Music Banter - View Single Post - Which Influential Band Inspired The Worst Bands?
View Single Post
Old 09-01-2010, 02:00 AM   #87 (permalink)
Unknown Soldier
Horribly Creative
 
Unknown Soldier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, The Big Smoke
Posts: 8,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fritter View Post
Motley Crue is awesome. They're total badasses who make music that's fun, catchy and unpretentious. No one's gonna suddenly love Motley Crue just because I think they rule, but I'll defend them anyways:
70s Aerosmith: Even I'll admit 70s Aerosmith is better than Motley Crue, even if I don't like it as much. 80s Motley Crue was way better than 80s Aerosmith and had more good songs that decade than Aerosmith did. On a side note, Motley Crue actually inspired 80s Aerosmith's best song, "Dude (Looks like a Lady)".
Van Halen: Not really much better or worse than Motley Crue, even though 1984 is probably better than any Motley Crue album. The two are comparable because they're the two best bands making invariably unintelligent hard rock/heavy metal. Van Halen is more innovative and technical than Motley Crue, and they've produced more classic albums. However, Motley Crue has always had and still has a better look than Van Halen, and their better-known songs are generally more catchy, memorable, and exciting than Van Halen's are. On the downside, David Lee Roth and Vince Neil are both seemingly charismatic frontmen who suck at singing live.
New York Dolls: Motley Crue is better at almost everything than the New York Dolls are, except maybe creativity in fashion. Motley Crue isn't bad in that department that either, though they actually owe a lot to the New York Dolls. Now you could say New York Dolls is a good in a punk sense in that they're crude and have lots of attitude, and that might be true, but Motley Crue is just as good by those standards.
Kiss: Besides the classic face-paint and the scene in The Decline of Western Civilization Part II where Paul Stanley's on the mattress surrounded by lingerie models, Kiss just plain sucks. Motley Crue's "Dr. Feelgood," "Shout at the Devil," "Wild Side," "Take Me to the Top," "Girls, Girls, Girls," "Kickstart my Heart," "Live Wire" and "Too Young to Fall in Love" are better than anything by Kiss besides "Detroit Rock City." 80s Kiss was worse than dozens of hair metal bands, and every 80s Kiss single was worse than every 80s Motley Crue single.

As I said there was probably no point in saying all that, and it's not pertinent to the thread topic, but this is the first time I've seen a bunch of people bringing up how they don't like Motley Crue (I haven't been here long though). I'm not shocked people here feel that way because most people with good taste in music don't like stuff that's stupid and ugly. I know Motley Crue won't win any converts here, and a couple years ago, I too considered myself above liking Motley Crue. But now I've explored the band's discography and I've read The Dirt, and I think Motley Crue is one of the most definitive rock bands ever and worth defending.

Oh yeah and Tommy Lee banged Heather Locklear, Bobbie Brown (the girl from the "Cherry Pie" music video), Pamela Anderson AND Carmen Electra back when they were hot.
Without dissecting all this, you`ve actually put a good case across for Motley Crue here, and I`ll admit if the thing were about look and image then the Crue score highly, but if we`re talking quality music then no. The albums "Girls, Girls, Girls" and "Dr.Feelgood" are actually good albums as opposed to the one good album by Kiss "Destroyer" but the rest of Kiss`s material is stronger than the rest of Motley Crue`s. Even though thats not saying too much, as the majority of what Kiss put out is poor anyway.

They lived the rock`n roll, sex and drugs lifestyle as Aerosmith did especially in the 70`s, but sadly they could never put out classic albums like "Toys in the Attic" and "Rocks"
Unknown Soldier is offline   Reply With Quote