What are the most overrrated albums in rock history?

No offense, these are literally my favorite bands:
Iron maiden - Iron maiden: Killers at least sounds amazing and performances are top, this one has nothing that makes me coming back. I relisten Phantom and Transylvania, rest I'd rather pass and if never heard rest again wouldn't mind.
Bruce Dickinson - Tyranny of souls: I like it, has great songs, but overall albums to me sounds kinda soulless, ofc comparing it to 2 masterpieces that came before.
Ozzy Osbourne - Bark at the Moon: except title track and RNR rebel, there are only a few moments that make this album interesting for me.
Dream theater - Octavarium: okay, it's a cool concept and all, but really, except The root of all evil, Panick attack and Octavarium, it's complete boredom.
Metallica - Kill em all: Never understood the hype and worship status it sometimes has. The way it sounds, songwriting, performances, not my cup of tea, would take any other Metallica album except St Anger over it.
 
Edington said:
Could it have been drummed up by the media's whole "Oasis vs. Blur" thing? Or those two obnoxious pricks garnering media attention and increasing the band's popularity? I'm just spitballing.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Oasis v Blur media circus was rolled in with it. It was likely certain publications trying to win over the younger generation of their traditional reader base. It was just weird hailing tracks from their second album as though they were long established household names. People who had no interest in the indie scene suddenly started treating them as musical genius too.

There was similar overhype for a while around the Stone Roses, although they split up while apparently on the rise. Plus the Stone Roses were probably a bit too maverick for mainstream press to get behind
 
Brigantium said:
I'm wondering if they don't get the same hype in the US. I'm not a fan of them in general, but out of all the many, many indie bands and especially those in the Manchester scene, I could never work out why Oasis in particular were lauded as being near instant legends. To me they sound unexceptional, yet they were hailed from early on as being a standout act.

Disclaimer - I'm not a diehard Beatles fan either, but can understand better how they became such a big name
Click to expand...

I found Oasis vastly overrated when they were popular. I decided to give them another opportunity when the reunion was announced to see if my opinion would change and I listened to their whole discography in chronological order. Overrated? Definitely, not maybe.
 
Brigantium said:
And following this discussion, I switched on national news this morning and the third biggest story of the day was....the Oasis reunion!
Click to expand...

After all the Maiden hype I'd completely forgotten this was happening, and I'm going to see Duran Duran tomorrow. I know where I'd rather be :cool:
 
Brigantium said:
I'm wondering if they don't get the same hype in the US. I'm not a fan of them in general, but out of all the many, many indie bands and especially those in the Manchester scene, I could never work out why Oasis in particular were lauded as being near instant legends. To me they sound unexceptional, yet they were hailed from early on as being a standout act.

Disclaimer - I'm not a diehard Beatles fan either, but can understand better how they became such a big name
Click to expand...

Being European, they weren't "national heroes" for us, but they were big. Like, really biiiiiig. "Cool Britannia", Britpop, the Spices, Diana, David Beckham - all of that is closer for us than for the US folk, methinks, but Oasis were something exceptional. Like, really exceptional. We were shortly after the revolution, things from the West coming to us in crash waves and nobody had to sell us Oasis as "the new Beatles" - we just naturally tacitly accepted the fact, which felt eo ipso obvious. In every ear and in every radio, it was the oppressive reminder of British superiority and dominance and the epitome of the UK "cool" that we're still susceptible to - be it Black Books, Monty Python, Tolkien, Sherlock Holmes, Vivian Stanshall, Evelyn Waugh or Alan Hull; somehow, it just instinctively felt that way.

I think it's part PR, although good PR, IMHO. They had the attitude and the sneer. They were "outstanding" (in that old, literal meaning of standing out) and idiosyncratic - when on their alleged "crash and burn" album Be Here Now Liam sings "these are crazy days, but they make me shaaaaayn", you know it's him, no-one else but him and the audience that hates you or is at least annoyed by you is a better audience than the one that ignores you. People forget who Morissey is and how much Johnny Marr was responsible for the Smiths' sound; people don't know who the blokes from Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark were or that their founder is behind Atomic Kitten as well. They might remember that Albarn was in Blur, though he still gets referred to as "the Gorillaz bloke" at the very most. But everyone knew Posh, Sporty, Scary, Ginger and Baby just as sure as they knew Noel and Liam Gallagher.

But they had the tunes, sure, regurgitated, as every song with strong melody is, but extremely catchy. Even as someone who considers Blur to be overall better in nearly every way, the Gallaghers probably might have them beat on the pure amount of immediately memorable tunes, if nothing else. And on their ability to sell their strengths well.
Wonderwall or Despacito - you don't become the biggest song in the world (at least for fifteen minutes) by mistake.

I mean, even in the solo years


Is it so much Liam that even I, who don't mind him in general, feels like it is possibly a tad too much? Yes.

Is it yet another self-fellation and regurgitation of the Lennon-McCartney "sound" (meaning the chord progressions, the little production touches, yes, the sneer)? Absolutely.

Does it feel like a product of someone who has that elusive "golden touch", whatever such thing may be? To me, undoubtedly.

I don't know, I get why people dislike or even hate them, I realise how they might seem "overrated", if we want to classify it that way, but they are surely one band whose popularity is not really something elusive, the one band that is kinda plain to see why they were popular.
Cheesy or overplayed - or in the case of the latter not even that greatly written to begin with - but a band does not put out Don't Look Back in Anger or Champagne Supernova and not aim for the Moon, kinda. And I don't blame, neither am I surprised by, the people that got on the train as well, 'cause the tickets were so darn cheap.

----

That said, in general, the search for "the next Beatles" is a misguided one. People always proclaim such thing about these wankers or the others (Klaatu, Wings, Badfinger, ELO, Oasis), but what does it really mean? For example with Blur, I can definitely see how the Albarn-Coxon partnership was influenced by the songwriting of Paul Weller and the Jam who were in turn influenced by the Davies brothers and the Kinks. And how Arctic Monkeys (at least on their first albums) would be in turn influenced by them as well. But the Beatles are really in a weird spot. They weren't really of their time or easily explainable by their outside circumstances and context. They were idiosyncratic, but not so that they would create their own niche. Them being groundbraking in the studio would make them see to be some kind of experimentators, like Kraftwerk, which they decidedly weren't. I've seen high-brows furiously arguing with low-brows who does the band belong to, "oh, those are Aeolian Cadences in Not a Second Time" "but they sing about holding their girl's HAND!". I've seen them being presented as innovatively wild and dangerous ("She was just seventeen, well you know what I mean") and as preppy Granny's boys.

Point is, people won't probably stop with it (although as rock music fades away in relevance and bands seem to be on the way out, because they're harder to market than solo artists on the radio today, this may also become a thing of the past), but this search for the new Beatles is not only futile on its own merit, but all the more if you won't define what it is that is supposed to be "Beatlesque".

If we're talking about the last grasps and gasps of Rockism as the dominant force, with a British guitar-based rock band being overwhelmingly huge, partially on their own merits, partially because of clever marketing, then yes, I'd say Oasis being the Beatles of the 90s (especially with the Lennonish nasal whine and the descending chord progressions everywhere) is not as off the mark as it might seem at first glance.

I miss them purely on the merits that they were a. guitar based and, well, "instrument-based" (today's "rock" is supposed to be Imagine Dragons, for crying out loud!) b. they were obviously looking back to the era which I liked the most in pop music. They were... "reactionary", so to speak. And I loved them for it.
 
The Beatles' self-titled album (or White Album) comes to mind. Come on: "Bungalow Bill"?, "Happiness is a Warm Gun"?, "Wild Honey Pie", "Why Don't We Do It in the Road", not to mention "Revolution 9"? :facepalm: I think they are really detrimental to the gems that also appear on this album.
And still, it is better than Let It Be.
 
Sth2112 said:
Overrated album for me means that a popular album that is hailed by fans and critics, but not something I nescessarily don’t hold so high. So by looking through my CD collection, I tried to find some overrated albums. That was hard, because it does not mean the albums are bad or weak, just not so strong as others in their discography.

Black sabbath - Paranoid
- Alot worse than Master of reality and most of their 70’s albums.

Blind guardian - Nightfall in middle earth/A night at the opera
- I have never got why Nightfall is such a classic. It is a great album, but Somewhere far beyond and Imaginations through the orher side is far better. Many fans love A night at the opera, but I think it honestly is a chaotic album.

Children of bodom - Hatebreeder
- my first Bodom album, it is a classic, but I really think almost all their other albums are better.

Death - Human
- Same as with Blind guardian. Good album but they have better ones.

Dimmu Borgir - Enthrone darkness triumpath
- again good, but the three next ones are much better than this one.

Dream theater - Systematic chaos
- I remember people on the IMBB or MFU or wherever worshipped this album. I really think it is maybe their worst album.

Helloween - The time of the oath
- also a critical favorite and the highlight for Deris era fans. I like it, but in my ears a litte weaker than Master of the rings and Better than raw.

Iron maiden - Brave new world
- If I have to pick a overrated Maiden album, it is this one. It’s solid, safe sounding and some legendary moments, but it is not a reinvetion of the wheel or anything.

Judas priest - Reedemer of souls
- again a popular album among fans. Maybe it was delightful to hear something new and good after the failed Nostradamus project, but it is very average.

Michael Jackson - Bad
- He had a pretty solid discography. Bad is good (:bigsmile: ) , but it have a few weaker moments and not the best material.

King’s X - Gretchen goes to nebraska
- great album by a great band, but piss poor production ruins it. They did better both before and after.

Kiss - Destroyer
- Destroyer is very different from the three before and what came after. Many fans and critics liked it, but I just think it worked partly.
Led zeppelin - Physical graffitti
- hard to pick a overrated album by zeppelin. If one is, then it is PG. First disc is excellent, but number two is clearly b-side material for the most part.

Megadeth - The system has failed, endgame
- Two albums hailed by their fans as the coming of Christ. The system has failed is basically a Mustaine solo album, a few things work, but lot of bland stuff to. Endgame is good, but not that good.

Metallica - Death magnetic
- just like Endgame: by many hailed as a return to their old self, but reality is "oh, just a new Metallica album". And the "groundbreaking" loud mastering, jesus…

Nine inch nails - The fragile
- after a masterpiece like The downward spiral, Trent wanted to blow the album out of the water with The fragile. But reality is bloated, poor songs that leads nowhere.

Pearl jam - Ten
- they did better albums later on. In fact, it is one of their worst.

Pink floyd - Momentary lapse of reason, division bell
- Nice albums, but they are not really Pink floyd.

Porcupine tree - Up the downstair, closure/continuation
- the first one hailed as a masterpiece ( it really isn’t). The latter hailed as a welcome return of form. I think it is very dissapointing compared to the long time it took to gather together.

Radiohead - Amnesiac, hail to the thief
- a band that is a critics favorite. I think these two fails a bit compared to the good reviews they got. The stuff they did before is way better.
The rolling stones - Exile on main street
- another classic band and album, that do not live up to the other classics in the discography.

Sepultura - Morbid visions
- Hailed by many as their best album. I really do think it sound like a demo and a amateur band. They certainly did way better later on.

Slash - s/t
- I expected a modern classic when this album and all the guest were announced. And of course some of it works very well, but others don’t. Also a weak production ruins it.

Stratovarius - Elements part 1
- a band that was hard to find overrated albums by, but I picked this one. Great expectations and promises of a grand album that blew the others of the water by both the band and critics, it was a album with way too high singing on some songs, weird concepts from a ill man and dissapointing song material.

Steven Wilson - Grace for drowning
- the man with a weird discography. After a great debut, this twisted album came out, and I think it failed on most aspects. No single material, overlong jazzy pieces, and general failed experiements. He did far better afterwards
Click to expand...
Blind guardian nightfall i prefer the previuos albums and sepultura roots. The same,i prefer all the revious by far
 
Black Bart said:
The Beatles' self-titled album (or White Album) comes to mind. Come on: "Bungalow Bill"?, "Happiness is a Warm Gun"?, "Wild Honey Pie", "Why Don't We Do It in the Road", not to mention "Revolution 9"? :facepalm: I think they are really detrimental to the gems that also appear on this album.
And still, it is better than Let It Be.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the 'deep cuts' album
 
Some examples:

Nirvana - Nevermind (its impact is hard to deny but the material is not outstanding)
Metallica - Master of puppets (it's a great classic but it doesn't deserve to be the most popular pick for "the greatest metal album")
Linkin Park - Hybrid theory
Radiohead - In rainbows (the fact that this album is ranked as the #3 album of all time on RateYourMusic is absurd to me)
Opeth - Ghost reveries (I'm a big Opeth fan but I've never understood why this album gets so much love)
Ozzy solo - Blizzard of Ozz and Diary of a madman (I don't find these two albums to be that great, they're mostly praised and beloved for Randy's playing)
Judas Priest - British steel (this album is good but not great as many classic metal fans claim, I'd put many Priest albums over BS)
Rush - 2112 (the title track is among the best Rush works but the rest of this album is a bit above average)
Pink Floyd - Animals
 
Last edited:
Ledges Bitten In Dust said:
Dream theater - Octavarium: okay, it's a cool concept and all, but really, except The root of all evil, Panick attack and Octavarium, it's complete boredom.
Click to expand...
Very much agreed. I find the vast majority of the album to be incredibly generic, which was a huge letdown coming off of one of the band’s finest in Train of Thought. Even as a bass player I find Panic Attack to be as dull as dishwater, and the first four minutes of the title track didn’t need to exist. I think my favorite track may actually be Sacrificed Sons.

Ledges Bitten In Dust said:
Metallica - Kill em all: Never understood the hype and worship status it sometimes has. The way it sounds, songwriting, performances, not my cup of tea, would take any other Metallica album except St Anger over it.
Click to expand...
Yes! I like three songs from it, think one is pretty mid, and I’ll leave the rest. That whole super-fast constant open-E thing just isn’t my cup of tea; most of the tracks lack depth. I’d take Load and Reload any day over that.
 
Aerosmith, Toys in the Attic — Aerosmith in general are overrated, IMO.

Queen, A Night at the Opera.

Oasis, (What’s the Story) Morning Glory?

Metallica, The Black Album

AC/DC, Back in Black

Are five that come to mind without having to think much about it.
 
Strictly musically speaking:

Deep Purple - Machine Head
Judas Priest - British Steel
Blue Oyster Cult - Agenta of Fortune
Saxon - Wheels of Steel
Metallica - Master of Puppets
Burzum - Filosofem
David Bowie - Ziggy Stardust
Iron Maiden - The Number of the Beast
Mayhem - Deathcrush
Black Sabbath - Paranoid
Pink Floyd - The Dark Side of the Moon

I'm not saying these are bad records. They usually aren't. I enjoy all of them, but they're not the best things released by the listed bands. Some of them are important for the evolution of rock, and I respect them for their influence on the genre. But I can find at least a few better Sabbath or Bowie albums than Paranoid albums than Paranoid and Ziggy Stardust.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top