy two-disc set, with fancy liner notes, and long forgotten live tracks. It just makes my day. When the Beatles were given the remastered treatment in 2009, I was there on the day of release, upgrading my copy of Abbey Road. I was similarly thrilled for the Pink Floyd reissues last year. It's a fun thing for music nerds, and people who still enjoy CDs.

Unfortunately, many legendary albums still go un-remastered, which is a shame. Seeing an immortal album rotting away in a dusty CD case from the late 80s just bums me out. That's why I present you with this list of classic albums that are in dire need of a modern-day upgrade.

Guns 'N Roses - Appetite For Destruction
Every song here is great, from the big hits like "Welcome To the Jungle," and "Paradise City," to deep cuts like "Rocket Queen," and "Nightrain." Once more, the album turned 25 this year. Shouldn't it be celebrating its anniversary in style? Surely there's some old chestnuts of Axl and the boys jamming while stoned off there asses that would make for nice bonus tracks. Come on, people! Let's give this album the deluxe treatment it deserves.

Beastie Boys - License To Ill
As popular as the Beasties' first album is, the group hates it. In a way, that's understandable. It's juvenile, occassionally sexist, and not at all representative of the music or the attitudes they would express in the future. It's also a really, really fun album. Who's never fought for their right to party, or gotten funky with a certain monkey? Sure, this might not be the quintessential Beastie Boys album, and it lacks the diversity of their later works, but it's a much-beloved album, and an important part of hip-hop history.


All Of Metallica's First Five Albums
While their later works have been inconsistent, pretty much anything Metallica put out between 1983 to 1991 is gold. From the sped-up head rush of Kill 'Em All to the intricate math-metal of ...And Just For All, these guys were pretty much infallible in their early years. That's why it sucks to see the same copies of these albums that were on shelevs in 1992 still there today. Come on, let's get some outtakes! Surely you have some late-night jam sessions with Dave Mustaine that he'll eventually sue over. Let the fans get in on some of that!
Tom Petty - Full Moon Fever
Petty's works have been horribly ignored by the remaster gods, with only Damn the Torpedoes getting the deluxe treatment in 2010. The rest of his albums rot on the shelves, with some of the his most popular albums dying a slow death in the discount bin. Surely the album that gave us "Free Fallin'," "I Won't Back Down," and "Runnin' Down A Dream" deserves better than that. I'm guessing Petty has plenty of stuff in the vaults; jams with the Wilbury's, live recordings with Dylan, maybe even a few Apple jams with George Harrison. Whatever he's got lying around, I'm sure it would make for an excellent bonus disc of this classic album.

The First Three Stone Temple Pilots Albums
Loathed by critics at first, people have finally discovered that STP are actually pretty damn good. the first three album rank among the best (and most overlooked) albums of their era. Tracks like "Interstate Love Song," "Sex Type Thing," and "Trippin On A Hole In A Paper Heart" have become well-deserved classics. Unfortunately, the most likely place to find the albums those tracks come from is in the used bin at record stores, gasping for air next to Deep Blue Something and Sister Hazel. Let's treat STP better than that! their debut, Core, celebrates its 20th anniversary this year. Let's give it the gift of a shiny new remaster.


Anything By The Dave Clark 5
Now this one is a real tragedy. The DC5 were a great British Invasion band, but they've been all but forgotten. More importantly, their albums don't exist on CD. I did see one old greatest hits in the used bin at FYE, but it was $60, because of how hard it is to find. Surely the band that gave us "Glad All Over," "Bits And Pieces," and "Catch Us If You Can" deserves to be discovered by new listeners. In an ideal world, we'd get a fresh new greatest hits on CD, and high quality vinyl reissues for the hardcore fans. The DC5 released tons of killer songs, but there's a whole generation who hasn't heard any of them. Let's try to fix that.