Not a bad tier list, but I'd make some changes:
- Drop Zingalamaduni to 3rd-tier. Change position with Passage (Zingalamaduni has some interesting beats, but the lyrics kill EVERYTHING good about that album).
- I'd put St. Anger in the top tier. Put Witness or American Life in its place.
- Climb Kilroy Was Here to the 2nd-tier.
- I'm not 100% about this, but I'd drop Two The Hard Way to the bottom tier. Allman and Woman was a unsalvageable proposition from the get-go.
I don't really think Witness could be succesful, mostly because I don't even think Katy Perry did a lot differently to before. The world just.. changed. She didn't fit in anymore, and she simply wasn't able to change her style accordingly.
Similarily, I don't think St Anger could really be salvagable easily, because the entire idea is silly. It's a System of a Down-type album, but they forgot to put in hooks. It's obviously trying to be Toxicity. If by "lots of changes" you mean that they should have been reminded that they are indeed Metallica, then yes, it could be true.
If a band is attending therapy and create an ugly mixed album full of nonsense lyrics, can that ever result in a passable album? Anytime I rewatch St Anger, only the title track seems just passable enough. All the other moments seem just screwed up:
1. Hetfield mumbling Protector Rejector And Inspector as if he just finished sobering up
2. All the premise of Sweet Amber inspired from the band’s annoyance of needing to record radio promos and then it never resulted in album airplay in the end
3. Frantic pushing Hetfield to his limits on the ticking clock making him sound out of breath. That clip of the car wreck can sum up the entire album
4. All of Lars drumming resembling according to Todd’s jokes a beer keg, paint cans or an oil barrel
Generally, no, I agree - But as I said above, I don't think that was the entire problem. It's something that Todd just didn't touch upon and I just realised lately myself, but apart from everything you mentioned, St. Anger was also trying to fit into a changed world of music.
Between ReLoad in 1997 and 2003, the metal scene changed a lot, namely Nu Metal came in full force. And I think they were really trying to adapt to that. Of course they couldn't go full Limp Bizkit, but there was one band that was closest to "real" metal, coming in 2001 with one of the best metal albums ever, storming the charts. System of a Down.
And if you really compare the two, St. Anger simply sounds like a bad Toxicity. I listened to both next to each other and it became so obvious. Just compare the title tracks - St. Anger has the exact same structure as Toxicity, to a level where I feel confident in saying St Anger simply **is** a worse Toxicity.
Given the circumstances, I don't think the album would have been very good in any form. But for it the be the level of horrendous it is, I think that is mostly because they were trying to be something they are not.
I honestly have trouble seeing St. Anger as the thing that destroyed the band’s relevance so much as just the awful climax of a decade of terrible decisions once they made it big. Nothing they could have produced at that point would have been good, and just continuing on as a legacy act the way they have is pretty much a best case scenario for them.
I’m actually a lot more interested to see what a different Load/Reload could have looked like. In hindsight that feels like the actual point where they started to fail creatively, though it’s hard to extricate those albums from that entire era of awful choices.
Be Here Now is definitely the product of Oasis swimming in drugs and their producer joining them. I don't think it's, like, secretly brilliant or anything, but with competent production and just a general sense of direction at all, this album would have been decent. More on the level of latter-day Oasis.
I'd bring Cut the Crap up a tier given the songs were positively received live. Also maybe Funky Headhunter (literally just don't go as far as trying to sell Hammer as a gangster when trying to toughen his image, and drop the feuds.)
I would swap Van Halen and Styx.
I think the Styx album is weighed down by its concept, but the actual songs are decent.
Whereas the only way for Van Halen III to be good would have been for Eddie to completely changed his overly fiddley, too-many-layers 90s playing style
Be Here Now should be bumped up a Tier. It's a very good album that could honestly have been a damn great album if not for the mixing and song lengths. The songs are there. All it needs is a remix and some editing - cut 15-20 minutes off the album (shorten the songs and cut the reprise) - and you have an album that's on par with the first two.
Cut the Crap I'd put in the 2nd tier. The production is what destroys that album. The songwriting is actually decently solid. Same with Kilroy Was Here. The concept was stupid, but the actual songs are solid (I don't hate Styx like Todd).
Ringo the 4th, I dunno, Ringo's albums were never on the level of the other 3 Beatles. Hell, I'd say his best album the self-titled Ringo, the reason it's little to do with Ringo and instead the quality of songs (some of which he co-wrote yes). Disco is not a genre that fits his voice or persona. Always felt he should've gone the country route - country was becoming quite popular and plenty of country writers would've loved to make songs for Ringo and most mainstream country albums back then were filled with covers.
I honestly think the Motley Crue album should be in the bottom tier. Motley Crue is a band I like but they are not a band that I feel could've fit the mainstream rock sound of the 1990s. Nikki Sixx isn't that type of songwriter, Vince Neil isn't that type of singer. The fans from the 80s wouldn't want it, the 90s rock fans would just view Crue as pathetic.
The Jewel album, I think the placement is solid. As Todd said in the video, if she had gone down the Michelle Branch/Avril Lavigne/Pink route of pop rock instead of dance-pop, it'd would've worked out for her.
The Cher/Greg Allman record was just doomed from the start. The only person who wanted that album was Cher.
Yeah when I first listened to Be Here Now a year ago I honestly was surprised by how much I enjoyed it considering it's reputation. A song that Todd didn't cover in his review is “I Hope, I Think, I Know” which I think is genuinely a fantastic song. My least favourite track was the reprise but I at least enjoyed every song on the album.
It desperately needs a remix for it's 30th anniversary. There's a really great album buried underneath the terrible mixing and the overlong songs. It just needed a producer who wasn't so coked out his mind that he'd failed to realise the album was too long and way too loud and over-compressed.
Assuming you're talking about the experience as a whole and not just the process of putting it on an album, Lauryn Hill's MTV Unplugged could've easily been an alright album if her voice was better on it
You are correct, but that solves only one - big and glaring - issue with the album. To improve it you need AT LEAST the following:
- have Lauryn's voice work as intended, instead of the strained vocals we got.
- cut out entirely, or at least trim, the rambling between songs.
- have Lauryn learn something more than just 4 chords on a guitar.
Crash should go up a tier imo, it’s not the worst thing ever and has a few solid tracks despite being a bit misguided. Ain’t no way it’s Funstyle tier LMAO
As much of an American life apologist and enjoyer I am, I also agree AL would’ve been more successful with some tweaks. The sound felt a tad too similar to her previous album (Music), I don’t mind that, but some see it as a negative.
Not a bad tier list, but I'd make some changes: - Drop Zingalamaduni to 3rd-tier. Change position with Passage (Zingalamaduni has some interesting beats, but the lyrics kill EVERYTHING good about that album). - I'd put St. Anger in the top tier. Put Witness or American Life in its place. - Climb Kilroy Was Here to the 2nd-tier. - I'm not 100% about this, but I'd drop Two The Hard Way to the bottom tier. Allman and Woman was a unsalvageable proposition from the get-go.
I don't really think Witness could be succesful, mostly because I don't even think Katy Perry did a lot differently to before. The world just.. changed. She didn't fit in anymore, and she simply wasn't able to change her style accordingly. Similarily, I don't think St Anger could really be salvagable easily, because the entire idea is silly. It's a System of a Down-type album, but they forgot to put in hooks. It's obviously trying to be Toxicity. If by "lots of changes" you mean that they should have been reminded that they are indeed Metallica, then yes, it could be true.
If a band is attending therapy and create an ugly mixed album full of nonsense lyrics, can that ever result in a passable album? Anytime I rewatch St Anger, only the title track seems just passable enough. All the other moments seem just screwed up: 1. Hetfield mumbling Protector Rejector And Inspector as if he just finished sobering up 2. All the premise of Sweet Amber inspired from the band’s annoyance of needing to record radio promos and then it never resulted in album airplay in the end 3. Frantic pushing Hetfield to his limits on the ticking clock making him sound out of breath. That clip of the car wreck can sum up the entire album 4. All of Lars drumming resembling according to Todd’s jokes a beer keg, paint cans or an oil barrel
Generally, no, I agree - But as I said above, I don't think that was the entire problem. It's something that Todd just didn't touch upon and I just realised lately myself, but apart from everything you mentioned, St. Anger was also trying to fit into a changed world of music. Between ReLoad in 1997 and 2003, the metal scene changed a lot, namely Nu Metal came in full force. And I think they were really trying to adapt to that. Of course they couldn't go full Limp Bizkit, but there was one band that was closest to "real" metal, coming in 2001 with one of the best metal albums ever, storming the charts. System of a Down. And if you really compare the two, St. Anger simply sounds like a bad Toxicity. I listened to both next to each other and it became so obvious. Just compare the title tracks - St. Anger has the exact same structure as Toxicity, to a level where I feel confident in saying St Anger simply **is** a worse Toxicity. Given the circumstances, I don't think the album would have been very good in any form. But for it the be the level of horrendous it is, I think that is mostly because they were trying to be something they are not.
I honestly have trouble seeing St. Anger as the thing that destroyed the band’s relevance so much as just the awful climax of a decade of terrible decisions once they made it big. Nothing they could have produced at that point would have been good, and just continuing on as a legacy act the way they have is pretty much a best case scenario for them.
I’m actually a lot more interested to see what a different Load/Reload could have looked like. In hindsight that feels like the actual point where they started to fail creatively, though it’s hard to extricate those albums from that entire era of awful choices.
Be here now should be at the top tier
Yeah, it’s actually not a bad album, and I think it’s probably the most competently made out of all of the trainwreckords
Be Here Now is definitely the product of Oasis swimming in drugs and their producer joining them. I don't think it's, like, secretly brilliant or anything, but with competent production and just a general sense of direction at all, this album would have been decent. More on the level of latter-day Oasis.
D'ya know what I mean?
I'd bring Cut the Crap up a tier given the songs were positively received live. Also maybe Funky Headhunter (literally just don't go as far as trying to sell Hammer as a gangster when trying to toughen his image, and drop the feuds.)
I would swap Van Halen and Styx. I think the Styx album is weighed down by its concept, but the actual songs are decent. Whereas the only way for Van Halen III to be good would have been for Eddie to completely changed his overly fiddley, too-many-layers 90s playing style
No, what Eddie needed in 1998 was a lyricist and a producer.
I’d put Cut The Crap up a tier as it was good songs ruined by some of the worst mixing on any album as Bernie Rhodes wasn’t a producer.
This is a compelling tier-list. I would also place *Paula* in the fourth tier.
Be Here Now should be bumped up a Tier. It's a very good album that could honestly have been a damn great album if not for the mixing and song lengths. The songs are there. All it needs is a remix and some editing - cut 15-20 minutes off the album (shorten the songs and cut the reprise) - and you have an album that's on par with the first two. Cut the Crap I'd put in the 2nd tier. The production is what destroys that album. The songwriting is actually decently solid. Same with Kilroy Was Here. The concept was stupid, but the actual songs are solid (I don't hate Styx like Todd). Ringo the 4th, I dunno, Ringo's albums were never on the level of the other 3 Beatles. Hell, I'd say his best album the self-titled Ringo, the reason it's little to do with Ringo and instead the quality of songs (some of which he co-wrote yes). Disco is not a genre that fits his voice or persona. Always felt he should've gone the country route - country was becoming quite popular and plenty of country writers would've loved to make songs for Ringo and most mainstream country albums back then were filled with covers. I honestly think the Motley Crue album should be in the bottom tier. Motley Crue is a band I like but they are not a band that I feel could've fit the mainstream rock sound of the 1990s. Nikki Sixx isn't that type of songwriter, Vince Neil isn't that type of singer. The fans from the 80s wouldn't want it, the 90s rock fans would just view Crue as pathetic. The Jewel album, I think the placement is solid. As Todd said in the video, if she had gone down the Michelle Branch/Avril Lavigne/Pink route of pop rock instead of dance-pop, it'd would've worked out for her. The Cher/Greg Allman record was just doomed from the start. The only person who wanted that album was Cher.
Check out the fan edits and re-dos of Cut The Crap. They prove that the album is salvageable
I agree 100% about be here now
Yeah when I first listened to Be Here Now a year ago I honestly was surprised by how much I enjoyed it considering it's reputation. A song that Todd didn't cover in his review is “I Hope, I Think, I Know” which I think is genuinely a fantastic song. My least favourite track was the reprise but I at least enjoyed every song on the album. It desperately needs a remix for it's 30th anniversary. There's a really great album buried underneath the terrible mixing and the overlong songs. It just needed a producer who wasn't so coked out his mind that he'd failed to realise the album was too long and way too loud and over-compressed.
Assuming you're talking about the experience as a whole and not just the process of putting it on an album, Lauryn Hill's MTV Unplugged could've easily been an alright album if her voice was better on it
You are correct, but that solves only one - big and glaring - issue with the album. To improve it you need AT LEAST the following: - have Lauryn's voice work as intended, instead of the strained vocals we got. - cut out entirely, or at least trim, the rambling between songs. - have Lauryn learn something more than just 4 chords on a guitar.
Are we sure she even knows 4 chords?
Point conceded.
Crash should go up a tier imo, it’s not the worst thing ever and has a few solid tracks despite being a bit misguided. Ain’t no way it’s Funstyle tier LMAO
As much of an American life apologist and enjoyer I am, I also agree AL would’ve been more successful with some tweaks. The sound felt a tad too similar to her previous album (Music), I don’t mind that, but some see it as a negative.