bad albums that you like

[action]

I find myself liking lots of albums that are generally disliked. stuff like Queen's hot space and metallica's reload for example. 

Sometimes, I find bad albums bad, but my opinion changes over time. this is the case with chinese democracy.

or, I can dislike a generally loved album just as well. I hated nevermind on release, but now I kinda like it more.

which leads me to the question: is an album ever bad? No matter how bad an album is, there is always going to be that one guy who likes it.

any candidates for pure shit albums, across time and space?

 

[Towelie]

Albums that were considered bad that I love:

RHCP - One Hot Minute

GNR - Chinese Democracy

Metallica - Reload

Michael Jackson - Invincible

Prince - Rave Un2 The Joy Fantastic

SMKC - Living The Dream

[action]

1 minute ago, Towelie said:

Albums that were considered bad that I love:

RHCP - One Hot Minute

GNR - Chinese Democracy

Metallica - Reload

Michael Jackson - Invincible

Prince - Rave Un2 The Joy Fantastic

SMKC - Living The Dream

I liked invincible pretty well. 2000 watts, break of dawn, threatened, ... there's not a single song I dislike. the album is of "uniform" quality if that makes sense. not brilliant, not groundbreaking, not a classic, but a damn enjoyable listen alltogether. 

[Towelie]

2 minutes ago, action said:

I liked invincible pretty well. 2000 watts, break of dawn, threatened, ... there's not a single song I dislike. the album is of "uniform" quality if that makes sense. not brilliant, not groundbreaking, not a classic, but a damn enjoyable listen alltogether. 

I'd say Speechless and Whatever Happens were brilliant. YRMW and Unbreakable and Butterflies were also great. A few duds though. I find Privacy, Cry and Don't Walk Away to be very weak tracks and it doesn't help that they're all sitting next to eachother on the album.

[action]

1 minute ago, Towelie said:

I'd say Speechless and Whatever Happens were brilliant. YRMW and Unbreakable and Butterflies were also great. A few duds though. I find Privacy, Cry and Don't Walk Away to be very weak tracks and it doesn't help that they're all sitting next to eachother on the album.

speechless starts like, what the hell is this, but it evolves in a pure blissfull ballad. privacy has this quirk where jackson shouts "slash" but it's not him and then this average solo plays. "don't walk away" is one of these tracks that define this album. not a great song by any means, but a good mood setter nonetheless and I wouldn't want to miss it

[EvanG]

Duff McKagan - Believe In Me

[The Dissident]

SMKC - Living The Dream (I don't get the hate for this what so ever, it is a great album)

Alter Bridge - The Last Hero (Yea production is grating but still amazing songs throughout)

GNR - Chinese Democracy (Not on par with what came out before but by no means a bad album)

Scorpions - Humanity:Hour 1; Return To Forever; Sting In The Tail (Yea they aren't as strong rockers as the early stuff but still quality albums)

Just some examples there are sure to be a few others but these are the ones off hand.

[djones1225]

AC/DC - Flick of the Switch (1983)

Flicks got great songs, very raw recording, most underrated Brian album.

 

[Stiff Competition]

KISS' Dyansty gets a lot of flack because the couple disco-esque tracks on it but to me, it is one of their strongest albums overall and probably my 2nd or 3rd favorite of theirs.

[lame ass security]

On 9/30/2019 at 6:48 PM, Stiff Competition said:

KISS' Dyansty gets a lot of flack because the couple disco-esque tracks on it but to me, it is one of their strongest albums overall and probably my 2nd or 3rd favorite of theirs.

Great call, I totally agree. I especially like Ace's tracks; Hard Times, Save Your Love, and 2000 Man.

Edited October 3, 2019 by lame ass security

[Stiff Competition]

57 minutes ago, lame ass security said:

Great call, I totally agree. I especially like Ace's tracks; Hard Times, Save Your Love, and 2000 Thousand Man.

Totally! I also love X-ray Eyes

[DieselDaisy]

Goats Head Soup (Stones)

Bridges of Babylon (Stones)

American Stars 'n Bars (Neil Young)

Broken Arrow (Neil Young)

Jazz (Queen) - granted the production is thin.

Load (Metallica)

Libertad (Velvet Revolver) - superior album to Contraband in every which way.

 

[Powerage5]

4 hours ago, djones1225 said:

AC/DC - Flick of the Switch (1983)

Flicks got great songs, very raw recording, most underrated Brian album.

 

I'd say it's the most underrated AC/DC album, period. I'll grant the the production is a little too raw even for AC/DC, but there's some fucking bangers on that album; the opening trifecta of Rising Power, This House is on Fire, and Flick of the Switch is one of the finest openings to any AC/DC album. Guns for Hire and Bedlam in Belgium are absolute classics. Nervous Shakedown was an excellent single. Even the weakest songs (IMO Brain Shake and Badlands) are so far ahead of the weakest songs on any other album they did with Brian, save Back In Black. It's just a good straight ahead hard rock album with no frills, and no big hits - it's the Brain era's version of Powerage. 

[Stiff Competition]

Oh, also! I love pretty much everything Ringo has done solo.

[Len Cnut]

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Goats Head Soup (Stones)

I can't get my head around how anyone, or rather a Stones fan, could consider this in any way a bad album, its just fucking brilliant throughout, its like a 9.9 out of 10 album.  And its an oft-stated thing too I've found, that Goats Head is like...a downward step after Exile, its absolute bollocks if you ask me.

[action]

7 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

 

Jazz (Queen) - granted the production is thin.

 

 

i kinda love the production of this album. almost dreamy in a way. "in only seven days" is one of my favorite Queen songs. That song speaks to me like few other Queen tracks. I always feel like, when I'm having a good time like in that song, how time is passing by quick, basically counting the days, or hours I still have left to enjoy a great activity. Or in the case of the song, the time spend with a woman you love. God damn if that isn't the story of my younger days.

Edited October 1, 2019 by action

[soon]

The Madcap Laughs, by Syd Barrett 

Solo Monk, Thelonious Monk (wasnt released for a couple decades as it was deemed sub par. Its fantastic but still isnt highly regarded)

Grateful Dead/ From the Mars Hotel (I like a ton of Dead studio albums that dont get much love, but this one is especially lifeless it cant be denied)

Radio K.A.O.S, by Roger Waters

 

[Len Cnut]

This begs the question what is a bad album?  Critically maligned?  Hmmm.  Some  people never made a critically acclaimed album in their lives and are legends, Johnny Thunders for example.  Every album he put out, at the time and even now really were kind of like, when they're reviewed, people pick holes.  L.A.M.F was hampered by production issues, I think its possibly the best rock n roll album of the 70s, at least top 10.  There's like 50 different fuckin' mixes out there.  Posthumuous acclaim or acclaim in hindsight is a load of bollocks, its just people tying themselves into like...a kind of cool.  By which reckoning every album Iggy ever was involved in is a bad album that I love. 

Hmm, what else?  Joe Strummers one and only solo album, critically it was moderately well recieved, extremely unpopular and hard to find though, even now, sold something like 5,000 or so copies when it came out but I love it myself.  Even the reissue is little more than a glorified CD-R. 

PiL albums are a bit like that, critically acclaimed in hindsight but pretty soundly trashed at the time.  I think I'm not approaching OP's line of questioning correctly here. 

The Stones, I don't think The Stones made a bad album throughout the 70s and even the 80s...they're not really well respect for a lot of the 80s stuff. 

The Beatles first album, again, this is me not answering OPs question correctly but thats an album that, OK, The Beatles are pretty much celebrated across the board but this is the one album that kinda gets lost in the acclaim but I think its fantastic, I think its one of their best, they're really sharp and together and kinda jumped up sounding on it, like they're happy to be in the studio and bangin' em out. 

John Lennon, Sometime in New York, I think its an absolute banger, some people find it preachy and kinda haphazard but I think its a beautiful thing, it really is, I love the idea of like...music as the newspaper, current affairs, write it, record it, bang it out so it means something on that day.  I guess the disposable nature of newspaper is kinda reflected in the way the album has (or has not to be more accurate) endured over time.  But I really love it.

Sandinista - The Clash.  A triple album, there's every style on their from rap to funk to gospel to reggae to dub, calypso to jazz  to rockabilly to choral fuckin' music, it just has everything, people find it long and sprawling and disjointed but...its a document of a band in a REALLY fertile period where they were enthusiatic to record music and, like Joe Strummer said, chuck some fresh tape on the reel and just slap something together...a lot of what you hear is like second takes...its a beautiful thing, it has the past in it, the present in it, the future in it.  Enthusiasm is powerful thing, I don't think you need to perfect any style as long as you play it like you mean it and The Clash certainly did that, I think its an amazing document, recorded in a really short space of time with a shitload of shit in it and, unlike most albums of that size, it isn't making a grand statement, they're not attempting to tie it together with a concept...but there is still an urgency to it.  Its a beautiful thing with some amazing lyrics.  Robert Christgau at the time said something like 'if this is their worst as I think it is then they must be the greatest rock n roll band ever'.

 

And overall, I like a lot of bands that are considered pretty bad overall, The Monkees, Hermans Hermits etc

[action]

there is a lot to say about the need for "the media industry" to keep a certain cool. If a newspaper, a rock magazine, a rock website lose credibility, they lose customers / traffic and thus income. The first goal of the media is (from a business perspective) not, to reach the truth as good as possible, but to earn as much profit as possible. Therefore, I feel the opinions expressed in "official" reviews, even the retrospective ones, need to be approached with extreme caution.

I'd argue, it's better to avoid them altogether. To take it one step further, I'd argue, it's better to avoid general opinion altogether. Because more often than not, general opinion is influenced by the media. If the general consensus in the media is "load sucks, metallica have lost their wild hairs" or "invincible sucks, michael's nose is falling off" then how many kids are going to disagree with this at school? There is a need to be accepted by the group, kids need to take stances on the broadest of subjects and you can bet your ass that what's written in popular media, will be assimilated by these kids.

all of this is a large contributor to what makes an album "viewed" as a bad album.

What do I consider bad albums? I think, albums that too obviously cater to the general consensus. No matter what the product is, if it's catering too much to an outside perspective, it loses artistic value. Then it becomes insincere. Insincerity is the biggest sin here. If the artist doesn't bother, why should we? I can class most modern pop albums under this, but that's why it's pop in the first place. The rock scene fares a little better, because rock always was somewhat about being "different", not adhering to the rules. 

Edited October 1, 2019 by action

[NeonKinight]

 

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

The Beatles first album, again, this is me not answering OPs question correctly but thats an album that, OK, The Beatles are pretty much celebrated across the board but this is the one album that kinda gets lost in the acclaim but I think its fantastic, I think its one of their best, they're really sharp and together and kinda jumped up sounding on it, like they're happy to be in the studio and bangin' em out. 

Beatles for Sale received criticism for the amount of covers contained therein following the entirely original A Hard Day's Night; what originals are on there though - ''No Reply'', ''I'm a Loser'', ''Baby's In Black''? In fact I could add that album to my list above. Yellow Submarine received criticism for being a bit of a cobbled together affair. There is evidence that The Beatles were stung by the criticism as there exists in the vaults plans for a re-release. Both ''White Album'' and Let It Be received moderate criticism for being disjointed. I'm not sure Magical Mystery Tour was unanimously received well either - certainly the film was widely panned? I have not heard much criticism on their debut: it is obviously a bit of an ''apprentice'' album but I believe it received excellent reviews at the time.

Fairly flawless run really, 1963-70, although I still say Neil Young's 1969-79 run is ''the greatest innings in the history of rock n' roll''. 

2 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

The Stones, I don't think The Stones made a bad album throughout the 70s and even the 80s...they're not really well respect for a lot of the 80s stuff. 

Really? The press have been saying every Stones album is, as the Scots would say, ''pish'' since Exile, and that ''they're a bunch of old farts who should retire''. Even with Some Girls there was a sort of sarcasm present about the praise, ''that they had to imitate disco and punk to inject some life into the arteries''. 

[BadApples87]

On 9/30/2019 at 9:32 AM, action said:

I find myself liking lots of albums that are generally disliked. stuff like Queen's hot space and metallica's reload for example. 

 

 

If Metallica would have used the best of Load and Reload to make just one album it would probably be considered great, instead of 2 OK albums.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

 

Beatles for Sale received criticism for the amount of covers contained therein following the entirely original A Hard Day's Night; what originals are on there though - ''No Reply'', ''I'm a Loser'', ''Baby's In Black''? In fact I could add that album to my list above. Yellow Submarine received criticism for being a bit of a cobbled together affair. There is evidence that The Beatles were stung by the criticism as there exists in the vaults plans for a re-release. Both ''White Album'' and Let It Bereceived moderate criticism for being disjointed. I'm not sure Magical Mystery Tour was unanimously received well either - certainly the film was widely panned? I have not heard much criticism on their debut: it is obviously a bit of an ''apprentice'' album but I believe it received excellent reviews at the time.

Fairly flawless run really, 1963-70, although I still say Neil Young's 1969-79 run is ''the greatest innings in the history of rock n' roll''. 

 

I suppose I should've said they're unnanimously celebrated after the fact, now...and within that Please Please Me is kinda less regarded.

Quote

Really? The press have been saying every Stones album is, as the Scots would say, ''pish'' since Exile, and that ''they're a bunch of old farts who should retire''. Even with Some Girls there was a sort of sarcasm present about the praise, ''that they had to imitate disco and punk to inject some life into the arteries''. 

This is what I was saying, that a lot of the later stuff is kinda less regarded and I think it has more to do with this idea of The Stones that people have in their head and less to do with music.  It's a strange sort of iconoclasm on the part of their audience, or writers and journalists perhaps more accurately.  Cuz, at least to me, the tunes are there.

Quote

 

there is a lot to say about the need for "the media industry" to keep a certain cool. If a newspaper, a rock magazine, a rock website lose credibility, they lose customers / traffic and thus income. The first goal of the media is (from a business perspective) not, to reach the truth as good as possible, but to earn as much profit as possible. Therefore, I feel the opinions expressed in "official" reviews, even the retrospective ones, need to be approached with extreme caution.

I'd argue, it's better to avoid them altogether. To take it one step further, I'd argue, it's better to avoid general opinion altogether. Because more often than not, general opinion is influenced by the media. 

 

I get what you're saying and I don't disagree but at the same time I think its all valuable information for one reason or another.  You're right though, they're so wildly...whats the word I'm looking for?  Random almost.  I remember reading some old magazine, I think perhaps it was Q...and they were reviewing The Doors albums, listing them in order of importance and they absolutely slaughtered Strange Days, calling it a cop out and referring back to the debut, even going as far as to say that it un-did the good work of the debut, I thought it was a really strange review.  It cited When The Musics Over specifically as being a sort of un-doing of all that was powerful about The End, which I thought, and still think now, is an insane notion, especially with songs that are so abstract and oblique and open to interpretation.

Quote

What do I consider bad albums? I think, albums that too obviously cater to the general consensus. No matter what the product is, if it's catering too much to an outside perspective, it loses artistic value. Then it becomes insincere. Insincerity is the biggest sin here. If the artist doesn't bother, why should we? I can class most modern pop albums under this, but that's why it's pop in the first place. The rock scene fares a little better, because rock always was somewhat about being "different", not adhering to the rules. 

I'm not sure I agree with you, I think songwriting is a craft and you can write one with no heart and soul in it at all, as long as you have an understanding of rhythm and meter and a knack with words and melodies, there are plenty of pop songs out there, in my opinion, as valuable as any musically speaking written with what feels like all the depth and soul in the world.  I don't think pop music is THAT much of an art.  You can be plenty dishonest I think, artistically speaking, in a song and still have an amazing facility for melody and such and end up creating a song for the ages.  Music can't really lie, only people and their words do that and the music is what carries things through.

 

[AxlRoseCDII]

 

I don’t think these albums are bad, I love them, but what people consider to be bad:

 

Libertad

Heaven and Hell

Chinese Democracy 

Nine Lives

Crush

just off the top of my head.

[EvanG]

Pinkerton by Weezer is a classic now, but when it came out in 1996 it was received rather poorly. Rolling Stone called it the second worst record of the year but a decade later they gave it 5 stars. Even Rivers hated it because he felt embarrassed about writing such personal songs and then the album completely failing commercially at the time. It's probably one of my all time favourite records and the last great Weezer record.

Edited October 1, 2019 by EvanG