Rolling Stone Top 100 Debut Albums of all time

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

m.rollingstone.com/music/lists/the-100-greatest-debut-albums-of-all-time-20130322/

I own 9 of the albums on this list.

I'm the type of person who often says that an artist's debut album is usually their best. But I've also amended that to be that an artist's first album you listen to is usually the one you like the most.

Pulse won't care for this list. What are your 10 favourite debut albums?

[chartfreak]

Glad to see Madonna on the list. Can listen to that now and it still sounds amazing and fresh.

[Caviar]

I'm listening to Amerie's first album and it's quite arguably her best.

[HolidayGuy]

Pretty sure this was posted back when it was released?

[G-Reg]

Uhh they forgot Kate Bush...

[Glove Slap]

You know, even though I don't really agree with the rankings themselves (there's no way Homework should be that low), this is a really really good group of albums overall. I think I'd easily consider over half the list to be major classics.

[onebuffalo]

Madonna and Whitney Houston should be a lot higher on that list. Guns n Roses #4? Sure, I like Sweet Child O' Mine, but they do not deserve such the high ranking. Beastie Boys #1? Really? Just because it was the first rap album to be #1 is the sole reason Rolling Stone picked that CD to be #1. I know R.S. were going for artistic merit over commercial acceptance.

[Janhova's Witness]

Where is Control?

[Deleted]

Oct 9, 2013 15:01:17 GMT -5 Janhova's Witness said:

Where is Control?

Janet Jackson?


Not a debut album

[Janhova's Witness]

Oct 9, 2013 15:09:52 GMT -5 @2m said:

Oct 9, 2013 15:01:17 GMT -5 Janhova's Witness said:

Where is Control?

Janet Jackson?


Not a debut album

Yes it is.

[Deleted]

Oct 9, 2013 15:13:29 GMT -5 Janhova's Witness said:

Oct 9, 2013 15:09:52 GMT -5 @2m said:

Janet Jackson?


Not a debut album

Yes it is.

If you ignore all albums that came before it, then I agree.


'Janet Jackson' was released in 1982
'Dream Street' was released in 1984

'Control', in my opinion was a BREAKTHROUGH album not a debut. To me there is a difference

'Control' was 1986

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Which I suspect is why Jagged Little Pill didn't make it. Her breakthrough album and first release in the US but not her "debut" album.

[Janhova's Witness]

Oct 9, 2013 15:24:48 GMT -5 @2m said:

Oct 9, 2013 15:13:29 GMT -5 Janhova's Witness said:

Yes it is.

If you ignore all albums that came before it, then I agree.


'Janet Jackson' was released in 1982
'Dream Street' was released in 1984

'Control', in my opinion was a BREAKTHROUGH album not a debut. To me there is a difference

'Control' was 1986

Those two were mixtapes. Control was her real debut.

[Deleted]

Oct 9, 2013 16:06:56 GMT -5 Janhova's Witness said:

Oct 9, 2013 15:24:48 GMT -5 @2m said:

If you ignore all albums that came before it, then I agree.


'Janet Jackson' was released in 1982
'Dream Street' was released in 1984

'Control', in my opinion was a BREAKTHROUGH album not a debut. To me there is a difference

'Control' was 1986

Those two were mixtapes. Control was her real debut.

How do you define "debut album"?


The 2 releases that preceded her 'debut' both charted on the BB200

'Janet Jackson' charted for 25 weeks in 1982-1983 and peaked at #63
'Dream Street' charted for 6 weeks and peaked at 147

There were even 2 Hot 100 entries from the first non-album

[Deleted]

However we choose to define 'debut album' in this thread, it is likely that it was defined elsewhere as a first release, which is probably why it is not on this list

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Oct 9, 2013 16:06:56 GMT -5 Janhova's Witness said:

Oct 9, 2013 15:24:48 GMT -5 @2m said:

If you ignore all albums that came before it, then I agree.


'Janet Jackson' was released in 1982
'Dream Street' was released in 1984

'Control', in my opinion was a BREAKTHROUGH album not a debut. To me there is a difference

'Control' was 1986

Those two were mixtapes. Control was her real debut.

*Dead*

Just like a flop single is a "promo single", now flop albums are "mixtapes".

Wikipedia lists Control as her third album. Were there even mixtapes back then?

[Janhova's Witness]

Wikipedia is full of Madonna stans.

"Young Love" is my jam tho.

[Deleted]

I remember seeing one of those pre-Control Janet Jackson albums in the record store one time. It was the one with the cover of her in a swimming pool with her head coming out of the water.

I have no idea which album that is.

But I know for a fact that it was a Janet album, and that it was being sold in stores.

[Deleted]

She was doing a stint on Different Strokes at the time. More of a TV star than a singer

[Push The Button]

Those first two albums are still in stores, too.

[Janhova's Witness]

Oct 9, 2013 17:49:36 GMT -5 Push The Button said:

Those first two albums are still in stores, too.

Please let me know the next time you see Dream Street at Walmart.

Now, the 500,000 unsold copies of 20 Y.O....

[G-Reg]

Oct 9, 2013 15:44:03 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

Which I suspect is why Jagged Little Pill didn't make it. Her breakthrough album and first release in the US but not her "debut" album.

My first thought upon reading the list. Would at least have been top 20!

[Ballroom Blitzed]

Oct 9, 2013 14:37:15 GMT -5 onebuffalo said:

Madonna and Whitney Houston should be a lot higher on that list. Guns n Roses #4? Sure, I like Sweet Child O' Mine, but they do not deserve such the high ranking.

I think they do. You look at what was popular when GNR showed up and it was Bon Jovi, Poison, Quiet Riot, Mötley Crüe, Ratt and so on. GNR were like the Rolling Stones; they were the real deal, the new Aerosmith come to show the "poodle rock" bands how it should be done.

Of course, it didn't work out like that in the long run (thank you very much, Kurt Cobain ), but that's what the situation was when they arrived on the scene.

[Deleted]

Oct 11, 2013 13:21:31 GMT -5 Ballroom Blitzed said:

Oct 9, 2013 14:37:15 GMT -5 onebuffalo said:

Madonna and Whitney Houston should be a lot higher on that list. Guns n Roses #4? Sure, I like Sweet Child O' Mine, but they do not deserve such the high ranking.

I think they do. You look at what was popular when GNR showed up and it was Bon Jovi, Poison, Quiet Riot, Mötley Crüe, Ratt and so on. GNR were like the Rolling Stones; they were the real deal, the new Aerosmith come to show the "poodle rock" bands how it should be done.

Of course, it didn't work out like that in the long run (thank you very much, Kurt Cobain ), but that's what the situation was when they arrived on the scene.

100% this.

GN'R came on the scene at a time when there were tons of puke-worthy glam bands, and nobody really had anything to get excited about. They've been credited many times by various people for bringing the guts back to rock n' roll.

They made it clear from the beginning that not everybody was going to like "their way" of doing things, but they did it, and that attitude and authenticity was what attracted people at the time.

Love it or hate it, they were 100% the real deal, and literally lived the lifestyle they sang about. It wasn't just about the impact itself, but the fact that GN'R was new, and fresh and authentic, compared to other acts on the scene at the time.

I'm also gonna have to disagree with onebuffalo about "Sweet Child O' Mine, too. Sure, it was their breakout hit, but "Appetite For Destruction" was not placed so highly on this list because of that song alone. AFD is the most successful debut album of all-time, and it spawned "Paradise City," and "Welcome To The Jungle" both of which are widely regarded as rock/popular culture staples these days.

While some acts are known for having one hit song or album, IMO GN'R doesn't even fall into that category. AFD was a sales monster, but it also took a full year for it to take off, and "Welcome To The Jungle" exploded after it was played once on MTV at 5am.

The impact of the album itself, the quality, the image, and the niche that GN'R filled all probably played a role in the acclaim this album has received; to claim its ranking is because of one song is inaccurate, and suggests you don't have a grasp of GNR's full impact on rock; AFD is SO much more than SCOM, and there's a reason it's on so many best-ever lists.

Your post basically states your scope of this album doesn't go beyond GN'R's hits; if that's the case, how can you say it doesn't belong on this list if you haven't heard the entire album? Take a listen to the entire thing and you might actually realize you cannot pin the success/impact of this album on their biggest hit. The album and its impact was so much more than that.

[Ballroom Blitzed]

If you compare it to the previous number-one debut, you get the same result. The biggest debut album before AFD was Boston's self-titled record, and it didn't have anywhere near the same impact. It sold a lot, but I don't think it provoked a big change in the rock and roll scene of 1976 (the albums that did do that were Frampton Comes Alive! and possibly Destroyer by Kiss).

[Glove Slap]

Yeah, you could make an argument that AFD to actually be #1 I think. I think whatever impact it had at the time has been lessened in the long run because of the alternative explosion that happened a few years later, but it plays incredibly well, so well that it doesn't really seem like a debut effort. In many ways they were the last really big band like that to become massive, who thrived on excess and made it an integral part of their image. The interesting thing though is that it didn't necessarily push other acts in mainstream rock at the time away. Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, Van Halen, Poison, etc. continued to have success during that time, especially the first two. New Jersey, Hysteria & AFD were all huge at the exact same time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number-one_albums_of_1988_(USA)

The greatest irony here is that the band that GnR channeled the most, Aerosmith, had a big comeback around then as well (actually a bit before AFD exploded), and was pumping out hits after GnR fell apart and the alt. revolution pushed a lot of old school style bands out of being contemporary.

[Deleted]

Oct 11, 2013 19:53:25 GMT -5 Glove Slap said:

Yeah, you could make an argument that AFD to actually be #1 I think. I think whatever impact it had at the time has been lessened in the long run because of the alternative explosion that happened a few years later, but it plays incredibly well, so well that it doesn't really seem like a debut effort. In many ways they were the last really big band like that to become massive, who thrived on excess and made it an integral part of their image. The interesting thing though is that it didn't necessarily push other acts in mainstream rock at the time away. Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, Van Halen, Poison, etc. continued to have success during that time, especially the first two. New Jersey, Hysteria & AFR were all huge at the exact same time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number-one_albums_of_1988_(USA)

The greatest irony here is that the band that GnR channeled the most, Aerosmith, had a big comeback around then as well (actually a bit before AFR exploded), and was pumping out hits after GnR fell apart and the alt. revolution pushed a lot of old school style bands out of being contemporary.

Although I think GN'R's impact has been lessened with all the drama and antics and hiatus, I would argue the impact of AFD itself has not diminished.

Egos and lineup changes aside, AFD is now a defining album in rock n' roll, and no matter what happened before (or since then), I don't think the impact GN'R had on the scene and with that album itself could be argued. GN'R may not have the respect they once did, but that doesn't seem to matter much when you've got an album that overshadows everything that may not be so great about GN'R now.


This is an album that didn't take off for a year, and initially debuted at number 182 on the Bilboard charts.

Add in that everyone resisted them, and everybody in their inner circle feared they would implode and/or all die before they even had a chance to hit it big. Considering how the odds were insanely stacked against them and they really only had a live following to go on at that point, I would say their rise in itself puts them in a different class.

There were a lot of big rock bands during that time and while they may not have held up as well as some, I would also say that it was pretty predictable they would end up the way they did. With their egos, outrageous antics, and conflicting musical visions, it was pretty obvious they were bound to crash and burn pretty hard eventually.

IMO, the writing was basically on the wall before GN'R was even famous, and those around them (and the band themselves, confirmed it too. A band that volatile isn't going to be the next Areosmith; there was far too much internal discord and drama for them to have a long shelf-life as a band.


The thing about GN'R is what made their dynamic work so well was also the downfall of the band in the end; the egos and drugs and excess was what people loved because it was real, but it tore them apart as a band.

Essentially, I don't think there could have been any other outcome other than disaster when it comes to the original lineup, and although it's created some pretty negative things, GN'R would not have been what they were without all those things that ruined them.

They may not have the acclaim they once did, but AFD has held up extremely well, and I think its impact alone is enough to withstand everything else that has surrounded the band since then. No matter what happens in the future, nobody can take away the fact that AFD will always be one of the defining classic rock albums.

I think sometimes the negativity can completely ruin a band, but in GN'R's case, what you saw was what you got; everybody knows what to expect when it comes to a band like that. The controversy, drugs, egos, sex, has been the foundation of their image, and they created an album that mirrored that. I feel like because it was so authentic and raw and that GN'R was by no means an instant success story that people latched on to (and continue to), latch on what they were all about.