Overrated Albums?

[MalaCloudy Black]

What albums by your favourite bands or bands you like do you think are overrated?

Personally, my biggest pick is Sepultura's "Roots" album. It has 3 good songs on it - Dictatorshit, Lookaway & Rattamahatta. That's it. The rest of the album is so forgettable and just.. not good, but tons of people I know LOVE that album to pieces. I'd much rather take Arise or Chaos AD over Roots.

So, what about you guys?

[VerbalPuke]

London Calling. Sorry Clash fan's but I'll never understand why some people herald this album as the greatest of the 1980s (if not the greatest). I wouldn't even say it was the Clash's best album personally. It lacks the energy to really grab me and pull me into the music. It's not the sort of album that makes me want to move, it's nice to chill out to, but really nothing more. I don't want to sound negative, it is a good album, but I'll never be convinced that it is an amazing work of art. I see the album as having a few good songs, and a lot of tracks that I'd rather just skip over.

[GoGo Yubari]

"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."

It's not that it's a bad album, not at all. It even has the Beatles' best song ever ("A Day in the Life."). But as a cohesive album it's not as strong as "Revolver," "Rubber Soul," and especially "Abbey Road" as far as their We're All Hippies period goes, and "A Hard Day's Night" blows it away too in terms of overall quality.

[probablyoliver]

Bright Eyes - I'm Wide Awake It's Morning.

I've always preferred the more electronic, emoey side to Bright Eyes to the folky side, and IWAIM is complete folk from top to bottom. It's got some fantastic songs on it (Road to Joy and Old Soul Song (for the New World Order)) are two of my favourite Bright Eyes songs, but as a full album it comes up short for me. Plus, the fact it came out the same day as Digital Ash in a Digital Urn (my second favourite Bright Eyes album), makes it look weak in comparison.

Pixies - Doolittle.

I love every single song on Doolittle, there's not a bad thing about it, my only problem with it is people make it out to be the greatest Pixies album of all time, when my favourite; Surfer Rosa trumps it with every song. I just generally don't like it when a mass audience find a band/album/song amazing beyond all belief, because it forces me to find flaws in it, and that's exactly what happened with me and Doolittle.

[Guest Josef Stallion]

Slayer - Reign in Blood

That just hurt me

[Lowerdeck]

Eminem - either of his last two albums. I didn't think they were any good.

[fineintent]

Eminem - either of his last two albums. I didn't think they were any good.

[Guest Josef Stallion]

Yeah pretty much everyone hated "Encore"

[Lint]

Alot of Offspring fans I know think Ixnay On The Hombre is a really great album. I personally think its one of their worst albums.

And Sublimes s/t album. Don't get me wrong, I do think its a good album. But compared to 40 Oz Of Freedom and Robbin' The Hood, both of which had FANTASTIC tracks all around, I just don't think it can compare to those

[Liam]

GIMMICK STOL'D.

I don't really see too many albums as being over-rated, or at least haven't thought long enough about it to think of any good ones. I know a few things that are comparitvely over-rated to other albums in bands back catalogues....

I'll have a think and add something later.

[Skummy]

"The Wall" by Pink Floyd. It's repeatedly hailed as one of the best ever, when it's not even Floyd's best, not by a long shot. Comfortably Numb and Run Like Hell are the only good songs on there, and even they're not great. Hell, Kittie's version of Run Like Hell is miles better, and Kittie aren't very good.

The same, to a lesser extent, can be said for "Nevermind" by Nirvana, which I'm amazed hasn't been said yet. It's a good album, but far from a classic, and not Nirvana's best.

I'm sure there are more I'll end up coming back too, but those two, especially The Wall, are what comes to mind when I think "over-rated".

[The Chief]

uchhhh, nirvanas album with the baby on the cover, i cant even remember what its called.

actually scrap that, everything about nirvana is overrated

...and so is public sex and getting wasted

[Evil Chase K]

Nirvana - Nevermind

[Iain76er]

Talking Heads- Remain In Light.

I guess I just don't get it.

[Number of the Breast]

everything about nirvana is overrated

[GoGo Yubari]

everything about nirvana is overrated

(Y)

Nirvana's at this point where they're so vastly considered to be overrated that they're almost underrated if not for the fact that they're inexplicably in the top ten of any mainstream music-related list no matter what.

Edited May 30, 2006 by GoGo Yubari

[ClaRK! Kent]

Hmm. First I'll go for individual albums of bands I do actually like...

- Radiohead, OK Computer. Frankly it's just not as good as Amnesiac or The Bends. It's a good album, but the experimental vibe drags after the first half for me, and overall I don't think it really goes where it feels like it wants to.

- The Smiths, Strangeways Here We Come. Considering it came after Meat is Murder and, more importantly, the Queen is Dead, and right before Morrissey's superb early solo recordings, it just doesn't seem good enough to me. Clearly he still had good material in him, as evidenced by the solo stuff, SHWC seems a bit of a blip to me.

- Pixies, Doolittle. It's a great album, but I personally prefer Trompe le Monde. Preferential issue, I guess.

- Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon. Now, I like Pink Floyd. I really do. If you leave this thread thinking "ooh, RK doesn't like Floyd" then you'll be wrong. But frankly DSotM is heinously overrated as an album. In the top 10 albums of all time? Do me a favour!

- Beach Boys, Pet Sounds. The fact that it sounds like Rubber Soul-lite just means I can't quite get into it.

Plenty of others, probably, but those are the ones that really stick out. And, because I'm bored, I'll now randomly list some albums that I think are overrated and have no merit in them whatsoever, bar none. Controversy = fun. Maybe I'll explain later if I get called up on something loads.

- U2, anything post-Achtung Baby

- Metallica, anything post-Ride the Lighting

- Eminem, anything he did

- Blink 182, self-titled

- Green Day, American Idiot

- Sex Pistols, Nevermind the Bollocks

- Libertines, self-titled

- The Others' album I forget the name of

- Coldplay, X&Y

[Liam]

everything about nirvana is overrated

(Y)

Nirvana's at this point where they're so vastly considered to be overrated that they're almost underrated if not for the fact that they're inexplicably in the top ten of any mainstream music-related list no matter what.

Thats the exact point I've stated for quite a while, I completely agree.

People are so quick to be "oh, Nirvana are teh suck~!", it kinda all gets taken out of proportion and Nirvana will actually end up as under-rated to some extent.

I don't think the album is over-rated purely based on the "importance" of it. Whether you liked it or not, it changed quite a few things, whether it was for the good or bad depends on what you are into. However, it isn't as if it is lauded without having any real musical impact.

EDIT: Funnily enough, a lot of the people who don't like Nirvana are the sorts who like guitar solos and general widdly-ness (Evil Chase K and Aaron Maiden in this here topic I know of at least), which was effectively what music like Nirvana's killed off for the best part of the 90's. Personally, I hate that style of music to a degree, as too many bands throw out technical guitar work/solos just for the sake of it, seemingly. As Skumfrog said in another topic, I'd take a Johnny Marr over most of those kinda guitarists based purely substance over style.

Edited May 30, 2006 by HGwannabe

[Ash J. Williams]

I personally prefer Trompe le Monde.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Ash J. Williams

[Number of the Breast]

Funnily enough, a lot of the people who don't like Nirvana are the sorts who like guitar solos and general widdly-ness (Evil Chase K and Aaron Maiden in this here topic I know of at least), which was effectively what music like Nirvana's killed off for the best part of the 90's. Personally, I hate that style of music to a degree, as too many bands throw out technical guitar work/solos just for the sake of it, seemingly. As Skumfrog said in another topic, I'd take a Johnny Marr over most of those kinda guitarists based purely substance over style.

[ClaRK! Kent]

It shows talent, yes, but only in the technical sense of the term IMO. If you can combine that technical ability with an ability to write good melodies and songs (see - Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton, etc) then you're on to a winner.

The problem with a lot of the "widdly-ness" (best. description. ever) guitarists is that they just pile it on for no apparent reason. I think the best description I heard of it was from my dad (who was a session man in the 70s and was to tour with Led Zep until he decided to get married and settle down instead... idiot) who said as follows...

"Paige, Clapton, Hendrix, and the like could combine technical skill with brilliant songwriting and they could write a damn good hook too. Plus, they kept it reined in most of the time. Bands like Guns'N'Roses, Slayer, and guys like Stevie Vai kinda opted into this attitude of 'if a guitar solo is good, a really big guitar solo must be better' and spent so much time writing funky solos that they forgot to write the songs to go with them."

I'd call that sort of guitar playing unrestrained musical masturbation. Any idiot can bust out 30 solos if they've had a decent enough amount of training, but it does take a lot more talent to actually make it work in the context of a song.

[YI]

"American Idiot" by Green Day. I could list about 5 punk-rock albums released within a couple months of it that are easily better. The title track is pure 'paint by numbers' punk-rock, I never got why people loved it so much. And the rest of the stuff I heard bores me. It just seems so bland.

"North" by Something Corporate. In my oppinion Something Corporate are overrated. They're good, I love the album but fans of the band hype it up as some sort of masterpiece (Or so I tend to find). Most of the songs follow the same format, big choruses, and ultimately just blend together. I find Andrew McMahons work with his solo project Jack's Mannequin 20 times better. The song writing is better, his singing is better and ultimately it's a nicer listen. I think following the release of "Everything In Transit" my oppinion of "North" went down a fair bit.

Of course there's the 'classics' that could be tossed out, but I can't be arsed.

[Number of the Breast]

It shows talent, yes, but only in the technical sense of the term IMO. If you can combine that technical ability with an ability to write good melodies and songs (see - Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton, etc) then you're on to a winner.

The problem with a lot of the "widdly-ness" (best. description. ever) guitarists is that they just pile it on for no apparent reason. I think the best description I heard of it was from my dad (who was a session man in the 70s and was to tour with Led Zep until he decided to get married and settle down instead... idiot) who said as follows...

"Paige, Clapton, Hendrix, and the like could combine technical skill with brilliant songwriting and they could write a damn good hook too. Plus, they kept it reined in most of the time. Bands like Guns'N'Roses, Slayer, and guys like Stevie Vai kinda opted into this attitude of 'if a guitar solo is good, a really big guitar solo must be better' and spent so much time writing funky solos that they forgot to write the songs to go with them."

I'd call that sort of guitar playing unrestrained musical masturbation. Any idiot can bust out 30 solos if they've had a decent enough amount of training, but it does take a lot more talent to actually make it work in the context of a song.

[Skummy]

I said it another thread not long ago, and wannabe pretty much quoted me on it here, but I'd rather hear someone like Johnny Marr or Marc Ribot, or even Syd Barrett back in the day, playing a simplistic but catchy riff than someone like Steve Vai playing un-necessary guitar-as-penis-extenstion fretwankery for no reason other than that he can.

It's got nothing to do with the bands showing talent, it's that it's un-necessary. A good song should be the marriage of good lyrics (unless it's an instrumental, obviously) and good instrumentation to fit the mood or emotion the song is trying to put across. The likes of Vai and Malmsteen can't do that, while a "lesser" guitarist like Marr does it with ease.

I wouldn't put the likes of Slayer and G&R in with Vai and Malmsteen, though. The guitarwork in Slayer pretty much fits the angry, aggressive sound perfectly, so that's fine. And Guns & Roses, at their peak, where a pretty good combination of glam, punk, metal and blues, and rarely ventured into soloing for the sake of soloing. Even Led Zep fell into that trap a fair few times, though (a drum solo taking up one side of an LP? Give me a break...).

Edited May 31, 2006 by Skumfrog

[fineintent]

You miss the point with Zeppelin, they aren't falling into a wanky solo "trap", its progressive music - the instrumentation is meant to impress and push boundaries.

I dunno where I stand on this - I'm not really a fan of the whole faggotry where the music is shit but pretentious cunts tell you "Oh, the lyrics are the important bit". Write a poem if you can't write a song.

Lyrics don't have to be good for me to appreciate the music, the music just has to flow well - and I think with Satriani, and Vai to an extent, it does. Its not showing off, its pushing musical boundaries in the same extent that other people push lyrical boundaries.