Is 'Boy' one of the great debut records in rock?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

namkcuR

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
10,770
Location
Kettering, Ohio
Does 'Boy' deserve to be mentioned in the same list with 'The Doors', 'Led Zeppelin', 'Appetite For Destruction', 'The Who Sings My Generation', 'The Velvet Underground & Nico', etc etc as one of the greatest debut records in rock history? I think so.

I Will Follow is a bonafide classic.

Out Of Control, Stories For Boys, A Day Without Me, & The Electric Co. are classics among die-hards.

An Cat Dubh/Into The Heart is, when you think about it, a kind of song(most of us don't mention one without the other) that is unprecedented on a debut record for any band.

Twilight & Another Time, Another Place are great rock songs.

Shadows And Tall Trees is a great running start to what would become a grand U2 tradition: ending records on a downer...Yahweh is the first ever non-downer to end a record.

I like the Ocean a lot too but I can't think of a category to put it in.

It even had the controversial front cover art(although the reason it was controversial was really stupid) :wink:
 
Yes.

The only reason it's not, is because U2 are from Ireland.. and Ireland and UK were U2's first target.
The world see 'War' as a classic, "great debut record".
 
I think that it is, yeah. All the way. I mean, when you consider how old they were when the album was written and recorded and how amazingly accomplished it sounds...it has to get that status.

While I don't think that it's the equal of The Velvet Underground and Nico or some of the other records you both did and didn't mention (mainly because the influence of Boy, if there even is one, is negligible at best), I do think that it deserves to be considered ONE of the greatest debuts of all time. It's not at the top of the list for me and I don't think it realistically can be...but it's a GREAT album by a GREAT band and it's a GREAT accomplishment for a group of kids on their debut record. Solid stuff and, yeah--it's even got a silly story about censorship and the cover, so it's automatically got a special place somewhere. Everything great has SOMETHING like this to it.
 
In a way - no, cause U2 made records later that were much better than Boy, unlike a vast number of bands, whose later albums never surpassed the quality and success of their debut.
 
I love Boy, but it's a very undeveloped record. They're still searching for their sound, and it doesn't always resonate well; it's not diverse enough to overcome that. It wasn't particularly revolutionary in any way. It's one of the band's least known albums. The only song that approaches "classic" to anyone but U2 fans is "I Will Follow," and even then, it's a pretty minor song in the context of rock music.

If they didn't go on to create much more sophisticated albums, no one would take this claim seriously. Compare that to someone like Jeff Buckley, who only had one completed album in his lifetime but is still considered a legend.
 
Last edited:
typhoon said:
I love Boy, but it's a very undeveloped record. They're still searching for their sound, and it doesn't always resonate well. It wasn't particularly revolutionary in any way. It's one of the band's least known albums. The only song that approaches "classic" to anyone but U2 fans is "I Will Follow," and even then, it's a pretty minor song in the context of rock music.

If they didn't go on to create much more sophisticated albums, no one would take this claim seriously. Compare that to someone like Jeff Buckley, who only had one completed album in his lifetime but is still considered a legend.

Perhaps it is considered a legend because it's the only completed in his lifetime.

So, it's 2-2 so far.
 
No, it was a pretty influential album even before he died. U2 didn't have nearly the same impact until at least War or so.
 
Last edited:
typhoon said:
No, it was a pretty influential album even before he died. U2 didn't have nearly the same impact until at least War or so.

Influential does not equal 'legend'. If that record has 'legend' status, I doubt it got there before he died.

Also, I've heard stories about several younger bands today who have been influenced by Boy specifically, thought it wasn't the only U2 record that influenced them.
 
For four, 17-18 year old guys, just barely out of high school, 2 members self-taught at what they do, Adam and Bono, and 2 with some formal training in what they do, Edge and Larry, I'd say it's an amazing record.

How old were the Doors, the Who, etc, when they released their respective debut albums?

And look how far U2 have gotten. On "Boy" it's Adam, Bono, Edge, and Larry. On "How to"... Adam, Bono, Edge, and Larry.
 
First of all, I said Buckley is considered a legend, not necessarily Grace. Please read more closely.

Second, I find it odd you're dwelling on that word as much as you are.

Third, even if "influential does not equal 'legend,'" what's your point again? Grace, The Doors, Murmur, whatever are all still much more influential and "important" albums than Boy, which is evident regardless of whether the artists behind them are alive or not.

If influence doesn't make a "great debut record in rock," what exactly does? Your entire argument for Boy is that it "rocks" and that "diehard fans" like it. How many debut albums don't meet these qualifications? The front cover was sort of creepy, so we're talking a monumental record here? One of the songs has a segue, because no one's ever experimented a little on their first album before? You're not making a good case here.

At best, the album's a fan favorite. It's a good album, but as you might put it, a good album does not equal a classic one.
 
Last edited:
In your words, it sounded more like you were saying the record was a legend. Whatever, chalk it up to misunderstanding.

All I'm saying is, like others have said here, considering how young they were when they wrote it, 'Boy' is pretty amazing. Obviously it doesn't hold a candle to Joshua or Achtung but there isn't all that much that does.

My criteria for a great debut record is, should a band that's never recorded a record before be able to make music this good, and for 'Boy', I don't think so.

www.digitaldreamdoor.com(whatever that is), along with the majority of the people who have responded to this thread so far, agree with me; http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_albums-debut.html .
 
Last edited:
typhoon said:
If influence doesn't make a "great debut record in rock," what exactly does?

Quality. An influential album doesn't necessarily have any quality.

And I'd say Boy has bucketloads of quality.
 
namkcuR said:
In your words, it sounded more like you were saying the record was a legend. Whatever, chalk it up to misunderstanding.
Hey, don't blame me:

"Compare that to someone like Jeff Buckley, who only had one completed album in his lifetime but is still considered a legend."

My participles don't dangle. But okay, I'll drop it.
All I'm saying is, like others have said here, considering how young they were when they wrote it, 'Boy' is pretty amazing. Obviously it doesn't hold a candle to Joshua or Achtung but there isn't all that much that does.

My criteria for a great debut record is, should a band that's never recorded a record before be able to make music this good, and for 'Boy', I don't think so.
If you have to qualify it that much, what's the point? The album should stand on its own, or else we're just patronizing the band.

And I'm not comparing it to their later work, I'm comparing it to other bands' debuts.
They also have Pablo Honey on the list, which kind of mangles their credibility. Sounds like they just wanted some big names on there, regardless of merit (like Rolling Stone putting Kurt Cobain in the top ten of every "greatest guitarist/guitar solo/people who aren't named 'Kurt Cobain'" list they make).

Hell, there are a ton of mediocre records on that list. Please Please Me? Would anyone still care about that record if the Beatles didn't go on to make better ones? (This was the purpose of my Jeff Buckley example, incidentally. He never had a second album, so his legacy stands entirely on the strength of his debut. And if it weren't a great debut, no one would've cared when he died. It's not like he was an unknown who only got popular when he died. For contrast, take Nirvana. Cobain's death is probably the most overblown in all of rock, yet Bleach is rightfully considered an average record at best. So I question the extent to which death can elevate the perceived merit of one's debut.) Elvis Presley? Was Elvis even known for his albums so much as his singles and his showmanship? These are totally token recognitions.

I think calling Boy one of rock's greatest debut is as misguided as any of those examples. It's like, "U2's a legendary band, their debut album is good, therefore it's a legendary debut."
Originally posted by Axver
Quality. An influential album doesn't necessarily have any quality.

And I'd say Boy has bucketloads of quality.
Yeah, I think a classic debut needs a lot of both.

But even purely on the criterion of quality, I think U2's early albums are unusually immature. I'm kind of stunned the record company stuck with them, and I think the band is too. See: Bono's comments about "long-term vision" and the record industry during his speech at the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony.

I think U2 started off good but not great and went on to create some of the best albums ever recorded (like the Beatles). A lot of bands have amazing debuts and then peter off (like the Doors). There's nothing wrong with being one or the other (particularly since pretty much no one with decently sized career is ever both).

Of course, if you have a different opinion of the album, that's fine, but I think, in general, most people don't regard Boy as one of rock's greatest debuts.
 
Last edited:
I think what some people may not be aware of is the context of when "Boy" was released, (most of the fans on here may be too young to have been around, oh well not me :shrug: )

"Boy" was released in an environment where they were being compared, favourably, to other bands like Echo and the Bunnymen, Magazine, Joy Division, The Skids and the band they most said they were influenced by: Television and "Marquee Moon". They were working in that post-punk environment.

Now, I think it's obvious which of these bands as listed ended up having a long term career. :wink:

I personally think "Boy" is a classic album because it doesn't pretend to be anything other than 4 lads playing simply and singing about being young, of innocence, of being confused and facing the "adult" world.

And they took their musical influences and made them their own. Their trademark.

I will always love it to bits, no matter what any "experts" may have to say about it.


:love:
 
Eh, Grace and Buckley's legend only grew after he died. When he was alive Grace didn't sell that much and pretty much went unnoticed. He had a pretty good cult following going though.
 
I think that Boy is a great debut, but, i doubt that many people could name more than 1 tune from that album eg- i will follow, i bet the casual got a shock when they played an cat dubh/into the heart in san diego, i was suprised also, but,
there seems to be a new generation of admirers tho, new bands citing Boy as an influence, like the bravery the killers the futureheads etc, so "cult classic" comes to mind.
 
david said:
Eh, Grace and Buckley's legend only grew after he died. When he was alive Grace didn't sell that much and pretty much went unnoticed. He had a pretty good cult following going though.

Whaaaa?

Maybe in your neck of the woods.

I knew who he was after he had done a short club tour of Australia BEFORE "Grace" was released and the buzz about his live show was huge.

I bought "Grace" and saw him when he next toured Australia, and played in my city (not big like Sydney or Melbourne) in a 1,500 or so sized hall.

One of the top 10 shows I've ever seen. INCLUDING U2.
Brilliant.
 
While "Boy" is a great record, and there is a lot of deep imagery and meaning behind it, but as far as establishing itself as one of "Rock's" great debut albums it falls short. While you'll still hear "I Will Follow" on radio that's about it.

Like someone else said, even some ardent Rock fans might be hard pressed to name more than 1 or 2 songs off of it. I love and still listen to this record, but I agree that "War" was the first U2 album to make a real impression with the Rock/Pop audience.
 
Reggie Thee Dog said:
While "Boy" is a great record, and there is a lot of deep imagery and meaning behind it, but as far as establishing itself as one of "Rock's" great debut albums it falls short. While you'll still hear "I Will Follow" on radio that's about it.

Like someone else said, even some ardent Rock fans might be hard pressed to name more than 1 or 2 songs off of it. I love and still listen to this record, but I agree that "War" was the first U2 album to make a real impression with the Rock/Pop audience.

Boy has seven songs that could show up any night this tour. An Cat Dubh, Into The Heart, The Ocean, and The Electric Co. have shown up already. Stories For Boys has been snippeted. I Will Follow and Out Of Control are always possibilities.

Furthermore, the record has been sited by some of today's young bands i.e. The Killers, FF, etc etc as being an influence.

But all that aside, I'm talking purely based on the quality of the music. By that criterion, I think Boy is there.
 
I see your point about the songs showing up on the current setlist, but does that really make it a "great debut record"? I don't know about that.

As for the influence, are you sure those bands are singling out "Boy" or are they talking about U2 in a more general term?

But on the basis of quality, absolutely. In fact until "The Joshua Tree" there is not a more cohesive U2 album in between. The ideas and images of "Boy" are well defined and represented in song, without any hiccups.

However, if U2 fans are the only judges then yes "Boy" is a landmark debut, however while Rock Historians will agree with some points made here, they will point to other debut albums that much more impact than "Boy" did. They will be perceived to be better commercially and historically than "Boy" even if the bands flamed out long before U2 ever will.
 
In my opinion, no. There have been far better debuts.

If U2 had split after Boy, would they be remembered? Realistically, no, except as a footnote in one of those "Bands of the 80's that looked interesting but never quite made it" type of articles the music press sometimes print.
 
Reggie Thee Dog said:
I see your point about the songs showing up on the current setlist, but does that really make it a "great debut record"? I don't know about that.

As for the influence, are you sure those bands are singling out "Boy" or are they talking about U2 in a more general term?

But on the basis of quality, absolutely. In fact until "The Joshua Tree" there is not a more cohesive U2 album in between. The ideas and images of "Boy" are well defined and represented in song, without any hiccups.

However, if U2 fans are the only judges then yes "Boy" is a landmark debut, however while Rock Historians will agree with some points made here, they will point to other debut albums that much more impact than "Boy" did. They will be perceived to be better commercially and historically than "Boy" even if the bands flamed out long before U2 ever will.

I think 'The Unforgettable Fire' was very cohesive.

But I'm not saying 'Boy' is a top 5 or top 10 debut record of all time. The list I linked to earlier had it at #37, which I think is fair, although I'd probably have it somewhere between #10 and #20. But Zep's debut, Doors debut, others that have been mentioned(though I really don't know about Buckley) should be higher on the list.
 
That's my point financeguy! You just cut out the flack and went to the point. If "Boy" had been U2's only album they'd be a footnote in Rock History. Unlike the Sex Pistol who releases only one real studio album and are considered legends.

Guns 'N Roses could've only released "Appetite For Destruction" and they'd be considered legends too. Unfortunately they never quite put it altogether again...but that first album KILLS!!! "Boy" does not kill like "Appetite".
 
namkcuR said:


I think 'The Unforgettable Fire' was very cohesive.

But I'm not saying 'Boy' is a top 5 or top 10 debut record of all time. The list I linked to earlier had it at #37, which I think is fair, although I'd probably have it somewhere between #10 and #20. But Zep's debut, Doors debut, others that have been mentioned(though I really don't know about Buckley) should be higher on the list.

UF is so UN-cohesive it sounds cohesive. I remember hearing that album in 1984 wishing it sounded more like "War". Any album with a song like "Elvis Presley and America" is not cohesive in my book. Remember that was U2 first "experimental" album, so it sounded out of whack at the time.

I need to look at the list your talking about. I missed that somehow. I think that "Boy" is in the top 30 alltime debut albums, so 37 isn't terribly off where I'd put it.
 
Boy is a great debut record but I don't think it can be mentioned alongside The Doors, Led Zeppelin, Appetite or Ten just cos it wasn't as influential or far-reaching. As much as I love the Beatles, I don't consider Please Please Me as a classic debut either.

Boy didn't explode onto the scene or make U2's music a trend that a whole bunch of bands immediately started following... at least from what I've heard of that time. :shrug:
 
I like Boy, but I tend to think a lot of U2 fans overrate it. It's got some gems, and yes, it's a pretty cool album for guys who were that young and were more or less self taught, and so on. But if you look at it on its own merits as a debut album, without saying "well look how young they were" or whatever...I just think the sound is a bit thin and immature, and many of the songs are nowhere near the quality they would later achieve. I'd say the Police, Led Zeppelin, Jeff Buckley, Crowded House and Duran Duran (yes, I'm serious), to name a few of my personal favourites, all released better debuts. And yes, a lot of those guys/bands had other bands, musical experience etc before those debuts...but I wouldn't look at that so much; just the fact that they're debuts. In the category of "young and didn't know much about music," Boy is almost certainly one of the greatest debuts ever.

My two cents!
 
I don't think it's a classic debut, but it ain't bad for a bunch of teenagers.

In fact personally, I love the album to death, I think it's so consistent and I just love most of the songs for some reason. In fact, I like it better than Led Zeppelin (cos I just don't care for LZ), but I still think that was a more "classic debut" than Boy.
 
Back
Top Bottom