Truck Month Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV with 4k Ultra HD Grocery Mother's Day Gifts Amazon Gift Card Offer ctstrph2 ctstrph2 ctstrph2  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Fire, Only $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite UniOrlando Shop Now SnS
Customer Discussions > Rock forum

Worst Album You Have Ever Heard


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 135 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2011 12:19:17 PM PST
Heavy Music says:
Totally agree - I actually made the mistake of going out and buying this before reading a review on it back in the mid-70s. What a waste of money and vinyl....

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2011 11:58:23 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 1, 2011 12:23:38 PM PST
That, to me is a truly amazing theory. I'm not being sarcastic. The Beatles would have been here. The British Invation would have happened. But, if we were not at war, we would be eyeing Russia, but still would have had the space race. To me hippies were just newer beatnicks. If they had no war to protest, what would they have done? Civil Rights for one as the white students were already marching for that. If you don't know, Hendrix was an Army paratrooper. When he first went to England(Veitnam was happening), he was for it. He wanted to stop the Commies. Two of the greatest anti-war songs, Machine Gun and Hendrix's Star Spangled Banner would have never happened. There would have been no Kent State. Probably would have had a Black Panthers of sorts because Civil Rights was still slipping in the mud of racism. But the US not fighting in Veitnam? Very different country. Very different music.

Posted on Dec 1, 2011 11:56:42 AM PST
Fischman says:
Way to find a silver lining, VZ!

Posted on Dec 1, 2011 10:46:31 AM PST
vivazappa says:
Hey guys...if it wasn't for Vietnam we wouldn't have all the great music from that era...and Peter Noone would have filled Lennon's role with his crap!!!

Posted on Dec 1, 2011 8:49:58 AM PST
Eddie H. says:
Metal Machine Music
The Song Remains The Same
Live Dead
Any album by Emerson, Lake and Palmer

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2011 8:43:59 AM PST
zlh67 says:
No worries, Fischman. There've been plenty of other discussions here regarding Lennon's merits as a Beatle, a solo artist, a man, a human being. I guess the Beatle snobs think he did no wrong, musically or otherwise. The Lennon haters think he never did anything right and are quick to point out every flaw, no matter how small or insignificant (and overlooking the fact that all humans have flaws....).

As you've suggested, the truth on many matters is usually is some shade of grey and I tend to fall somewhere in the middle though have been accused of being a Lennon apologist as well. In my view, Lennon had strong convictions and typically was not usually interested in half-measures or compromise, and I can see that as being off-putting to some, but I think it was also a factor of the times: the 60's were all about the counter-culture, revolution, the hippies vs. the establishment, etc. It was more about choosing sides than finding middle ground and Lennon certainly fell into that.

I still think his positive attributes/actions/accomplishments far outweigh the negatives, but that too is of course just my opinion...

Posted on Dec 1, 2011 6:54:36 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 1, 2011 7:09:00 AM PST
Fischman says:
I can see how/why you would be set off--the original comment was very blunt and insensitive. Even as someone with a rather negative view of JL overall, I wouldn't have started a new discussion with such a statement, regardless of my feelings about the individual in question.

I don't thing JL had "no sincerity" but rather that there were other forces at play in addition to whatever genuine feelings he had.

As for the rest, you're right as well, all very complex subjects and not necessarily black and white (life seldom is). To me, the main disconnect is that John, who was so very shades of grey himself, treated these things as completely black and white.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2011 6:31:29 AM PST
Well, they did the blood thing when they did a comic. They actually printed a comic book the had some of their blood mixed in with the printers ink. To me, the whole Kiss Army could have come out of a Sears catalogue.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2011 5:45:19 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 1, 2011 6:32:00 AM PST
zlh67 says:
"Disagreeing is not hate."

---

No, but Imagining a world where someone ceased to exist is, which is I guess what set me off. Not that I really "went off" at all; my initial response was actually a take on a quote from "Billy Madison", which I find completely hilarious, so in that context wasn't as vicious or hateful as it may have come off to those that didn't spot the reference.

Re, 'Nam, that is a cluster that we won't likely solve or find easy answers for in a few posts on a forum, but your initial post seemed to suggest that our pulling out there had negative ramifications and since Lennon supported that, he was somehow to blame, which sounded a bit far-fetched to say the least... And yes, at the time we pulled out the VC had not by any stretch "won" the war, but... neither had we. It was a war more of hearts and minds than military might which is why it was such a colossal mistake for us to have ever been there in the first place. It was deemed largely unwinnable and mostly unnecessary which is why the movement to get us out began. What changed/improved by our engagement there and was it worth the cost of all the lives on both sides? Most people -- including Lennon -- would say "no" which is why he became part of the movement.

Re, Lennon and his true motives for protesting, I guess only he would know the ultimate truth there. If you believe he did it to "build his legend" then ok, that's your right, but considering what it brought him in the way of attention from our government (tailed by the FBI, attempts to deport), I would think he would have stopped at that point if his goal was merely to add to his fame. I mean, it's not like he was OBSCURE to begin with and had to find some crazy way to get some attention even if it meant bringing the full wrath of the U.S. government down upon him; this wasn't some new artist seeking to get that first wave of attention who needed publicity stunts merely to keep his name in the papers. It was ex-Beatle JOHN LENNON. At that point, every time he broke wind it made the news. So if you think he would risk all that to be just a little bit MORE mega-famous, then ok, but I don't buy it for a second. I would agree that it may have ALSO satisfied some part of his ego that drove Lennon to want to be front and center, but I don't believe for a moment that there was no sincerity in his desire for peace and to end the war.

I can see the dichotomy between the violence in Lennon's own life and his strong desire for peace (which again, is not the same thing as pacifism) and how that could confuse people or lead to charges of hypocricy, but, like Vietnam itself, that's a rather complex subject. The tragedies in Lennon's life left many a void in the man and he often compensated for them in flawed ways (occasional outbursts of violence being one of them), which does indeed make him a flawed man (like the rest of us). It does not in my opinion mean that his desire and quest for world peace was all a "load of crap", but again, that's my opinion and others including yourself will disagree I'm sure, which is fine.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 30, 2011 9:31:27 PM PST
I must agree with you on that point......I'm a huge KISS fan, but Gene Simmons is a money monger and has merchandised the Kiss name to death!!!!!!!!!! He would try selling KissPiss if he thought anyone would buy it...LOL

Posted on Nov 30, 2011 6:54:31 PM PST
Fischman says:
Thanks, Andrew. Of course, considering Yoko a genius may cast doubt on your sanity as well!

Welcome to the discussion.

Posted on Nov 30, 2011 5:09:04 PM PST
I'm enjoying the John Lennon "politics" debate thoroughly. You guys both sound intelligent. I was lucky enough to purchase the four CD-set "Lennon" in the early 90s. It has almost everything Lennon did that was important. I consider him and Yoko geniuses bettered only by Bob Dylan.

Posted on Nov 30, 2011 4:12:32 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 30, 2011 4:15:17 PM PST
Fischman says:
Disagreeing is not hate.
I never said we should have been in Vietnam in the first place--it was an obvious debacle. But that doesn't mean there was no noble intent, aside from the faulty logic or other blunders.

Also, the vast majority of military historians (meaning people who know military history, not people who are pro military and there are lots of military historians that are decidedly not pro military) acknowledge that, at the time the US pulled out, the VC was utterly defeated and on their last legs--the pullout was due to public sentiment against a badly mangled effort from the start, not due to military losses.

In hindsight, the US should have never entered Vietnam--that's a reasonable proposition. But once there, it can be equally well stated that there was a moral obligation to not abandon those folks who would ultimately suffer oppression and slaughter at the hands of a tyrannical and merciless regime. Where's the "love" for the victimes of Ho Chi Minh? The only love seems to be for the aggressor.

Again, I ask, does history give any examples of those forcefully being brough under a dictatorial regime being better off than they were before?

As for JL sacrificing so much for his views, I would argue to the contrary, that it only built his legend and he knew that. He knew exactly what he was doing and there's plenty of evidence to suggest that it's just as likely that it was to satisfy his own ego needs as it was due to any true pacifism--this was a a guy who had shown far more violent tendencies in his life than I or anybody I associate with ever has.

I understand you disagree with this; if expect nothing less. But it's far from "insane" or devoid of "rational thought" as you accued the poster who could imagine a world without JL.

Posted on Nov 30, 2011 3:20:13 PM PST
Mike Hunt says:
It may not be the worst album I've EVER heard, but since it's fresh in my mind...Lulu by Metallica & Lou Reed is pretty much a steaming pile. Definitely my worst for 2011.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 30, 2011 3:09:55 PM PST
zlh67 says:
Mm hmm. Ok. So it sounds like - if I'm misreading this, let me know - but it SOUNDS a lot like you think we should have stayed in Vietnam and since Lennon was a part of the movement that helped end the war, he deserves blame and not credit.

And if that's your take, well, I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there. The VAST majority of historians and military experts agree that our involvement in Vietnam was one big fat mistake based on lies and faulty logic and the only bad thing about our withdrawal is that it didn't happen much sooner. Some people saw the folly of the whole mess much sooner than others and tried to stop the war long before it ended. Lennon was one of those people. He happened to have an extreme amount of power and influence with the youth of America, and he used it to do what he could to end the war. Simple as that.

If you perceive arrogance in his stance, then it can certainly be argued that that's a flaw of Lennon's, but to say his peace efforts were "a load of crap" is way off the mark. He put his heart, soul, credibility, career and even life on the line to work for peace and his reward for it was attempted deportation (it's well-documented now that the FBI tailed him, tapped his phones and he feared for his safety; but he didn't stop his protests and not long after the U.S. government fought to deport him on bogus grounds).

That's pretty admirable to me, but if that's a negative in your eyes, hate away I guess...

Posted on Nov 30, 2011 2:42:23 PM PST
R. Harris says:
Imagine there's no solo John Lennon, it's easy if you try." (I stand corrected)

I'm willing to take the 'no points', but please don't speak for God, actually I think the Big Guy is with me on this one. Ask Him yourself.

And I'll take "Pompous Megalomaniac Windbags Who Forgot How To Use Their Immense Talent" for $400, Alex.

Posted on Nov 30, 2011 2:19:22 PM PST
RK says:
Glad to see so many were spared the experience, apparently, of hearing Nugent's, "State of Shock".

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 30, 2011 2:12:17 PM PST
To me the Beatle fans and Yoko had John convinced he could do no wrong. He was a genius, pure and simple.(sarc) It started with Revolution No.9. I really like the raw energy of the "good" side of "Live Peace in Toronto" but side two has to be the most pristeen tracks in history. Her on the Stones "Rock and Roll Circus"? Somebody needed to pull John aside and let him know what a fool he looked like with his on going "art project" wife.

Posted on Nov 30, 2011 1:22:20 PM PST
Fischman says:
Actually, the "spokesman for a generation" stuff is what makes me thing a world without JL would be better moreso than the music itself. While I abhor violence, a lot of the peace movement was a load of crap. The same ego that drives so many Christians to think they're better than everyone else becuase they're "saved" drives anti-christians to find some other moral "high ground" they can occupy. Much has been made about JL's insecurities and I get the impression his spokesmanship, albiet somwhat subconsciously, was his way of proving he was better than the establishment he was thumbing his nose at. I see arrogance in the archival footage as much as I see "love." Certainly, JL's other well-documented hypocracies add credence to this theory.

Just as I can make a defensible argument that JL's music wasnt't the best, I can make a defensible argument that US involvement in Vietnam, flawed as it was, did have some positive purpose. I have friends who came to this country as "Vietnamese boat people." They were forced to flee after we finally "Gave Peace a Chance." After abandoning the South, Ho Chi Minh swept in and, like Lenin before him, annihilated anybody with a opposing point of view. Ordinary people, not just the corrupt government elite, were, as best forced to surrender all the fruits of their labor or flee, at worst, slaughtered like animals. In the end, my friends have done well, having got a good education and built a far better life in the US than they couldd have under any regime in SE Asia. America is a better place for their being here just as my own life has been enriched by their presence. But they shouldn't have been forced to risk their lives as such. Are the people of the south really better off? Would the people of South Korea be better off if Kim Jong Il was in charge? How would the former West Germany have fared if left under Soviet control? Look, I'm not saying one is clearly better than the other--these are heady questions that can't be fully answered without an alternate universe in which to try out the alternative course--but that's exactly my point--these things aren't so black and white as JL would have us believe. He should have been aware of his own more recent history--It wasn't so long before that his own Prime Minister "Gave Peace a Chance"--maybe he shoulda' asked the Jews, Poles, Czechs, and ultimately most of the Northern Hemisphere, how that worked out.

Sorry for derailing the thread into a purely political, non-music discussion, but it was the quickest way I could think of to show his spokesmanship wasn't necessarily all that many folks think it is and to provide the basis for my lack of appreciation for the man as well as the musician.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 30, 2011 12:46:42 PM PST
zlh67 says:
That's a pretty broad brush, Robert. You don't like ANY of John's solo stuff? Most of "Plastic Ono Band" and "Imagine" sound similar to and just as good as the stuff he was doing with the Beatles in 1968-69. Try it out: take John's tracks from "White Album", "Abbey Road" & "Let It Be" and mix 'em in with those two solo albums and hit "shuffle" and it's a pretty good (and consistent) playlist to these ears.

Apart from those two albums + a few singles (Instant Karma!, Cold Turkey, Happy XMAS-War is Over) and a few tracks from Double Fantasy though, I can mostly do without his solo work too.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 30, 2011 11:57:43 AM PST
Bob Bykowski says:
Fischman,

Not true on what you say about John Lennon fans, at least not this one. The Beatles are and will always be my number one favorite band, and I do believe they did no wrong AS A BAND. But I'll be the first to admit it -- John's solo stuff sucked. Badly.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 30, 2011 11:45:04 AM PST
zlh67 says:
Viva, we're on the same page more often than not, but I dig me some "Hot Space". I get why others don't (it's not much of a rock album and much of it is vastly different than any Queen album before it), but... it's (mostly) good stuff imo.

The funky horns on 'Staying Power', the syncopated staccato groove of Brian's guitar on 'Back Chat', the funk-groove and ripping leads on 'Dancer'...

"Put Out The Fire" is the one rocker on the album and more than works for me. Pop like "Calling All Girls" and the ballad "Las Palabras De Amor" are really not all that vastly different than stuff they did on "The Game" and "Jazz" and play plenty well to these ears. "Cool Cat" is perhaps my favorite vocal performance of all time from Freddie. Great R&B vibe to that one... And 'Under Pressure' closes the album strong.

There's a few I've left out because not ALL of it's gold to me, but I like this album! For people who just wanted Queen to rock it up and forget all the fluff or other non-rock genres in their sound though, I can see why this one fell flat. I hated it at first two but it grew on me substantially over the years and I like it better than SEVERAL other Queen albums.

Posted on Nov 30, 2011 10:12:01 AM PST
vivazappa says:
Queen: Hot Space (minus Under Pressure)

Posted on Nov 30, 2011 10:10:50 AM PST
Savage Lucy says:
John P. - Of the many different bands I like, Backstreet Boys are not one of them. Sorry.

Like I said, normally I like "Dr. Love" which is a great song, but the version on the album I bought is dreadful. I can't even describe it exactly. It's like the timing is off and it's not heavy enough. But also the music wasn't clear and crisp if that makes sense. It is possible I got one of the worst versions of that album (Lord knows Kiss releases 27 versions of everything.) Maybe I'll try listening to it one more time, but I doubt that alters my opinion of the recording.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 30, 2011 9:22:06 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 30, 2011 9:24:17 AM PST
zlh67 says:
ACTUALLY, Fischman... if you look at my profile and reviews I've posted here on Amazon, you'll see I gave a rather negative review to my most recent John Lennon purchase, the "Walls and Bridges" cd because, well... I just didn't find it to be a very good album. To me, it's a well thought out review and objective, but last I'd checked I already had 2 negative votes for it. So I do see your point, because I firmly believe the negative votes aren't because it's a bad (ie, poorly written) review, but because it's not a FAVORABLE review. Oh well, I'll live.

But... some of us can be objective about Lennon. I also recently picked up "Sometime In NYC" and find that one even worse (but... I am a fan and wanted to hear it, so... I bought it, although I bought it used and for a reasonable price).

My post to R. Harris is because despite some of Lennon's mediocre solo albums (and there's more than 1 of those for sure), there are also some VERY good/great ones too (Plastic Ono Band, Imagine, Double Fantasy) and not to mention, he did do some pretty ok work with that band he was in before he went solo. And to me (and millions of others), he was more than a mere musician, but a spokesman for a generation and a brave one at that. So... Imagine a world with no Lennon? No thanks.

Now please notice that nowhere in this post am I claiming Lennon was PERFECT. He was human and as such, had flaws just like the rest of us, so... I GET that. But... a world with no Lennon? Anyone who thinks the world would be a better place without ever having had John Lennon in it can't possibly be a true music fan imo or is at the very least, ignorant and short-sighted about Lennon's overall contributions to music.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Rock forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Rock forum
Participants:  65
Total posts:  135
Initial post:  Oct 20, 2011
Latest post:  Dec 1, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions