Author Topic: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great  (Read 1643 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4429
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #35 on: June 08, 2018, 10:30:59 AM »
Journey maybe? I don't at all care for their first three but Infinity is where the goodness happens, so I'm conflicted.

Wow, interesting take.  I'm going to reluctantly agree.  And I say "reluctantly" simply because I think those albums are actually pretty good.  But I and most others would have overlooked them as a band if not for the change that bringing Perry in brought about.  Good call, and one I wouldn't have thought of if you hadn't posted it.

I am going to perhaps be a bit controversial and go with Megadeth as well.  They technically don't fit because their 4th album is Rust, and that was the beginning of their "classic" era, as far as I'm concerned.  I love that album.  But the first three, they were a different band, and I didn't care for that material as well.  Rust really is a transition album between the old sound and what they would become after that.  But taken collectively, yeah, I guess their first four "aren't that great" because the first three drag that era down for me (only my personal tastes--I know others love those albums).

Scorpions is another.  I got into their "classic" era in the '80s, but they had a long career in the '70s that doesn't move me at all.

Whitesnake also fits that mold, for the same reason as Scorpions.  I really liked both bands' output during the same '80s period, and their earlier stuff similarly didn't do much for me.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Kattelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 4052
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #36 on: June 08, 2018, 10:33:52 AM »
That's a shame, bosk. I think Megadeth's first four are actually their best! :2metal:

About Journey, to be fair, I don't think they're bad per se, just severely eclipsed by what came after Steve Perry joined.
RYM || Last.FM
"No Christ, God, nor religion gave me the answers I was looking for" - Timo Tolkki

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4429
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #37 on: June 08, 2018, 10:39:56 AM »
That's a shame, bosk. I think Megadeth's first four are actually their best! :2metal:

That's cool.  I just never liked "old-school thrash."  Same reason I don't like Kill 'Em All, or earlier albums from other thrash bands that I otherwise think had some great later output (e.g. Flotsam & Jetsam and Testament).  And that sound was Megadeth's wheelhouse for those first four.  Just, for some reason, it really worked and clicked with me on Rust.  Mid-'80s to early-'90s is when Thrash evolved to a point, and my tastes evolved to a point, where the two were compatible.

About Journey, to be fair, I don't think they're bad per se, just severely eclipsed by what came after Steve Perry joined.

Yeah, exactly.  For me, there is a lot that is good about those early albums.  But I never would have discovered them if not for the Perry era stuff that pulled me in in the first place.  Even if I heard those early albums now, I would never have said, "Hey, that group is pretty awesome.  I need to get all their stuff."  I got their stuff by going back and listening to it with the Perry stuff already firmly in my "love it" column.  And I enjoy it on the rare listen. 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13113
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #38 on: June 08, 2018, 10:41:00 AM »
I have never been more confused by a band than when I first heard Floyd's earliest stuff. I was sure I got the wrong band. That is some weird music, and not in a good way for me. It's incredible how much they transformed.

You take the first four records, plus "Zabriskie Point", plus the non-album singles, and in my estimation there's a really good, double CD there.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13113
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #39 on: June 08, 2018, 10:42:50 AM »

Scorpions is another.  I got into their "classic" era in the '80s, but they had a long career in the '70s that doesn't move me at all.

Whitesnake also fits that mold, for the same reason as Scorpions.  I really liked both bands' output during the same '80s period, and their earlier stuff similarly didn't do much for me.

I happen to like the early phases of both better, but that's not the point; I think you're spot on that both bands sort of transformed themselves later in their career to the point that someone who LOVED "In Trance" or "Snakebite" wouldn't care at all for "Blackout" or "1987", and vice versa.   

Online SoundscapeMN

  • Posts: 3022
  • Gender: Male
    • allmediareviews
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #40 on: June 08, 2018, 11:16:17 AM »
Sufjan Stevens (Michigan has its moments I suppose)

1st 3:
Savatage
Silverchair

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4429
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #41 on: June 08, 2018, 11:28:12 AM »

Scorpions is another.  I got into their "classic" era in the '80s, but they had a long career in the '70s that doesn't move me at all.

Whitesnake also fits that mold, for the same reason as Scorpions.  I really liked both bands' output during the same '80s period, and their earlier stuff similarly didn't do much for me.

I happen to like the early phases of both better, but that's not the point; I think you're spot on that both bands sort of transformed themselves later in their career to the point that someone who LOVED "In Trance" or "Snakebite" wouldn't care at all for "Blackout" or "1987", and vice versa.   

Yeah, exactly.  All of my examples are really bands that had that sort of transformation.  It isn't really an issue of "quality" as much as it is the band changing and remaking its sound, and me as the listener not really liking that earlier sound.  It's easy to point to band's whose first and even second album may have suffered from the quality of the songwriting simply because they just weren't very good at it yet.  But it's hard to find many bands whose first four albums really suffered from a quality standpoint.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline pg1067

  • Posts: 1085
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #42 on: June 08, 2018, 11:29:38 AM »
Am I the first one who will say RUSH?!

Many people mentioned Pink Floyd here, but their debut and A Saucerful of Secrets can wipe the floor with Rush debut, Fly by Night or Caress of Steel anytime.
I always found 2112 an overrated album due to its mediocre and forgettable side 2(side 1 is great without a doubt, though).  ;D

Rush is sort of middling in this regard.  The debut has Working Man, Finding My Way and In the Mood, and the rest is largely forgettable (many may say that In the Mood is also forgettable, but I have a place for it in my heart, and it's just kinds of silly fun).  Rush was a band still trying to find its own sound, and that album would have gone nowhere without Working Man.  Fly by Night is excellent.  Rivendell is the only song I consistently skip.  Caress of Steel is the weakest of the bunch, although 3/4 of side 1 is good to excellent.  CoS was also a necessary prerequisite to 2112.  Side 1 was a game changer at the time, and I've said before that side 2 is comparatively weak.

I agree with Kev about Styx.  The debut is almost completely forgettable.  Lady was a minor hit twice, but Styx II also largely nondescript (although you can start to hear the "classic" Styx sound on a couple of songs).  There's nothing remarkable about The Serpent is Rising (unless you find some entertainment value in Plexiglass Toilet).  Man of Miracles has a couple of good songs, but Styx really didn't get its legs under it until Equinox.
"There's a bass solo in a song called Metropolis where I do a bass solo."  John Myung

Offline Mladen

  • Posts: 11699
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #43 on: June 08, 2018, 11:37:45 AM »
Thin Lizzy
I think most people would agree with this, although I adore the first three records with Eric Bell.

Pink Floyd is an obvious choice, but not because those albums are bad (well, the first two aren't), but due to the fact that they reached their creative peak much later. It's similar with Porcupine Tree. Honestly, I would have easily picked Rush if it weren't for 2112.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 27803
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #44 on: June 08, 2018, 06:05:14 PM »


I agree with Kev about Styx.  The debut is almost completely forgettable.  Lady was a minor hit twice, but Styx II also largely nondescript (although you can start to hear the "classic" Styx sound on a couple of songs).  There's nothing remarkable about The Serpent is Rising (unless you find some entertainment value in Plexiglass Toilet).  Man of Miracles has a couple of good songs, but Styx really didn't get its legs under it until Equinox.

There are some gems on those early albums:

Father O.S.A.
The Grove of Eglantine
Winner Take All
Best Thing
You Need Love
I'm Gonna Make You Feel It
Man of Miracles

But yeah, none of those albums compare to the ones that came after them in the 70's.

Offline Fritzinger

  • Posts: 758
  • Gender: Male
    • Fritzes Musikblog
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #45 on: June 09, 2018, 06:03:21 AM »
Pink Floyd is the most logical answer.

This post almost makes me angry  ;D How can you say that, just generalizing it like that?

Name one song that gets any airtime in classic rock radio stations.  Until Meddle, they were an obscure prog band at best.  Outside of the UK, they made no impact.  And would anyone say they'd rather listen to any of the first 4 (or 7) in the discography before pretty much any album in the DSOTM-Division Bell run?  RIAA certifications were all over the place for the first 7 albums (the first three weren't even RIAA certified); EVERY album from DSOTM on was multi-Platinum.  I could go on if you'd like.

Name me another band that made such a MONUMENTAL jump in one album (DSOTM), and then sustained it for the next 6 albums (The Final Cut notwithstanding).

What has airtime on classic rock radio stations to do with quality of music? We are posting in a Dream Theater forum, since when has radio airplay to do with anything?
A few of the greatest albums I know only contain songs that have never played on any radio station so I really don't understand where you're going with this argument. What's wrong with being an "obscure prog band"?

And YES, I bet there's thousands of people who would rather listen to A Saucerful Of Secrets than to A Momentary Lapse Of Reason. It's great that Pink Floyd had such a huge success with their music 1973-1994, but when it comes to the music itself, I don't give a crap about sales or platinum- etc. certifications.
me desperté en un mundo con dos tipos de gente: la mas y la menos extrema

Online jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24350
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #46 on: June 09, 2018, 06:20:52 AM »
Personal opinions aside, classic rock radio airtime (back then, and now), along with RIAA certifications, is a fair barometer of quality of music - and I recognize that "quality" is 100% subjective.  There may be 000s of people that would rather listen to SFoS, but there's probably MILLIONS of people who have never even heard of it - but know DSOTM, WYWH, and The Wall at a minimum.  Hell, before I got to DTF, I knew of Piper at the Gates of Dawn, but had never heard a single track in my 35 years of existence, nor had I even heard of SFoS, More, Umma, or Atom Heart Mother.

:dunno:
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 27803
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #47 on: June 09, 2018, 06:33:24 AM »
There are a surprising number of people who think Piper is the best thing Floyd ever did, which I will never get, but then again, I think the vast majority of Piper is unlistenable psychedelic crap.  I do like A Saucerful of Secrets quite a bit, however.

That said, I think Pink Floyd is a great example for this thread.  Dark Side through The Wall is considered their peak era by a large percentage Floyd fans.  Outside of maybe a random fan doing shrooms in a flat somewhere in London :P, does anybody think More or Ummagumma (disc 2, the studio disc) is a Floyd highlight?

Offline Fritzinger

  • Posts: 758
  • Gender: Male
    • Fritzes Musikblog
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #48 on: June 09, 2018, 09:15:06 AM »
Hell, yeah I LOVE UmmaGumma  :lol  Both the live album AND the studio album.

Quote
Personal opinions aside, classic rock radio airtime (back then, and now), along with RIAA certifications, is a fair barometer of quality of music

I still don't get it... by that logic this would mean that every hit ELO has ever put out is better than any song Gentle Giant have recorded. Any AOR rock tune that get's played on a classic rock radio station is better than any song by any Neo-,  Retro-Prog or Jazz fusion band and Aerosmith and Boston are the greatest bands alive.

 :huh:
me desperté en un mundo con dos tipos de gente: la mas y la menos extrema

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 27803
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #49 on: June 09, 2018, 09:24:46 AM »
Well, to be perfectly frank, it doesn't take much to be better than a Gentle Giant song. That is a pretty low bar to clear.

Offline Elite

  • The 'other' Rich
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11957
  • Gender: Male
  • Inventory!
    • Overhaul
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #50 on: June 09, 2018, 09:33:50 AM »
Well, to be perfectly frank, it doesn't take much to be better than a Gentle Giant song. That is a pretty low bar to clear.

:corn
Hey dude slow the fuck down so we can finish together at the same time.  :biggrin:
Squ
scRa are the resultaten of sound nog bring propey

Online jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24350
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #51 on: June 09, 2018, 10:42:00 AM »
Hell, yeah I LOVE UmmaGumma  :lol  Both the live album AND the studio album.

Quote
Personal opinions aside, classic rock radio airtime (back then, and now), along with RIAA certifications, is a fair barometer of quality of music

I still don't get it... by that logic this would mean that every hit ELO has ever put out is better than any song Gentle Giant have recorded. Any AOR rock tune that get's played on a classic rock radio station is better than any song by any Neo-,  Retro-Prog or Jazz fusion band and Aerosmith and Boston are the greatest bands alive.

 :huh:

Better is a matter of perspective and subjectivity.  Remember, the thread title is "aren't that great".  Relative to PF's latter discography, the first four "aren't that great".
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline Fritzinger

  • Posts: 758
  • Gender: Male
    • Fritzes Musikblog
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #52 on: June 09, 2018, 11:05:45 AM »
Hell, yeah I LOVE UmmaGumma  :lol  Both the live album AND the studio album.

Quote
Personal opinions aside, classic rock radio airtime (back then, and now), along with RIAA certifications, is a fair barometer of quality of music

I still don't get it... by that logic this would mean that every hit ELO has ever put out is better than any song Gentle Giant have recorded. Any AOR rock tune that get's played on a classic rock radio station is better than any song by any Neo-,  Retro-Prog or Jazz fusion band and Aerosmith and Boston are the greatest bands alive.

 :huh:

Better is a matter of perspective and subjectivity.  Remember, the thread title is "aren't that great".  Relative to PF's latter discography, the first four "aren't that great".

That depends what you like more, the experimental psychedelic rock from the first albums or the bluesy, puffed up AOR on the last ones. I personally like both (although of course I agree with you that their Dark Side - Wall phase is the best). And I think that - although they aren't really comparable - their first albums are not at all worse than their first ones. Just very different.

Well, to be perfectly frank, it doesn't take much to be better than a Gentle Giant song. That is a pretty low bar to clear.

How dare you  :omg: :lol
me desperté en un mundo con dos tipos de gente: la mas y la menos extrema

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6313
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2018, 12:13:37 PM »
Floyd was my initial thought, and still a good option for me, though the more I think about it, Saucerful of Secrets is rather good for a sophomore effort coming off the drug-induced hazy mess of Piper, especially considering they were undergoing a change in their line-up and writing focus.

Styx is another good submission.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 27803
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #54 on: June 09, 2018, 06:22:03 PM »
Well, to be perfectly frank, it doesn't take much to be better than a Gentle Giant song. That is a pretty low bar to clear.

How dare you  :omg: :lol

I stand behind my comment. :biggrin:

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28831
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2018, 06:44:49 PM »


That's cool.  I just never liked "old-school thrash."  Same reason I don't like Kill 'Em All, or earlier albums from other thrash bands that I otherwise think had some great later output (e.g. Flotsam & Jetsam and Testament).  And that sound was Megadeth's wheelhouse for those first four.  Just, for some reason, it really worked and clicked with me on Rust.  Mid-'80s to early-'90s is when Thrash evolved to a point, and my tastes evolved to a point, where the two were compatible.

Fair to say that you like thrash influenced metal, more than thrash metal..?


Kill 'Em All, F&J's 2nd and 3rd albums, and SFSGSW are 4 of my all time favorite albums.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline TheCountOfNYC

  • Posts: 3444
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #56 on: June 09, 2018, 10:40:09 PM »
Pantera.
“People figured out that the white thing that comes out of cows' titties could be drunk, and the relation between sweet desires and women's bellies growing up for 9 months. It can't be THAT hard to figure out how a trumpet works.”

-MirrorMask

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6313
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #57 on: June 10, 2018, 12:05:59 AM »
The problem with The Who is that people don't realize how FEW studio  albums they really have.  Tommy is their fourth album.  I agree on their first one, but I  kinda like "A Quick One" and "Who Sell Out" is a really underrated masterpiece.   I find that to be far more creative and interesting than Tommy, even if Tommy is more cogent and streamlined as a story.

Good post. They didn't take long to develop their sound, style, and presence. Their debut has two of their landmark songs, songs that hold up to this day and are still popular and critically acclaimed. The next two don't have the radio hits and concert staples that subsequent albums would have, but they are quite good. And then you get right in to Tommy/Who's Next, Quadrophenia, as good of a three album run any band could hope to have, showcasing Pete's creative genius crafting three unique albums each with its own sound and narrative, and establishing themselves as one of the top live bands around. Then an outtakes/rarities album (solid), and two more before Keith's death. Then two more to finish out their recording career, and the odd final act 24 years later.


"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline NoseofNicko

  • Posts: 550
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #58 on: June 10, 2018, 12:35:14 AM »
classic rock radio airtime (back then, and now), along with RIAA certifications, is a fair barometer of quality of music

dafuq.

Offline Zook

  • Evil Incarnate
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13049
  • Gender: Male
  • Tordenperle krall. Literally.
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #59 on: June 10, 2018, 12:38:38 AM »
I'd say Kamelot, but The Fourth Legacy is pretty good.


Offline WildRanger

  • Posts: 227
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #60 on: June 10, 2018, 03:29:09 AM »
Personal opinions aside, classic rock radio airtime (back then, and now), along with RIAA certifications, is a fair barometer of quality of music - and I recognize that "quality" is 100% subjective.


I don't agree at all. Speaking about success in the USA, for example Journey has sold a way more albums than Deep Purple and they have much more songs on classic rock radio, but objectively a quality of Journey music is not in the same ballpark with Deep Purple from a musical aspect.


Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28831
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #61 on: June 10, 2018, 06:10:37 AM »
Wildranger, stick to OP's. You're not supposed to actually post. ;D

Not sure how you can say what you just said about Journey. That's crazy talk.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline WildRanger

  • Posts: 227
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #62 on: June 10, 2018, 06:22:48 AM »
Personal opinions aside, classic rock radio airtime (back then, and now), along with RIAA certifications, is a fair barometer of quality of music - and I recognize that "quality" is 100% subjective.


I don't agree at all. Speaking about success in the USA, for example Journey has sold a way more albums than Deep Purple and they have much more songs on classic rock radio, but objectively a quality of Journey music is not in the same ballpark with Deep Purple from a musical aspect.

Or you can compare the sales of Iron Maiden and Metallica albums from the 21st century in the US.
According ot RIAA none of Maiden albums didn't reach even Gold, while all Metallica albums (even St. Anger) have at least one Platinum. But quality-wise Metallica albums ain't got shit on those Maiden albums (although they are not that good compared to their 80's releases).

Online jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24350
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #63 on: June 10, 2018, 07:06:53 AM »
ffs people... I said "fair barometer".  I didn't say it was the be all and end all to measure quality (which is 100% subjective anyway).  I was also trying to infer it as it related to music from the 20th Century - with the interwebz and different outlets for people to consume music, radio play and RIAA is by NO MEANS a way to measure quality.
I didn't know I could handle another 10 inches and it was rough but in the end I'm glad I did it.
warflwwcesfw.
That's meme-speak for "We are really f*****g lazy when we can't eve say full words".

Offline Kattelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 4052
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #64 on: June 10, 2018, 08:27:24 AM »
I don't at all agree that radio play is indicative of any sort of quality. Popularity, maybe. But if it's quality, you need to explain why Five Finger Death Punch gets radio play.  :lol
RYM || Last.FM
"No Christ, God, nor religion gave me the answers I was looking for" - Timo Tolkki

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 27803
  • Gender: Male
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #65 on: June 10, 2018, 08:30:55 AM »
Did you read Chad's (jingle.boy) last post?

Offline Kattelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 4052
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #66 on: June 10, 2018, 08:37:39 AM »
Did you read Chad's (jingle.boy) last post?

Nope. /sarcasm

But even in the 90s I would say it wasn't a fair indicator of quality. I don't think radio has been for a very long time (if ever) for a number of reasons, not simply when the Internet came around. Fucking Kate Bush, for example, and that was in '78.
RYM || Last.FM
"No Christ, God, nor religion gave me the answers I was looking for" - Timo Tolkki

Offline Train of Naught

  • I sympathize, with a cockroach
  • Posts: 7019
  • Gender: Male
  • .....and a cockroach
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #67 on: June 10, 2018, 08:40:43 AM »
I don't at all agree that radio play is indicative of any sort of quality. Popularity, maybe. But if it's quality, you need to explain why Five Finger Death Punch gets radio play.  :lol
I can't believe Sham Pain isn't a huge meme yet, easily the most embarassing and cringy thing to come out of the 'metal' industry this year. I used to be able to laugh at FFDP's ridiculousness but this has gotten out of hand man

SHAM PAIN :metardica:
I nosedive, to the FURNAAACE

https://rateyourmusic.com/~Lvialviaquez

Offline Elite

  • The 'other' Rich
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11957
  • Gender: Male
  • Inventory!
    • Overhaul
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #68 on: June 10, 2018, 08:41:09 AM »
what's that about fucking Kate Bush in '78?
Hey dude slow the fuck down so we can finish together at the same time.  :biggrin:
Squ
scRa are the resultaten of sound nog bring propey

Offline Kattelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 4052
Re: What good bands' first four albums aren't that great
« Reply #69 on: June 10, 2018, 09:30:38 AM »
 :lol

I don't at all agree that radio play is indicative of any sort of quality. Popularity, maybe. But if it's quality, you need to explain why Five Finger Death Punch gets radio play.  :lol
I can't believe Sham Pain isn't a huge meme yet, easily the most embarassing and cringy thing to come out of the 'metal' industry this year. I used to be able to laugh at FFDP's ridiculousness but this has gotten out of hand man

SHAM PAIN :metardica:

This is the worst damn thing I have seen since the ICP video about miracles.
RYM || Last.FM
"No Christ, God, nor religion gave me the answers I was looking for" - Timo Tolkki