Rock Band's 'grunge album'. Good, respected or why bother?

[Darkstone]

I would probably use the term "alternative", but certainly some huge disappointments for me due to straying from their original sound would be.

 

Gotthard - Open

Motley Crue - S/T

Firehouse - III

Dokken - Shadowlife

Wildside - Wildside

W.A.S.P. - K.F.D.

 

The first three are decent enough, just not what was expected.

I remember in the mid 90's, it was always a bad sign when band members cut their hair.

 

It's annoying because as much as i want to have all the albums of my favourite artists, i don't want any shit albums in my collection. I love Dokken, but i cannot taint my collection with Shadowlife.

[Dead Planet]

From those listed here, I'd consider the following as a bit grungy

 

Warrant - Ultraphobic - love it

Kiss - Carnival of Souls - Managed to get in to the single, but then went back a few years later and couldn't find what I liked about it. Their worst album.

 

Dangerous Toys - T.A.F.K.A.D.T - I guess I'm the second one here who likes this album. Not in my top 100 I recently posted, because there are some tracks here that are average. But other tracks are awesome...

Cure The Sane - duh! (a bit grungy)

Transmission - I see this as a follow up to Space Oddity, same style and subject matter. (not very grungy)

Heard It all - amazing ballad (not grungy at all)

Better To Die - great straight up rocker (not grungy at all)

Share The Kill - nice opener (pretty grungy)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYtseNJmGoA

I prefer this one...

 

[AlphaMale]

That DT disc is God-awful. Paid one dollar for it and felt ripped off.

[Captain Howdy]

I would probably use the term "alternative", but certainly some huge disappointments for me due to straying from their original sound would be.

 

Gotthard - Open

Motley Crue - S/T

Firehouse - III

Dokken - Shadowlife

Wildside - Wildside

W.A.S.P. - K.F.D.

 

The first three are decent enough, just not what was expected.

I remember in the mid 90's, it was always a bad sign when band members cut their hair.

 

It's annoying because as much as i want to have all the albums of my favourite artists, i don't want any shit albums in my collection. I love Dokken, but i cannot taint my collection with Shadowlife.

I am a massive Motley Crue fan, and will say without a shadow of a doubt that anything without Vince on vocals is not Motley Crue, but that said, the self titled album was an absolute monster of an album, and there is not a bad track on it. Its just not Motley Crue, not because the change in musical direction (as it really wasnt a change when you compare it to Primal scream, which showed they were already heading in that direction), but because of the change in vocalists was one step too far. Especially considering that they had always said in the past, if one member leaves we will not continue under the name Motley Crue.

[Darkstone]

I am a massive Motley Crue fan, and will say without a shadow of a doubt that anything without Vince on vocals is not Motley Crue.

Absolutely, infact i consider Vince Neil's "Exposed" more of a Motley Crue album than the self titled. I enjoy the album and i'm a fan of John Corabi, but as you said, it's just not Motley Crue.

[CureTheSane]

 

I am a massive Motley Crue fan, and will say without a shadow of a doubt that anything without Vince on vocals is not Motley Crue.

Absolutely, infact i consider Vince Neil's "Exposed" more of a Motley Crue album than the self titled. I enjoy the album and i'm a fan of John Corabi, but as you said, it's just not Motley Crue.

 

 

The only true Motley Crue is the Corabi Motley.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

 

I dunno, it's all Motley to me.

Kiss had 4 different vocalists.

Fleetwood Mac, Guns N Roses, etc

Next you'll be saying that the stellar Motley song 'Brandon' isn't true Motley? j/k

 

Everyone has a different opinion. Some will say that Poison without CC isn't real Poison.

I compare the Corabi album to everything after it and it turns out to be a huge mistake to go back to Vince.

They went from a singer, to a different singer, then back to the old singer who could no longer sing.

Also the music when Vince got back was pretty average...

[Darkstone]

 

 

I am a massive Motley Crue fan, and will say without a shadow of a doubt that anything without Vince on vocals is not Motley Crue.

 

Absolutely, infact i consider Vince Neil's "Exposed" more of a Motley Crue album than the self titled. I enjoy the album and i'm a fan of John Corabi, but as you said, it's just not Motley Crue.

The only true Motley Crue is the Corabi Motley.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

 

I dunno, it's all Motley to me.

Kiss had 4 different vocalists.

Fleetwood Mac, Guns N Roses, etc

Next you'll be saying that the stellar Motley song 'Brandon' isn't true Motley? j/k

 

Everyone has a different opinion. Some will say that Poison without CC isn't real Poison.

I compare the Corabi album to everything after it and it turns out to be a huge mistake to go back to Vince.

They went from a singer, to a different singer, then back to the old singer who could no longer sing.

Also the music when Vince got back was pretty average...

Yeah. I think it's more of a sentimental thing to be honest when it comes to lineup changes, especially lead singers. Nobody likes change whether it's your favourite player leaving for another team or a new actor taking over a particular role. You just get a sense of "the end of an era" and i remember having that feeling when the self titled Motley album was released. After the Dr. Feelgood album my mates and i were eagerly awaiting their new release. There was apprehension due to Vince's departure and promo shots showing the guys with shorter hair, but we were still optimistic. Of course this is back in the days when usually the first time you heard an album was when you brought it home after purchase and as i said the album stands on it's own, no doubt, but it just didn't feel like Motley Crue.

 

As for bands like Kiss, Fleetwood Mac, Tears for fears, Cold Chisel etc. I think because the vocal changes are in house, so to speak, it's not as confronting for fans, that's where sentiment comes in again, also even though the vocalists varied the "vibe" of the bands remained the same. That wasn't the case with Motley.

[grissolm]

For me I was never a huge Motley fan. I didn't care whether Vince left the band. Especially since they got John Corabi because I liked The Scream a LOT! I was really curious about it and I remember liking the CD a lot. Of course it sounded different but it rocked hard and all the songs were good. There were a lot of bands like Dokken that were making crappy CD's like Shadowlife that disappointed me. I was just happy that an old 80's band like Motley were still putting out good CD's. Then they fire Corabi and put out their own crappy CD Generation Swine.

[CureTheSane]

I saw The Angels with Dave Gleeson.

Went in VERY skeptical but he was amazing.

Angels sounded better than even and had a stage presence again.

In that case it was easier to deal with because Doc died.

[Gibbo]

 

 

 

I am a massive Motley Crue fan, and will say without a shadow of a doubt that anything without Vince on vocals is not Motley Crue.

Absolutely, infact i consider Vince Neil's "Exposed" more of a Motley Crue album than the self titled. I enjoy the album and i'm a fan of John Corabi, but as you said, it's just not Motley Crue.

The only true Motley Crue is the Corabi Motley.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

 

I dunno, it's all Motley to me.

Kiss had 4 different vocalists.

Fleetwood Mac, Guns N Roses, etc

Next you'll be saying that the stellar Motley song 'Brandon' isn't true Motley? j/k

 

Everyone has a different opinion. Some will say that Poison without CC isn't real Poison.

I compare the Corabi album to everything after it and it turns out to be a huge mistake to go back to Vince.

They went from a singer, to a different singer, then back to the old singer who could no longer sing.

Also the music when Vince got back was pretty average...

Yeah. I think it's more of a sentimental thing to be honest when it comes to lineup changes, especially lead singers. Nobody likes change whether it's your favourite player leaving for another team or a new actor taking over a particular role. You just get a sense of "the end of an era" and i remember having that feeling when the self titled Motley album was released. After the Dr. Feelgood album my mates and i were eagerly awaiting their new release. There was apprehension due to Vince's departure and promo shots showing the guys with shorter hair, but we were still optimistic. Of course this is back in the days when usually the first time you heard an album was when you brought it home after purchase and as i said the album stands on it's own, no doubt, but it just didn't feel like Motley Crue.

 

As for bands like Kiss, Fleetwood Mac, Tears for fears, Cold Chisel etc. I think because the vocal changes are in house, so to speak, it's not as confronting for fans, that's where sentiment comes in again, also even though the vocalists varied the "vibe" of the bands remained the same. That wasn't the case with Motley.

 

 

KISS and Fleetwood Mac have never relied on one vocalist, so their 'sound' isn't radically altered from one album to the next - Motley Crue and Vince's voice go hand in hand; as good as the album with Corabi is, it WAS a step too far for many fans. I would have loved to see them do another album with that line-up, but I'm guessing the lure of the money was too much for them ...