Smash classic albums

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Okay, I suppose one could call this a spin-off of either making contentious statements or bands you can't stand, but here's the idea.  There are hundreds of albums that are generally regarded as brilliant, as masterpieces, as untouchable cornerstones of the music world, whether it be for influence, quality, or what have you.  My main focus here is on quality and personal appreciation, not influence, because influence is a pretty cut-and-dry thing.  We wouldn't have so-and-so because of the Beatles, we'd never have such-and-such without Metallica, and so on.

 

So, what am I asking?  Take an album regarded as a classic or as a milestone and spank it raw, explaining why it doesn't deserve that status.  If anyone wants to come to its defense, defend it on its own merits in your eyes, not the standard "are you mad?  This is an absolutely brilliant record, the most important record of all time" stuff.

 

To get us started: I'm going to relate my disinterest towards the Velvet Underground's White Light/White Heat.

 

I'm a fan of the Velvet's other stuff, but WL/WH doesn't do it.  The 1st song is a wash of noise that may have been the groundwork for Sonic Youth, but so what.  The sound is awful, and doesn't move me in the least.  The 2nd 'song' is an 8 minute monologue.  It's a good monologue, but it sure ain't music.

 

On we go, through more droning soundscapes, concluding with "Sister Ray," which I actually like, but not for 17 minutes of sound wall.  As an experiment, well, cool, whatever, but as a cohesive musical album, bosh.  The songwriting here is either too lackadaisical or too overdone--I can't tell the cause of the effect.  Either way, it just don't work for me.

 

Get the idea?  Have fun.

[Guest Kinetic]

I agree.  That's the only Velvets album I don't consider a total masterpiece.

 

For an album that's widely considered to be on of the greatest ever made, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band sure isn't very good.  It obviously has good songs.  There's no questioning that.  But as an album, it just doesn't work.  They got so caught up in attempting all of this studio gimmickry that they forgot to write decent songs.  "Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite" just isn't any good.  "She's Leaving Home" and "When I'm 64" are just too schmaltzy, even by McCartney's standards.  Without "Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds" and "A Day in the Life," that album isn't even worth owning.

[Guest muzanisa]

Agree on Pepper

disagree on WL/WH

 

 

I would say the second Oasis album was awful, trite lyrics and ripped off retro melodies.

The great escape by Blur from the same time period was vastly overated, sub Syd Barrett shite.

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

Metallica's Metallica, AKA The Black Album, is their worst album. Not only do I consider it their worst because they toned down the usual music in favor of mainstream acceptance, but it also features only 3 stand-out songs (and "Nothing Else Matters" isn't one of them)*. The fact that both Load and ReLoad were better says something.

 

* = The 3 stand-out songs are:

"Enter Sandman"

"The Unforgiven"

"My Friend Of Misery"

[Guest mesepher]

agreed with the Metallica...

 

Pink Floyd - the Wall

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Floyd fan... but this album just doesn't cut it. You might as well classify it as a Roger Waters' solo album, since he wrote all the songs except three. Also... the Post-Barrett Floyd was composed of four musicians... Rick Wright was tossed by Roger during the making of the Wall, and said that if Rick did not leave, he (Roger) would throw out the project... hrm. Keeping in mind, Floyd was on the rocks since 1975... this isn't even a Pink Floyd album. It's a Roger Waters solo album with Gilmour and Mason playing on it, with Bob Erzin as a referee between two massive egos (Waters and Gilmour).

 

With all that aside... I really enjoy the lyrics of the Wall and the movie does a lot for me... unlike those teeny bopper morons that think it's an 'acid movie' Those kids would not see the Wall as one big acid trip if they actually understood what was going on.

[Guest TheyCallMeMark]

Metallica's Metallica, AKA The Black Album, is their worst album.

 

I don't think so.

 

Not only do I consider it their worst because they toned down the usual music in favor of mainstream acceptance,

 

How do you know they toned down for mainstream acceptance? Did they say it in an article somewhere? Because if so, I'd like to see it, out of curiosity. I think it's a little unfair to say they did it to go mainstream when you really have no way of knowing. Maybe they just felt like doing a different album? Now, if you wanted to say they sold out when they triesd to duplicate sucsess with Load you might have something...

 

but it also features only 3 stand-out songs (and "Nothing Else Matters" isn't one of them)*.

 

You think there is only three? In addition to the three you named I'd definatly add "Wherever I May Roam" and "Through The Never" as five, not just outstanding, but brilliant tracks. And considering all the other tracks range from good to very good, I think it holds water as an all time great album.

[Guest godthedog]

'are you experienced' is a damn good album, but it isn't hendrix's best.  of his 3 studio albums, it's probably his worst.  it definitely has its share of great songs, but the non-great songs don't have any real defining sound to them, and the album has nothing to tie it together as a whole.  it feels like a random collection of songs.  any given song is satisfying, but as a whole the album just leaves something to be desired.  and the backwards solo in the title track isn't all that mindblowing.  the whole song is built around the 'mindblowing-ness' of that solo, and the beatles had already explored the backwards solo on 'revolver'.  it falls a little flat.

[Guest swan]

Metallica's Metallica, AKA The Black Album, is their worst album.

 

I don't think so.

 

Not only do I consider it their worst because they toned down the usual music in favor of mainstream acceptance,

 

How do you know they toned down for mainstream acceptance? Did they say it in an article somewhere? Because if so, I'd like to see it, out of curiosity. I think it's a little unfair to say they did it to go mainstream when you really have no way of knowing. Maybe they just felt like doing a different album? Now, if you wanted to say they sold out when they triesd to duplicate sucsess with Load you might have something...

 

but it also features only 3 stand-out songs (and "Nothing Else Matters" isn't one of them)*.

 

You think there is only three? In addition to the three you named I'd definatly add "Wherever I May Roam" and "Through The Never" as five, not just outstanding, but brilliant tracks. And considering all the other tracks range from good to very good, I think it holds water as an all time great album.

They did indeed go "mainstream" for the "Black" album. I have the making of the album documented in Rip magazine circa 1990. Bob Rock was regarded as a mainstream rock producer and they wanted to make a more "mainstream" album after the commercial success of "And Justice....." No big deal and when compared to the album's they put out in the 80's, it did suck big time.