Most Overrated Album Of The 80s

[Dave78]

5150....
and

after the first two albums Van Halen is the most over rated band in the 80s(in my opinion, don't flip)

Well, you're certainly not alone. I guess I see them differently because they were a local band. We saw them grow up before our eyes.

From our 1976 high school yearbook:

 

[0000]

in a way thats awesome and sucky at the same time lol

 

[Dave78]

in a way thats awesome and sucky at the same time lol

Oh, believe me... they sucked. It was bad. Laughably bad.

But that's what was so ironic. If you were to ask anyone there if they thought that band would upstage Journey or Black Sabbath just two years later at The Long Beach arena 38 miles away, I'm sure they would have just laughed in your face. And as it happened, Van Halen opened up for Black Sabbath and Journey on their tours in 78 and both were outperformed by =VH=.

But... to each his own. That's why Baskins-Robbins makes 31 flavors of ice cream.

 

[0000]

Oh, believe me... they sucked. It was bad. Laughably bad.

But that's what was so ironic. If you were to ask anyone there if they thought that band would upstage Journey or Black Sabbath just two years later at The Long Beach arena 38 miles away, I'm sure they would have just laughed in your face. And as it happened, Van Halen opened up for Black Sabbath and Journey on their tours in 78 and both were outperformed by =VH=.

But... to each his own. That's why Baskins-Robbins makes 31 flavors of ice cream.

hahahaha
The first album is good in my opinion, it was something totally new, it was cool, but the second album is just more of the same, by the third it just got lame, then they just started to glam up and get drugged up(nothing wrong with it to an extent, but.....) and it went south... then once Hagar came.... ugh.... hes so much better solo, and I don't really like them, but wiht Montrose its so much better, so basically I think VH just started off with a bang with their first album, and apparently tour(I wasn't alive to know) then they just faded out artistically
some folks get so angry over my view of them,I'm always so scared to say my views on them haha

 

[Stout]

^I`m not a hard core Van Halen fan, but that first album was just incredible. Subsequent releases stuck to the forumla of solid hard rock, but there`s nothing wrong with that. What made that band was David lee roth`s showmanship and Eddie Van Halen`s`s prowess as a guitarist.
After Roth`s departure, I didn`t find Van Halen all that interesting. Sammy Hagar is technically a better vocalist than Roth, and he is quite adept on guitar. but the dynamic showmanship that Roth had was missing. It wasn`t as fun as it used to be. Roth was a good time party guy and his image helped make the band rollicking good fun, whereas with Hagar, they were a competent hard rock band,but possessing little excitement.

 

[Stout]

For me it was U2's The Joshua Tree.

DJs and critics loved it, but I thought it was weak sauce compared to their earlier works. Trouble was, the hype never ended with the album. They then shot a music video on a rooftop in downtown L.A. for "Where The Streets Have No Name" and then the tour came through... Good God, 1987 was Hell!

Thank God for G&R's Appetite For Destruction!

And I have to agee with you on your pick. I have already stated here I`m a fan of old style early `80`s U2. That video for `Where The streets have no name' was a ripoff fro The Beatles when they performed `Get back'. That`s just my feeling.
But U2 in the early days were a band who didn`t need to rely on cheap publicity gimmicks such as that. The Joshua Tree was selling by the bucket loads already during that time. U2, despite not being musical virtuosos had great songwriting abilities and charisma. Say what you will about Bono, he is an engaging front man.
Back to the album Joshua tree. it was tepid compared to the earlier works. Very little of that hard -edged playing that made such an album like `War stand out was there. But yet, JoshuaTree turned millions of people into U2 fans at the time. Perhaps thay had made a conscious effort to soften their angry post punk biting sound in order to gain worldwide commercial acceptance and despite my feelings and yours, it worked.
But after that, it didn`t feel like it was my band anymore. I`m talking about they type of band you hold close to your heart and they were special because of the type of music they once played.

 

[LG]

^I`m not a hard core Van Halen fan, but that first album was just incredible. Subsequent releases stuck to the forumla of solid hard rock, but there`s nothing wrong with that. What made that band was David lee roth`s showmanship and Eddie Van Halen`s`s prowess as a guitarist.
After Roth`s departure, I didn`t find Van Halen all that interesting. Sammy Hagar is technically a better vocalist than Roth, and he is quite adept on guitar. but the dynamic showmanship that Roth had was missing. It wasn`t as fun as it used to be. Roth was a good time party guy and his image helped make the band rollicking good fun, whereas with Hagar, they were a competent hard rock band,but possessing little excitement.

You have summed up my feelings in a nutshell Stout.

I saw VH play twice, they were so impressed with the response here on their first tour they played the next year after their 3rd album was released.

David Lee Roth is one of the best frontmen I have ever seen, he was so much fun and just added to the whole ambiance of what made a VH concert electrifying.

 

[Cosmic Harmony]

David Lee Roth is one of the best frontmen I have ever seen, he was so much fun and just added to the whole ambiance of what made a VH concert electrifying.

Exactly. Diamond Dave is some kind of awesome.

 

[Kink Floyd]

Thriller usually gets called an era-defining masterpiece. I just think it was an extremely popular pop album. It was catchy and filled with hooks, but it got predictable. Michael, while a solid song-writer, sure was no Lennon or McCartney...

 

[joe]

I would say Synchronicity by The Police. IMO, Sting is the one of the most overated musicians.