Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylstew
Bon Scott at least had some kind of variety. The Brian Johnson era however...Ugh, I listened to all their studio albums, but it was hard to do. It was the same exact thing over and over and over. It wasn't bad, but it was still extremely repetetive. That's why I prefer Bon Scott. Plus, in the Bon Scott era they still made blues rock songs.
|
I really don't care. They've consistently put out jaw-dropping riffs time and time again and I don't care if they do that for the next 5000 years I will still like and support them.
Now here's my point with all that, you either like the songs and albums a band puts out, or you don't. I've never cared if a band puts out two albums that don't have any progression from one album to the next. I've never cared about that, and I barely acknowledge "a lack of variety" on an album-to-album basis. It's a fine complaint within a particular album, but not on a band's progression.
So...
I don't care that most hardcore punk bands in the 80s all sounded the same. I actually see that as maybe even a good thing, more stuff that I KNOW I WILL LIKE because it's the same. It's not like with damaged where I go in thinking that I like hardcore punk, but I really don't like a long minute of just pure noise-rock like the beginning of "Life of Pain," or songs like "Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie" that have some pretty sick guitar parts, great vocals but childish lyrics and then of course my most hated track is "TV Party" just because I don't care for the subject matter and how silly it is. On that note, "Depression" and "Damage II" are probably the only songs where the lyrics don't bring down the rest of the song. At tops, damaged has 4 good songs.