Albums ahead of their time

I'd go with In the Aeroplane Over the Sea by Neutral Milk Hotel.

It wasn't 20 years ahead of it's time, but at least 7-8 years.

Anything released by Little Feat in the 1970s, but especially Dixie Chicken, Feats Don't Fail Me Now, and the Last Record Album.

Believe it or not, ZOOROPA by U2. Listening to it recently, what at the time seemed like musical wankery has turned into some really impressive songcraft.

I would say Slint's album Spiderland is a big one.

PJ HARVEY - TO BRING YOU MY LOVE

SUZANNE VEGA - 99.9 F Degrees

Two incredibly forward thinking electro/emo records that are just as good (if not better) today then when they were released.

Faith No More's ANGEL DUST.

True that. Double true.

This is asolutely true (and to en extent, even with hit massive hit singles, Actung Baby was ahead of it's time as well), and I am pleased that I loved this album when it came out, rather than all my friends who thought it was crap. They continued to sit around enjoying their fucking Soul Asylum records.



ALSO -

Weezer - Pinkerton

If Zooropa were half as good as Soul Asylum... And the Horse they Rode in On, it would be... well, good.

I'm always amazed when people come to the defense of Zooropa and Pop as if they were forward-thinking experiments instead of poorly thought-out, bland pop albums. They are, to sane minds everywhere, the two worst U2 albums. Worse even than mediocre entries like October and How to Dismantle...

U2's most experimental moment was the Unforgettable Fire. They could have gone with what they'd established on War and served up another album of militant (but not too militant for radio) anthems. Instead, they squeezed out one sorta anthem in "Pride," but filled out the rest of the record with gauzy, druggy, nearly ambient sound experiments ("4th of July," "Promenade," "Elvis Presley and America") and abrasive guitar attacks ("Wire"). "Pride" aside, even the most anthemic of the other songs, like "A Sort of Homecoming" and the title track struggle to cut through a haze, and, when they do as on "Bad," the tone is ambiguous.

In some ways, it reminds me of what Radiohead would do later, mixing meditative sound experiments with loud guitars and iconic vocals. Granted Thom Yorke is twice the lyricist Bono is, and bombast often threatens to overrun Fire, but I think there are some similarities in scope and ambition.

Wrong.

Calling them bland pop albums is proof, especially in regards to Zooropa. There's almost nothing "pop" or Radio-Friendly on that album.
The 90's ended and U2 would never again be interesting in any way.

This marks the 17th time I've been in this conversation on Chud.

Pretty much everything This Heat did

There's nothing particularly challenging about those albums, either, which puts them in the pop category to my ears. Oh, I think U2 wanted them to seem experimental. The problem is that they were very much a pop band by that point, and I don't think they knew how to make something unconventional without falling back on pop tropes, which ultimately rendered both albums kind of boring - not experimental enough to be all that appealing to people who like to be challenged and not poppy enough for people who just like to sing along.

Dr. Strangefist just mentioned This Heat. Listen to that stuff and then tell me how radio-unfriendly Zooropa sounds. It's really only radio-unfriendly because it's fucking boring, not because it's ahead of its time. But I'll still concede that it's slightly better than Pop, if only for "Stay (Faraway So Close)," which distinguishes itself by not being self-consciously arty (in a way only a mega-selling pop band can be self-consciously arty).

DaveB, don't tell me you're one of those "They are immensely popular so I will show my disdain for them and buck the trend" kind of guys. I didn't have you pegged that way.

I think U2's a terrific band. No, they aren't as innovative as a lot of other bands out there, but I do think they make strong music, and I admire ZOOROPA quite a bit. The songs, yes, are pop, but I think it's pop that isn't afraid of bending the rules a bit.

Marquee Moon

Aren't U2's earlier albums much more deserving of the "ahead of their time" label?

Good call. Reminded me of another: The Stooges' self-titled and Funhouse.

That's kind of a weird thing to assume about me, since I just mentioned The Unforgettable Fire as an album that got it right a few posts above. My disdain for U2 begins and ends with Zooropa and Pop (two of their least popular albums). In fact, my vitriol probably comes from the fact that they were my favorite band for many years, and those albums lack virtually everything I love about their earlier work and even some of their post-Pop work.

Nearly every time this argument comes up on the board, I check these albums out of the library and try to give them another shot. No dice. They don't work on a pop level, on an experimental level, or even as an experiment conducted in a pop context (something I think they did pull off on Achtung, just as Talking Heads and R.E.M. did at certain points in their careers).

I agree, though it's weird to read some accounts of it (from both then and now) that consider MM the '60s throwback album of the whole New York punk scene because of the emphasis on musicianship, the long solos, etc. Of course, none of those who criticize it in these terms ever point out which mainstream rock acts of the 60s really sounded the least bit like Television. You'd be more likely to find a 60s band that sounded like the Dolls or the Ramones than Verlaine and company.

Ok Computer would be a big one in my eyes, but I dunno if I'd say "ahead of it's time" since there's still little that I've heard that sounds like it.

Joy Division's Unknown Pleasures and Bowie's Low and "Heroes" all spring to mind; those were all pretty far out there. Talking Head's Remain in Light is another one that was pretty ahead of it's time.

"Elvis Presley and America" is so awesome and weird. The Unforgettable Fire has always been my favorite of the U2 albums; I think it's a shame they followed a poppier route afterwards. Well, The Joshua Tree is pretty great, so it's not a total shame, but I think The Unforgettable Fire is for U2 what The Bends is for Radiohead--a first step into more interesting and more artistic material. Except Radiohead kept moving forward in that direction and U2 backed off a bit.

Paul's Boutique helped change the face of HipHop. I wouldn't say it invented it or made it what it is today, but was definately a start.

The multilayered sound and the sampling give the songs a rich full texture not heard up to that point.

I think a lot of bands were inspired by it, but they end up sounding like Bends-era Radiohead instead.

I think it's because, unless you commit to being "the band that tries to sound like OK Computer," it's impossible to use it as a template. Its sound is too specific for direct inspiration, and anyone who's a big enough fan to even want to take inspiration from it recognizes that any attempts to sound like it will come off as tribute act copycatting. Perhaps not the best comparison, but it would be like trying to sound like Primus.

Once you remove the unique compositional stuff on OK Computer and keep the general vibe, you get the Bends, which is a good rock album, but hardly the step forward that OK Computer is. Another reason why this might be is that the Bends has an anthemic quality that's appealing to less confident musicians: when in doubt, blast the chorus (and I say this as a guy who's been in bands that tend to blast the chorus). It takes more confidence and ability to pull off the quiet introspection on OK Computer without getting scared that you're being boring (or without actually being boring). And if you have the confidence and ability to pull off something like OK Computer, there's no way you'd want to sound all that much like another band, even if that band's Radiohead.

Chrome's albums Half Machine Lip Moves (1978) and Alien Soundtracks (1979) sound really forward-thinking to me. They sound exactly like what a lot of underground bands like Butthole Surfers and Big Black were doing by the mid-to-late 80's, and better than most of those bands.

Paul's Boutique--great album, absolutely one of my top 10 favorite albums, but I don't think its lack of commercial success was because it was ahead of its time. I think that's one of the few examples where you can safely say that the record company just plain fucked up, didn't get behind a great album that should have at least been a modest hit, and ended up with a total comercial flop.

That's exactly how I see it. The Unforgettable Fire is the first album where you hear the band fully question their status as an anthemic rock band (there were hints of this on October, too, but that sounds like the work of a band that doesn't quite know what it's doing). When bands get that experimental bug, they tend to either follow that muse all the way to Kid A, or they reign it in and apply the new sounds in more classical contexts like on Joshua Tree. Both can work, if done well.

Achtung is a pretty interesting case study, since U2 kept that mix of experimental and pop, but it really didn't sound all that much like the experiments or straightforward rock songs from their back catalog.

Black Sabbath - Black Sabbath 1970
Black Sabbath - Paranoid 1971

Question: What are the differences between an 'influential' album and an album that is 'ahead of it's time'?

Simplified version.

I would say that Ahead of It's Time would be an album that people "don't get" when it is released, and appreciated more as the years pass.

In that case, I'll cast a vote for all three Stooges studio albums.

Wow. This thread is this long and no Hendrix yet?

Off the top of my head I would say pretty much all of Voivod's early releases. They were doing some interesting prog-metal while everyone else was doing thrash or whatever. Though maybe they were both ahead and behind the times. Hell, I don't even know what that means!

For me, an obvious record would The Silver Apples - The Silver Apples, but really even their sound could be traced back to "Tomorrow Never Knows." However they were the first band to completely define their sound in this trancy style.

The Monks - Black Monk Time - This record is definitely ahead of it's time. It noise experiments aren't as atonal as that of the Godz or The Fugs. I think this is the fact that makes it most unique. I won't say that they sound like Sonic Youth, but Sonic Youth's use of noise in a semi-pop format is definitely foreshadowed. This is in direct contrast to the two bands above, though I think they are also ahead of their time and probably influenced the no-wave scene.

One thing that got me thinking is that a lot of artists that were really "of" their time, sound ahead of it because of bands coming along in the future and consciously aping their style. I was thinking about The Incredible String Band as an example. They sound really fresh when you listen to them now, but is that because the whole freak-folk style is consciously looking back or that the String Band was consciously looking forward. I would argue that is in many cases (not just this one) it is usually the former. People build on what shaped their taste. I guess I can see both sides. There are some albums that seem to be ahead of their time, but at the same time those albums are also usually very much a product of their own time. It is an interesting question.

Oar by Alexander "Skip" Spence. This slice of brilliance nose dived upon its initial release but give it a spin and tell me its influence hasn't been wide reaching. Both influential and ahead of its time. How about early Pere Ubu? Can, NEU!, or Faust?

Gotta say I am seeing some pretty pedestrian choices for albums deemed ahead of their time but I give a big hell yeah to the mentions of Marquee Moon, Chrome, and The Monks.

ETA: Hell everything Gram Parsons did was both influential and ahead of its time. Gram Parsons couldn't buy notice when he was making what was bar-none some of the most interesting music of the day. Now we have film bios and he is widely revered. Where'd the Uncle Tupleos and 16 Horse Powers et al. be without Gram?

I know it's influences are derived from the past (similar to Amy Winehouse) but I hated any modern R&B until the Miseducation of Lauryn Hill came out in 1998. It was then that I first heard the term Neo-soul and it would exemplifymy musical favorites in that genre such as Jill Scott, and even rap artists such as Kanye and the Roots. So in that regards, I believe that her album was essential to what we now commonly hear.

Everytime I see this question I just want to throw this album in there:

Refused - The Shape of Punk to Come

See? It's even in the title! That's just a personal favorite that I feel was "ahead of it's time". I'm sure the albums most people are looking for (and yes, highly influential and ahead of the curve) are along the lines of Sgt. Peppers or King Crimson.

I'm just surprised that Jeff Buckley hasn't been mentioned yet. I wasn't old enough to appreciate music when it came out, but it certainly felt to me like a very modern album when I first listened to it early this decade.

I think it doesn't immediately come to mind because, while Buckley synthesizes his influences in a fairly original way, he's something of a traditionalist. He's very reverent toward what came before (Zeppelin, Nina Simone, Van Morrison, Leonard Cohen). Buckley's one of my favorite artists of all time, but I'm not sure if you can truly be ahead of your time and be that rooted in the past. I'm not saying you can't be, but I think it's because of this factor that he doesn't come immediately to mind.

You know, that's absolutely right. I think I hadn't paid enough attention to the distinction between "influential" and "ahead of its time" before posting.

Anything by Rocket From the Crypt, particularly their epynomous (sp) release in 1995.

U2 is vastly overrated. They're the musical equivalent of Spielberg's latest movies: a lot of bombast, very little substance underneath. At least, no substance worthy of the worship these clowns engender. If nothing else, these guys should start using a new bass-line. It's been the same damn one since War.

And there aint nothing wrong with blasting a chorus.

Yeah, they're vastly overrated. Just like Munich. Awful, awful, awful.

Considering how drastically the band changed its sound post-Achtung Baby, I find this very hard to swallow, unless you're saying that Adam Clayton tends to ride on straightforward eighth notes or something instead of playing syncopated funk grooves. This is hardly particular to U2.

No, there isn't. But it's obvious. My point above was that Radiohead took a turn for the less obvious when they started abandoning typical rock formulas, including loud choruses and verse-chorus-verse structures. Most of the bands who wanted to be Radiohead never took this step, sticking close to traditional rock structures and dynamics. That's why the Radiohead album easiest to ape (though not necessarily ape well) is The Bends.

That's the precise movie I had in mind when I wrote that. Munich was a whole lot of strum and drang but, in the end, it really didn't break any new territory if you view it unemotionally. Which, in both Stevie and U2's case, is hard to get through since they both truck in raw emotion.


This was actually a Henry Rollins joke. I was trying to be a little lighter after my last statement. I guess it didn't come through. Oh well.

You're absolutely right. Again, I was agreeing with you. I love blasting a chorus. Hence my unabashed love of Avail.

But U2 is still overrated.

I would go with Rage against the machine. Though not nearly 20 years old I reckon this band singlehandedly founded what you might label "Nu-Metal" (or whatever fucking label you need) and have not been beaten in this category ever since.
Though you might get 10 Limp biskits for every RATM it was definetely worth it. I think their debut album is still one of the best structured albums around. And while every member is an exellent musician on it´s own together these guys changed the musicworld quite drasticly.

It's such a good album they kept putting it out every couple of years.

Are you serious?
The latter albums evolved (for better or for worse) into a way more "straight" sound. I honestly don´t remember as well crafted songwriting on their later albums.

As much as I disagree with DevilDoubt on U2*, I've gotta agree with him on this. Considering the length of time they were together, it's sort of fascinating how little Rage evolved. They streamlined their sound a little bit here and there, but, for a band that was often praised for its creativity, they repeated themselves endlessly (and I'm not just talking about de la Rocha's tendency to take a slogan, say it quietly, then say it over and over again louder and louder).

* Incidentally, I like Rollins, but I always thought he was in a glass house when it came to criticizing U2. The classic Rollins Band lineup had pretty much the same evolution in sound that Rage Against the Machine did, in that it barely changed at all. It was a surprisingly non-risky band, considering its good musicians and charismatic frontman.

Munich isn't subtle, but it's a fucking awesome piece of filmmaking. Which, I guess, also explains why I like U2.

I kinda agree with you there. Streamlining their sound is a good substitute for "straight", though I always thought that their renegades album showed alot of potential for future greatness. Alas that never happend.
But nonetheless I reckon my point remains valid that their debut-album is a class of it´s own.

Well, we'll just agree to disagree on U2 and Munich. But yeah, the Rollins Band didn't really evolve at all over time, and Rage's musical growth could not be charted.

Doolittle still sounds as if it's new to my ears.

The late 70s-early 80s seemed to be a boom time for artists and albums that are only now getting the recognition they deserve. Whether you'd count that as being ahead of their time or just influential on today's music is down to interpretation. A little of both, probably.

Whilst, it's not strictly an album, the collection of EPs "Boom in the Night" by the Bush Tetras is a collection that could have appeared on a label such as DFA a couple of years ago and no-one would have batted an eyelid. It sounds more modern today, even, than it may have in 1983.

Similarly, Wire's albums "Chairs Missing" and "154" were pretty much where Art Rock began. They were so far ahead of their time, in fact, that even the band members didn't know where they could go next and promptly imploded for a few years.

Gang of Four's "Entertainment!" has been cited as an influence by everyone from the Chili Peppers to the Liars along with about a million bands from a couple of years back for whom it was seemingly their single frame of reference; but it's probably been on as many "best album in the world...ever! Ever! EVER!" lists as it sold copies at the time.

I think Kraftwerk's mid-70s albums from Autobahn to Man Machine fall under the Sgt Pepper-style "(relatively)-popular-at-the-time-but-looking-way-into-the-future" bracket, they still sound peerless today, I reckon. And that's despite an infinite number of bad disco, synthpop and electronic bands they've been at least indirectly responsible for influencing the last 30-odd years. Plus Africa Bambaataa likes them. That has to count for something!

I think My Bloody Valentine's "Loveless" can probably be included here as well.

I'll throw in the Fall's "Hex Enducation Hour" here too in the vein hope that maybe one day it'll be seen as an overlooked Wyld Stallyns-esque world-beating masterpiece and I'll look really clever when future archaeologists dig up the internet and read this post. Although, even the inclusion of "Hip Priest" in the Silence of the Lambs soundtrack didn't seem to bring it to the forefront of public perception, so chances are I'll just look daft in their all-knowing future eyes.

And although it's not exactly news or anything - but I don't think it's been mentioned in this thread - the Velvet Underground and their albums didn't get no respect back in the day.

Edit: Another thought I've had, which is related to what Andrew and Ray said, as well as DaveB's Jeff Buckley using his influences/Bands aiming for OK Computer but ending up with the Bends posts above. A good pointer of an artist/album being ahead of its time is the "How the fuck did they do that?!" factor.

I mean how do you take your songwriting medium of choice - be it a blank sheet of paper, a guitar slung over your knee, a piano or a new fruityloops file - and a few months down the line end up recording Pet Sounds, say? I mean, with a lot of music, regardless of how great it is, you can see how it's done and - give or take the appropriate amount of musical talent - could have a go at emulating it.

The classic example of this was during the punk years in the UK when the fanzine Sniffin' Glue had pictures of the chords E, A and D (I think) with the legend "this is a chord, this is another, this is a third. Now form a band".

But with some albums, they're just so wildly from out of nowhere that you can't even comprehend where the artist's starting point was, far less how they got from there to the end point.

This is all more related to musical genius rather than under-appreciated albums, I suppose, but sadly the two aren't necessarily exclusive.