Metal Reviews

FAIL. Not only is this album not a "classic", the review does absolutely nothing to even try to convince me of why it should be considered as such. That is unless you actually count this:

"Don't get me wrong I like the songs Animal and Women and the other singles but this album is more than just those songs. The non singles have their moments and people need to know this. This is why the album is classic and not just because you saw each and every one of Hysteria's videos on MTV's Head Bangers Ball."

If you want to argue that this album had a major impact for years to come, and I think an effort should be made to show how those impacts tie into metal (especially since this was not a metal album), then do so. Don't just say that it did, show it. For example, what metal bands and future albums did Hysteria have a significant influence on? If you expect a reader to wade through numerous grammatical errors as well as references to Cinderella and "hair metal", at least try to make a convincing case out of it. If you then realize that you can't, or if something like this is really the best you can come up with, perhaps you should reconsider whether this is really a "classic".

Since it's your time of the month and you are having your period I won't comment ok sweetie loves ya thanks

Blunt as it was, my post was constructive criticism. No amount of smart-ass remarks or insults from you is going to change that this was a lousy review.

Constructive criticism I can deal with and welcome but you could have been a bit more tactful in your criticism instead of coming off as an ahole at least that's the vibe I get from you.

You don't like the review fine you don't like Hysteria fine you don't think it's a classic fine don't expect me to loose sleep over it but when you want to pick a part something be sure you do it with a little bit of tactfulness instead of being a jerk.

And cut me some slack I'm new to this review thing you want to give me advice on how to be a better reviewer or what you expect in reviews cool let's hear it but next time don't put me down because you don't agree with me.

>Aesthetic quality is no basis for judgement of musical validity.

Not even the aesthetic quality of the music?

But then, you wrote "validity," not "quality," so maybe we're just talking about two different things.

Hysteria was popular, commercially successful, and relatively influential. Hysteria was not, however, a landmark in the advancement of music.

Ultimately, it was a pretty good pop album.

Well, something I didn’t realize when I posted originally was that there had been a certain amount of criticism of this choice in other threads. I think continuing to criticize it there instead of here is kind of lame, but whatever (and now, admittedly, I’m being lame because I’m dragging that into this thread). I don’t think I agree with the whole “classic” polling process that seems to go on here, but that’s kind of another matter… Still, on a related note, I give you a certain amount of credit for reviewing an album that you liked and wanted to give “classic” status to. That upon further investigation it doesn’t merit that status is another matter. I don’t think, regardless of the number of requests from others, that anyone who doesn’t strongly believe in and personally appreciate a particular album as being a “classic” should review it as such. Leave that to someone else or some other site. A “classic” review doesn’t really give you the luxury of providing a grade, you’re really just reselling and recapping something as a “best and/or most influential of its kind”.

But I’ve gone off topic...

Even though this site (not you or anyone specifically) has often reviewed a lot of non metal stuff and a lot of “false metal” stuff (and I’m not necessarily being critical of that in itself), I still think you immediately placed yourself in an uphill battle with Hysteria when you chose to review it as a “classic”. A tough sell that, and honestly, regardless of the inevitable outcome, it just wasn’t a good review for all the points I mentioned before. I thought some of your other reviews were better efforts (I’ve only read a couple of them) even if I didn’t agree with the scores. But scores here don’t matter, and it doesn’t matter whether I agree with your assessment or not. I didn’t put you down because I didn’t agree with you. I didn’t put you down at all. What matters is the quality of the review, its appropriateness as a subject for review, and the thoughtfulness the author puts into it, and I strongly criticized it on those points.

As for Hysteria itself, I literally wore out a tape of it before making it one of my first CD purchases when I made the switch from tapes. I don’t even know how many years ago that was. I have no idea how many times I have listened to that album. There’s something about Clark’s playing on it that still brings me back every once in awhile, despite the many (deserved, I think) criticisms I have for it as a whole.

My post was a direct response to someone who had implied that somehow the fact that Def Leppard looked good made them a good band. I meant the aesthetics of the band members themselves, which is no parameter for judging either quality or validity of the music itself.

Now, if you want to discuss the aesthetic quality of the music, you'll have to define what that is first.

It's a classic album for certain within the music industry as a whole. If you start the comparisons to what the metal world considers be to be classics, and perhaps even the less somewhat less constrictive rock genre, it'll face some tough criticism, largely because the CD is a blender of genres designed to appeal a broad range of listeners conceived in the studio. Most of the time these albums fall into the trap of trying to please everyone and end up pleasing no one end result.

Hysteria not only had a unique sound at the time, but it also brought together a wide range of listeners (male/female, pop/rock - not easy to do), and was a massive commercial smash. Plus Hysteria has stood well over the test of time compared to other commercially successful industry-designed projects like Vanilla Ice which fell out of public favor as trends changed and increased visible label intervention displeased fans.

There are bands which would wish to have at least one song, that could compete with any song on this album. Women, Rocket, Animal, Love Bites, Pour Some Sugar On Me, Armageddon It... the hit density is so high, Hysteria is nearly a black hole.

I don't like it, but if you were old enough to be watching MTV at the time, you know the impact this album had. Those 7 videos got heavy rotation, and it really was the quintessential "chick rock" album. This thing was everywhere, and they spawned a legion of clones with it. sure it pretty much stinks, and I'm freakin sick to death of it. But it passes as a Classic, just for the wrong reasons.

Now Pyromania on the other hand, that one deserves it more than Hysteria. Forget Photograph, the rest of that album is straight-up Hard Rock, and it's the template for much of the 80's sound. No these guys weren't geniuses, but much like Metallica they worked with the right people and knew how to market themselves.

The fact that you consider massive hit singles to be the "filler" of the album only further speaks to classic nature of the album.

Michael Jackson has a lot of hit singles, as well; massive hits don't (always) equate to quality tunes.

I wonder what Ken would have to say

+1
Pyromania & High&Dry deserve, imo, a lot more the classic status that this one. Are better and far more influencial that Hysteria, in the 80's Hard Rock.

Does a classic need to be influencial or innovative?

There are many classic albums which were nothing new BUT are just better than the rest.

Yes, Pyromania is great (and a classic too!), but Hysteria is IMO not worse. It even perfectioned the sound of Def Leppard and as clean shaped it is, it's nonetheless rocking. Ok, Rocket or Love Bites are a little bit less rocking but songs like Don't Shoot Shotgun, Animal, Run Riot, Excitable or Armageddon it are killer!

Hysteria is a classic album in the sense that it was very popular and continues to have its worst songs played on the radio over and over and over again.

Hysteria is NOT a classic album in the sense that it added anything of real value to the development of music. Again, songs like Armageddon, Pour Some Sugar On Me, Rocket, etc., are incredibly simplistic, unimaginative songs, which is probably why they have been so popular: Absolutely no effort is needed to listen to them.

Not that simple is bad. Unimaginative, however, makes it hard for me to consider it "classic" in the sense of being an important milestone in music. Hysteria was an important landmark in the commercialization of former metal bands, but not in the development of music.

And even if Hysteria is considered a classic album because it was popular and is well remembered, it is certainly not a classic METAL album. It had some hard rock, some soft rock, and a lot of bubble gum pop.

He also has a number of classic albums. Coincidence?

And your point is pretty silly, Michael Jackson has a handful of the greatest pop tunes ever written.

Thriller and what? Off the Wall nor Dangerous are that amazing. They simply have a few good tracks on each.

What about Earthsong?

And the one from the end of Free Willy. I WILL BE THERE