Terrible band.
If rock is dead, they were one of the bands who killed it.
shareI couldn't agree more. Truly awful!
shareI disagree only for their first album. It is excellent. All but one song are very good.
Then the 2nd album was sorta Ok. Then they stopped putting anything good out at all. That makes 85% of their catalog shit.
They were a great band of the moment. But I don't think their music is aging well. Their songs are missing that timeless classic factor. I think they will be forever tied to the 80s and nostalgia.
shareI think a lot of people who like them get hit with the nostalgia and they don't want to admit that they're bad. But I'm sure there are people who think they're the greatest band ever.
shareWhen fused with their image, with the hair and makeup, amazing stage shows in front of massive crowds, tearing around on motorcycles down the sunset strip, they're absolute legends. But I don't think any of that conveys through the music alone.
shareAwful musicians(?) horrible singer and terrible songs, IMHO.
sharehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahq4blDfU5s
shareTruly awful. It's like a parody.
shareHa. I guess I can see that. It's like those rockers who didn't realize Spinal Tap was a mocumentary. I guess when your performances look like this it all seems pretty real.
shareIf they had adopted a simpler, biker style image similar to Motorhead, I think they would have been much easier to take seriously today.
shareI disagree. I could understand somebody saying that they are overrated but terrible bands don't sell over 100 million records. Their first couple of records were great metal albums and Dr. Feelgood reached the top of the charts on the strength of five hit singles. Most of the band members were able to have successful projects on the side as solo artists or as members of other bands.
share
terrible bands don't sell over 100 million records
I like Motley Crüe, but artists that make pretty crappy music like Justin Bieber and Ed Sheeran sell millions of records too.
shareI wouldn’t say they’re the worst but the fact they’re from LA definitely pushed them to higher levels than deserved.
Each album at best has 1-2 decent songs. Some have none.
Too fast for love 0
Theatre of pain has 1
Shout at the devil 2.
GGG 2.
Dr FG. 2.
DrFG came out in 89. Last decent album.
Vince Neil “Esposed” is actually a decent solo album. Came out in 1993. Certainly as good as anything Crue put out.
I haven't listened to as much Crue as you have, but everything I've heard sound like a parody of a hard rock band.
shareWhile I agree with you about Theater of Pain, I think their other albums had at least four good tracks. Dr. Feelgood had the five HUGE hit singles but I don't think it had many deep cuts. Vince Neil's Exposed album was really good partly due to Steve Stevens.
shareHe opened for Van Halen in 92 or 93. He was really good. And yeah Steve Stevens rocks.
shareDisagree. They had a lot of awesome songs!
Kickstart my Heart
Primal Scream
Looks that Kill
Shout at the Devil
Dr. Feelgood
Wild Side
Home Sweet Home
Without You
Too Fast for Love
Too Young to Fall in Love
Etc....
I enjoyed their first 3 albums. Too Fast for Love, Shout at the Devil and Theatre of Pain are great nostalgic albums.
Dr Feelgood came out when I was in college. While it does have a few cool songs on it, I could never really get into it. I was more into bands like Jane's Addiction and The Pixies. Hair bands became more of a parody to me by then.
I was trying to avoid using "hair band". I didn't want to get too much hate.
shareLet them hate. Wasn't much of a hair band fan post 1985.
I had dormmate in college that played Cinderella every fucking morning before we went to class.
I wanted to punch him in the face but he was bigger than me. He would've kicked my ass.
If I never hear "Don't Know What You Got" again I will die a happy man!