Led Zeppelin

Led Zeppelin is without a doubt on of the most overated rockbands of all time. Don't believe all those crowd-followers who yell that LZ is the best rockgroup of all time. Only dorks that believe all the bullshit that magazines like Mojo, Uncut or Rolling Stone write think that.  Every genuine rocker knows that bands like Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, AC/DC, Iron Maiden and ZZ Top are hundred times better than Led Zep. The only reason people think that LZ is the best is because they are the most famous hardrock band therefore the only heavy rock group they know. This just shows the ignorance that most "music fans" have towards heavy metal because every real hardrocker knows that there are enough beter bands than Led Zep. You just know that somebody who thinks that Led Zeppelin is the best hardrock act is a fake-hardrocker. If somebody would ask a real heavy metal fan who his favourite band is he will say Judas Priest, AC/DC or Dio, he would also like Led Zep but it would certainly not be his favourite.Unfortunately a lot off "rock"fans nowadays are very badly informed and believe everything that the rockestablishment tells them so we must unfortunately endure the bullshit of all these ignorant retards telling you how incredibly great Led Zeppelin is even though they don't know the slightest thing about rockmusic. A lot of those guys who say that kind of stuff dont know (a few exceptions aside) any other heavy rock bands besides Led Zeppelin. How can you say that Led Zep. is the best HM band ever if you dont know bands like James Gang, Riot, Saxon, Jethro Tull or Mahogany Rush. It's clear that they miss the knowledge to have an opinion about this kind of music. Please, Led Zeppelin aren't the inventors of hardrock, they are not the roughest nor do they heve the best groove and they are certainly not the most varied 70srock band. With other words they are not that incredibly special

Led Zeppelin most varied band? Rubbish! Bands like Uriah Heep, Golden Earring, Rush, Eagles and offcourse Queen are a lot more varied than Led Zep. Also the use folk influences is not that special, just listen to bands like Jethro Tull, Wishbone Ash, James Gang, Doobie Brothers or Rory Gallager. In fact lot of bands in the 70s had acoustic songs or instrumentals or grandious sounding songs like 'Stairway To Heaven'. What irritates me the most is when people say that John Bonham has such a revoltionary drumming style. I'm sorry but bullshit! There were a lot of great drummers in that period. Just listen to Ginger Baker, Ian Paice, Don Brewer, Bill Ward, Neil Peart etc. He's just not that special. The same goes for the other members of Led Zeppelin. That's why I find it complete nonsense when people say that LZ is the Beatles of the 70s. No way. The Beatles where a really innovative band that were way ahead of their time and better than most other bands during the sixties. While Led Zeppelin were just one of the many hardrockbands to come up during the early 70s. Actually Led Zep. are more like the Rolling Stones of the seventies also a very overated band.I'm not saying that Led Zeppelin is a bad band. To the contrary they are a very good and influencial band. But there are whole load of other bands that were just as good and influencial as LZ. Only you don't hear anything about those bands. If you read something about heavy metal it's always about Led Zep. It would be nice for a change to hear something about bands like Scorpions, Iron Maiden, Aerosmith, Rush bands who are also really well known as well. But thats offcourse the whole point of that LZ-is-the-best-classic-rock-band-in-the-world scheme. Don't forget that all the music-papers are run by nerdpunks who all absolutly hate hardrock. The reason that they praise Led Zeppelin is not because they like 'em (actually they hate that band) it's because they want you to think that heavy metal is very superficial and limited music and that if you got a couple of Led Zep records you don't need to buy any other hardrock records because they all "sound like Led Zeppelin anyway". THIS IS COMPLETE HIPSTER BULLSHIT OF THE HIGHEST ORDER!!! Led Zeps music isn't even a fraction of the totall hardrock output. Heavy rock is very varied and interesting music with bands that all sound totally different from one and another and have their own style. A couple off Led Zeppelin albums is not enough for a credible HM collection not even a superficial one.

 

Guns N Roses

The bands that I have put in the overrated section are nevertheless all bands I really like. Bands like Led Zeppelin, King Crimson, Rolling Stones and Neil Young are all great bands that had a big influence on rockmusic the only problem I have is that there were a whole load of other bands that were just as good and influencial that you unfortunately hear nothing of. I can at least understand why they get a lot of praise even though I think it's sometimes a bit overexagerated. Guns n Roses on the other hand I don't understand at all. It's completely mindboggeling that such an unoriginal and totally not special band gets praised as one of the best hardrock bands that ever existed. It just shows that must people are completely ignorant when it comes to heavy metal because there are hundreds of bands that are way better than this mediocre band. You just know that somebody is a fake-hardrocker when he thinks that GNR is the best band or that Slash is a great gitarist. Guns n Roses has a very phoney and manufactured rebelious image as if an A&R manager had put them together because he thought "thats what the kids probably would like" even though they are not that exciting. I see Guns n Roses as the first attempt by the record componies to turn heavy rock into a soulles product.

Typical example is the frontcover of 'Appetite For Destruction' with the skulls of the bandmembers on the cross. Clearly the message of this cover is that hardrockers are stupid people that only like skulls and guys with stupid hats while heavy metal has a lot more depth to it than that. Can you take the skulls of the bandmembers of GNR and replace them with the ones of AC/DC or Iron Maiden or Scorpions? Ofcourse not! I think that Slash is a very overated gitarist. I can't believe that you get guys that think he is the greatest or are even inspired by him to play guitar. I have allways thought of him as a mediocre and corny gitarist. The only thing he inspires me to do is take his stupid hat of and crush it then grab his Les Paul and smash it over his head. What a lot of people don't realise is that the members of GNR aren't really hardrockers but just a bunch of shitpunks. The 'Spagetti incident' is record full of punkcovers what should serve as a clear warning sign. Every genuine hardrocker would throw up if he heard punk.

The worst thing is that there are actually people who say that GNR brought back real rockmusic. I seriously saw a program where a guy said that GNR made rock n roll populair again. Dickheads who say that seriously don't know anything about rockmusic from the 80s because there were enough bands playing that kinda music like Cinderella, Ozzy Osbourne, Motley Crue, Wasp, Quiet Riot and ofcourse older bands like Van Halen, Accept, Iron Maiden, Motorhead, Scorpions, AC/DC, the ruinited Deep Purple, Kiss etc. Seems to me that there was a lot of rock n roll going on when Guns n Roses came along. What's really unbelievable is that there actually people who think that Guns n Roses is a lot louder than all those (there we go again) "glammetal" bands. Don't make me laugh! Bands like Motley Crue, Dokken, Twisted Sister, Ratt, LA Guns are hundred times louder and more exciting than Guns n Roses. This is only because those bands wear make-up and GNR doesn't and clearly simple-minded fools think that for some reason that makes those bands wimpy. Even if GNR would have had beards as long as the members of ZZ Top they wouldn't sound as tough as any of those bands. Guns n Roses makes the same kind of music as those bands nothing new about that. This doesn't mean that GNR are a bad band I have also get their cd's. But GNR should never be your introduction to hardrock. Please got all those other HM-records that were made before GNR first than you can add 'Appetite For Destruction' and the two 'Use Your Illusion' records to your collection.

 

Manowar

I hate it when people think that Manowar is typical of how heavy metal bands sound. Lot of people probably think that all hardrock groups wear shields and swords and sing about knights, dragons and fairytales. Nowadays with all these powermetal bands and the general medieval state of mind in metal that's understandable. In the classic rock of the 70s and 80s they very rearly sung about that kind of stuff. Manowar was the only band with a 'warrior' image back then. The great majority of hardrock bands sang about ordinary everyday subjectmatter not about all that corny fantasy stuff. That was a typical Manowar trait not for heavy metal in general. The bombastic rockopera sound of Manowar has nothing to do with the simple ladsrock approach that heavy rock groups used to have. If you listen to Manowar it's like you are going to the opera. That's got nothing to do with rock n roll. The guys of Manowar dont seam to understand that the whole point of hardrock is that it sounds simple and straightforward and that all that overblown classical stuff has no place in heavy metal. This doesn't mean that I don't like Manowar they made some good music in the eighties. The stuff they made in the 90s/00s is absolutely crap filled with mindless bombast that serve as perfect example what not to do as a heavy rock band. You just know that people who think that Manowar is the greatest band or consider them the "kings of heavy metal" are complete posers.

 

Iggy Pop/ Stooges

Iggy Pop and his old band the Stooges belong to the sacred cows of popmusic. This is completely "understandible". The Stooges were the forerunners of punk and at a time when you had all these wimpy flower-power hippies who sung boring Scott McKenzie-type 'love and peace' songs the stooges were playing wild and raucous rock n roll. Don't even think about critisizing this. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that gets reapeated ad infinitum by the ignorant press. And the hipster-army just swallows it without hesitation. It goes without saying that this is complete bullshit because the bands from the hippie era were not dull-sounding at all. To the contrary they fuckin kicked ass probably a lot more than the Stooges. What hippie bands are we talking about? Bands like Mountain or Led Zeppelin those kind of soft and gentle sounding hippie acts? Because they are the bands I think of when people talk about music of the late sixties/early seventies. Bands that sound really tough and whose music sounds heavy, agressive and ass-kickin or with other words 100% pure rock n roll. The music that the Stooges make doesn't sound that different at all from how other bands sounded at the time. Just listen to bands like Blue Cheer or Grand Funk Railroad and you will hear the same ragged, unpolished sound with a lot of wah-wah gitar. Yet people still consider Iggy and the Stooges as a hip punkband and bands like Blue Cheer and Grand Funk are boring classic rock bands that only your grandfather listens to. This is a clear case of how people divide music in a very artificial way. 

You will still get rocknerds with their dorky glasses who will tell you that "Funhouse is such a dirty rockrecord". Complete bollocks! Just listen to 'Deep Purple in Rock' from Deep Purple and you will hear that that record sounds a lot more exciting, faster and rousing than 'Funhouse'. Iggy and his Stooge-boys are nothing compared to the simple power of that band. Bands like Black Sabbath, Uriah Heep and Budgie leave the Stooges biting in the dust. So why is Iggy Pop put on such a pedastal and why are the Stooges seen as the godfathers of punk? The awnser is quite simple: there is no good reason for it. The Stooges just like the equally overated MC5(more about that later) are just deemed cool by the press and unfortunately you get all these fools that believe it. The other reason is that poeple think that the Stooges were misunderstood in their time but later generations got what they were about. NOT! The reason that the Stooges weren't popular in their time isn't because the "ignorant" hippie generation didn't get it. It's because there were a whole load of bands back than that were not popular. There is only a small amount of groups that become really popular the rest of the bands remain unknown. Ever heard of bands like May-Blitz,Gun, Toe Fat or Dust? No? The Stooges were one of those bands. Another reason why the Stooges were not very popular is because they were just simply not that good. The reason why bands like Alice Cooper, Styx or Blue Oyster Cult were very huge bands is that they played well, wrote good songs and were original and unlike the Stooges they didn't play sloppy music or take drugs all the time. This doesn't mean I don't like them. The three records the Stooges made are special and Iggy Pop's solo records are also quite good but nothing more than that.

 

Eddie van Halen

When Black Sabbath Guitarist Tony Iommi was asked what he thought of Ozzy Osbourne's new guitarist Randy Roads he said "O god not another one of these Eddie van Halen guitarists". Even though I consider Eddie van Halen a great guitarist I know exactly what he means. Eddie van Halen is ofcourse nowhere as bad as Yngwie Malmsteen but he is the one that made the first step into that soulless and typical American shredstyle where style is more important than substance. And during the 80s we started to get all these guitarplayers who thought that breaking the worldrecord fastplaying is more important than playing a decent and catchy solo. From the nineties onward the shredstyle has unfortunately become the norm and taken over entirely from the emotional blues approach at least with guitarists that still play solos. Dont get me wrong I like EvH a lot but he is definitely not the best guitarist of the late 70s- early 80s. It's baffeling that the readers of the guitarworld voted EvH best guitarist of the year six times in a row. Its clear that the readers of the magazine are a bunch of naieve idiots who just base their opnion on what the majority think. In those days there where a lot of fantastic guitarplayers like Alex Lifeson, Tom Scholz, Rick Emmet(Triumph), David Meniketti(Y&T) or Mark Reale(Riot) but you wont hear anything of them in the Guitarworld let alone be voted the best guitarist of the year. But what do you expect with such a shitty paper. 

I seriously had a guitarlearning book which clearly was written by people of that magazine and it said that Eddie van Halen was the best guitarist since Jimi Hendrix! Outside the fact that there are enough better guitarists than Hendrix i can think lots of other guitarplayers that are just as good or even better than EvH. Michael Schenker, Tony Iommi, Angus Young, Ritchie Blackmore, Jimmy Page, Steve Howe, Ronnie Montrose, Ted Nugent. Best guitarist since Hendrix? MY ASS!! And there have been much better and more interesting guitarplayers since. But do you know why Eddie van Halen is considered the best guitarist ever? Because Van Halen are from Los Angeles and the guitarindustry which the Guitarworld and the Guitar Institute Of Technology are part of is based there. If Eddie van Halen had come from Kentucky nobody would have cared about him even if he would have played in the same way. Have you noticed that all these American guitarpapers hardly ever write about British bands. Iron Maiden, Thin Lizzy and Def Leppard have just as good guitarsolos as Van Halen but you dont hear anything about them in the established magazines even though they are just as popular. This way we get those American views about guitarplaying served to us so that people hear the same names and dont get motivated to listen to other guitarists who sound different. So I consider Eddie van Halen a fantastic and influencial guitarplayer but he is definitele not ''the best guitarist since Jimi Hendrix''.

 

King Crimson

Don't let them fool you King Crimson isn't the best progressive rock out there. And even more important they dont sound any different from the rest. I do not understand that people think they are so different from all those "boring" symphorock bands. Well thankfully you still got a lot of trendy dorks that hate them. Yet for some reason there are guys that like this group but who hate bands like Pink Floyd, Yes, Emerson, Lake & Palmer or Genesis. They sometimes also like Van Der Graaf Generator and maybe Gentle Giant. Dont ask me why maybe it's because they have a saxophone player and that is such an incredible important instrument. This has nothing to do with the music but with the status of the musicians. Robert Fripp has often played with hip artists like David Bowie, Brian Eno or Talking Heads. This has given some fashionable types the wrong impression that King Crimson makes artisticly credible music that sounds nothing like all those beard-hippies with their never-ending noodling. Well sorry folks but King Crimson is a 100% pure symphonic rock band. If you like this you can also like Jethro Tull, Genesis or Camel.

This band simply does not differ from other sympho-bands. Or at least they don't sound more different from the rest than that all the other groups sound from each other. Progressive rock is a very varied genre were all bands have there own style. King Crimson fits perfectle between all the other bands. It is completely random that KC are seen as the best. If David Gilmour, Greg Lake or Steve Howe had played with David Bowie or Brian Eno all those ignorant herdfollowers would have considered them as cool musicians and the groups they played in as the best symphorock act. It also irritates me when people think they are different from other progressive rock bands because they sound so dark as if all those symphorock groups all make happy flower-power music. This is a pure lie because all those bands had scary sounding pieces. The song 'Devils Triangle' may sound creepy but so does ELP's 'Tacotta' or 'Sysyphus' by Pink Floyd or 'Magnum Opus' by Kansas. Nothing special. The most important thing is that King Crimson is not the first progressive rock band. If KC wouldn't have existed you would have still had symphonic rock. There were a lot of groups in the late 60s early70s that made interesting records. Progressive rock just like hardrock is a style that gradually came into existance through all different bands. There is no such thing as a key-band who started this type of music. So King Crimson isn't any better than the other bands who made just as interesting music as KC. You either like all progressive rock acts or you hate them all.

 

Cheap Trick

Don't listen to all those fools who claim that this band is different than typical late70s acts like Journey, Boston, Angel, Foreigner etc. They are just talking a load of crap. It is exactly the same music. Lets be clear about one thing: Cheap Trick is not a powerpop band! Cheap Trick is 100% pure AOR and they sound nothing like Blondie, Knack or Big Star. But au contrair! According to websites like Powerpop Overdose or AV Club Cheap Trick is the ultimate example of this style and all those brainwashed followers just totally believe it. They were even featured on certain powerpop compilation albums. Yet in the late seventies nobody considered them a powerpop group and they were still seen as an unremarkable hardrock band who were hated by punks. There succes had nothing to do with new wave. People liked them for the same reason they liked REO Speedwagon, Styx or Bryan Adams. The singer of CT has the same kind of voice as Tommy Shaw, Kevin Cronin or Rick Springfield. I allways hate it when people call rockbands 'pop'. Popmusic is soft commercial music with no prominent roll for guitars. Michael Jackson or Simply Red are pop. The excuse they allways use is that they write catchy songs. Sorry but rock n roll is by definition catchy music. All hardrock acts from the pre-Metallica period wrote song-orientated music. You can just as well start calling bands like Dio, Aerosmith or Quiet Riot popmusic. I also think that CT's humor occasionally works on my nerves. Humor belongs in hardrock but theirs is a bit uncalled for. They are definately not better than other AOR groups. If you like this band you should also like Boston, New England, 707, Styx, Blue Oyster Cult and so on. So i have decided to listen to this great ARENAROCK band. Powerpop? Do you mean that kind of music that Cheap Trick does NOT make.

 

Beach Boys

This is another one of those bands that has made good music but isn't that super-duper great. I do not understand remarks like 'greatest american band' or better than the beatles'. There are at least twenty other American bands that I think are a lot better. They don't come anywhere near the level of greatness of the Beatles. I think lot of American musicfans are just jealous that they do not have such great bands like the Beatles and the Rolling Stones so they constantly use the Beach Boys as an example that they also have a band like that even though they are not as good. Especially the record 'Pet Sounds' is very overrated. It's good but it has a bit of a wimpy and a whimsical feel to the record. You can just see the Lorax and the Oompa Loompa's dancing around. The rock n roll has clearly disappeard. The heavy use of orchestra and other instruments gives the music a fairground sound that makes the album somewhat impenetrable. The Beatles even with their more experimental songs still sounded more direct and down to earth.  What also irritates me when people hate Mike Love and say that he's a talentless musician and that he has ruined the Beach Boys and turned them in a to soulles greatest hits machine. Typical the kind of rubbish badly informed Mojo readers spew out. Ofcourse he is not as important as Brian Wilson but he is definately not any less important than the other bandmembers. Don't forget that he sang on most of the early Beach Boys hits and aside from Brian Wilson wrote or co-wrote the most songs. Not exactly an unimportant bandmember. And he had the best live-presence of the band and allways knew how to connect with the audience. Brian Wilson may have been a great composer but live he had a charisma of sack of patatos. But ofcourse the musicscene is run by all these geeky dorks who can't stand a machojock like Mike Love even though he is just as good a musician as his cousins.

 

Savatage

Savatage is musiccritic-metal par excellence. If something is boring, corny or pretensious you know the reviewers of Kerrang or Metal Hammer are going to like it. Nevertheless they made reasonably good music in their early days. Nothing special that is anywhere near the greatness of great rockacts of the time like Dio, Ratt or Dokken but at least it sounds like genuine hardrock music. A typical okay band ala Gun's n Roses that you can also add to your collection. In the nineties Savatage became a rockopera band that nobody cares about. After gitarist Chris Oliva died it all started to get worse. At least he still had an eighties duderock attitude. Without him Savatage became another faceless longsleeve-metalband with whimsical lyrics. Savatage thinks that if you make overblown concept records that your music automaticly is gonna sound special but their albums sound very workmanlike. They overate themselves enormously. They once said in an interview that they had to be very concentrated and focused when they are making records because it's more diffecult to make a conceptalbum then it is to write a book or make a record. Complete nonsense. Ofcourse it's more easier to make a conceptrecord than it is to make a book or a film because rockmusic is a much more simple medium than books or films. If the songs on a concept-cd sound like they belong together and there is some kind of narrative structure that's good enough. You don't need to add complicated details or deeper layers to the music if the music and lyrics give you enough clues so you know what they record is about. But that is something Savatage will never learn.

 

Velvet Underground/ Lou Reed

"Velvet Underground is the most important rock group ever", "the sound from the street", "at odds with the hippie generation". If somebody makes one of these statements again I'm gonna shoot them. I know lots of bands that are more important than Velvet Underground. Ofcourse all those hipster-geeks want you to believe that in the 60s there were only boring Woodstock-hippies who all made the same music. In reality the music that VU made was not that different than the rockmusic that was popular at the time. Bands like the Doors, Blue Cheer, Pink Floyd, Yardbirds, Iron Butterfly, Jimi Hendrix made just as original and inovative music as Velvet Underground. The most irritating myth surrounding the VU is that nobody bought their records but the few that did started their own bands. This is the kind of nonsense that only naive Guardian readers believe. Even though their records weren't a succes they still charted in the American top-200 which means they still must have sold at least 10.000 copies. Their first album sold better in the US than say 'Ace Of Spades' by Motörhead. If everyone who bought their records would have started their own band there would have been thousands of VU-type groups in the early seventies. This has clearly not happened so we can file this under the catagory of typical punk-bullshit. The more rational explanation for the popularity of VU is that it's simply cool to like them. Ofcourse the succes of Lou Reed's solo-career in the 70s made people interested in his old band but it is also because the rock-elite forces the opinion that the VU are the greatest rockact ever down everyone's throat. The pack-mentality does the rest. If Pitchfork or Rolling Stone said that ZZ Top was the most influencial group ever the the ignorant rock-herd would consider that the best band ever. It's as simple as that. Velvet Underground is certainly a good band but not better than other groups of that time.

 

Rolling Stones

Have you all got your scarfs and banners with you. THE GREATEST ROCK N ROLL BAND IN THE WORLD HAS ARRIVED!! NOT! Stop uttering this bullshit. They are not that good. I do not understand why their cd's end so high in greatest albums lists when there are a lot of other bands who are more desserving of that. Its boring Rolling Stone or Guardian writers that constantly pat each other on the back and never critisize their ignorant views that think this. Often people who believe this are stuck in the sixties and think that there wasn't any good music made after this. Well sorry guys but the music of the 70s and 80s is superior to the music of the 60s. Bands like Uriah Heep, Black Sabbath, Samson, Riot, Ted Nugent, Magnum are way better than Beatles, Stones or Byrds. Period! Unfortunately lot of people suffer from chronic ignorance when it comes to rockmusic. For rockaficionado's like me it's just painfull to see all these greatest bands lists of people on internet with the same predictable names on it like 'Led Zeppelin', 'Pink Floyd', 'David Bowie' or 'Rolling Stones'. Guys, don't you know any unknown bands! Groups like Budgie, Yesterday & Today, Triumph, Loudness and Motley Crue are just as good as the bands listed above. So it is time to start listening to lesser known bands. There also certain albums by the Stones that are very overrated and some underrated. The main suspect is the incredibly overrated Exile On Mainstreet. If somebody thinks this is the best RS record than you that person is a poser that does not know what he is talking about when comes to rock n roll. That cd is no better than other Rolling Stones about just as good. The album 'Their Satanic Majasties Request' on the other hand is criminaly underrated. Everybody that says that this isn't good or that they were "trying to go psychedelic" is just copying the views of other people. This is the best RS record with original and intresting music. A truly unique album. Also the eighties output(sounds dated!) has stood the test of time just as good as Deep Purple or Black Sabbath cd's of that time. Lets not forget their early RnB orientated records from the mid sixties. So the Rolling Stones are great band  but not better than the rest. On to the next overrated band.

 

Nirvana

The main perpetrators behind the alternative rock explosion that killed of hardrock. The era of real rockmusic has ended and is being replaced by crummy bands like Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam and Flaming Lips. The new generation of musicfans who do not know how genuine rock n roll is supposed to sound like so these dorkbands have free reign. Nirvana made punk popular. Punk?! "But they are grunge band and have long hair". You imbecile! (punch in the face) How often do I have to explain this! Grungers are also punks. You may think that they are hardrockers but if you ask them what their influences are it's gonna be stuff like Black Flag, Husker Du, Replacements, Clash and all the other predictable names. The kind of groups genuine rockers don't like. I mean they were in a rockumentary called '1991 the year punk broke'. Which clearly shows where his interests lie. That title just sums up the situation perfectly. Because 1991 is the year that punk (unfortunately) through the succes of Nirvana and grunge broke through much more than with the punk of the late 70s. I think drummer Dave Grohl is an idiot. Led Zeppelin is his favorite band and John Bonham is his big idol. It's clear that he knows nothing about hardrock which is examplary for the ignorance of alternative rock musicians. If Nirvana didn't exist the course of rockmusic would not be very different. There were a lot of bands back then making the same kind of music. Obviously there would have been some other band to fill in their place causing the same devastation. The nerds have ruled the world of rock for far to long. It's time that the jocks seize control again!

 

Ramones

You have to have been living on the Southpole to escape the presence of the Ramones. Everywhere you see posters, T-shirts, stickers, wallets etc. of the moronic foursome of New York. Most people waring those T-shirts don't even though who they are. They probably think that's some kind of clothing company's logo. Not aware of the evil that lurks beneath. You allways see kids with Ramones posters in their bedroom in a lot of films nowadays. Totally unrealistic because most young people only listen to Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber. Can't they have posters of Ritchie Blackmore or Michael Schenker on their walls that is a lot better than all that punkcrap. You never hear hardrock in movies. Kudo's to Men In Black 2 that features the song 'Speeddemon' by Keel in the post office scene. Cool finaly a bit of heavy metal in a film. They should do that more often. But what I'm going to tell you now is of paramount importance so listen well. Do not let anybody tell you especially all those curly moustache hipsters that the music of the Ramones is "how rock n roll is supposed to sound". People that say that don't know what that word means. "Yes but it sounds simple"  is the argument that is often used. The music of the Ramones may be simple but it lacks power. The agression of the Ramones and all that other punk stuff sounds insincere. Classic rock groups like Riot, AC/DC, Mountain or Survivor may be more varied but they just kick more ass. Alternative rock bands have to play fast and simple to sound tough. Hardrock musicians understand that you can write songs that are complex, gentle or slow and that you can still have a simple approach to your music. A band like the Ramones is only liked by geeky nerds not by working class rockers.

 

Megadeth

I was walking through town minding my own business suddenly this guy up to me and says "have you listened to Megadeth today". This happens a lot. As if everybody that likes hardrock automatically is a huge Megadeth fan. It's never gonna be "have you listened to Twisted Sister or Tank". Clearly they read that name somewhere in a magazine and thought that was a good conversation starter. I just tell them to talk a walk and go waste somebody elses time with their limited knowledge of rock. They are not that special. Just like a lot of other speedmetal acts their songs consist of a lot disjointed riffs that have little cohesion. This is done to give you the illusion that what they doing is very interesting but the clinical Joe Satriani playing techniques give the music a very tired and impenetrable approach. Than you have Dave Mustaine's annoying whining voice which starts grating after a time. Just like the predictable lyrics with that typical childish metal rebelion that nobody takes serious. Lot of these people also seem to think that Megadeth is a very heavy band. They are actually fairly mainstream sounding. It is baffeling that some people think that they used to be a thrashmetal band and later on they became more commercial. Megadeth has never made thrash. They are not even really speedmetal. Their music has allways been fairly slow. I mean come on! This is not Kreator or Dark Angel. Even Metallica sounds louder. I don't get people who think Megadeth is a lot heavier than Metallica. This is only because Dave Mustaine played in that band and they are less popular so therefore with typical ignorant metal reasoning "they must be louder". Metallica's music sounds a lot darker and heavier than Megadeth's. CD's like 'Rust In Peace' and 'So Far So Good' have a glossy arena-friendly production. Even Anthrax is louder. It is only good thing that they are a softer band because I hate these groups that try to sound dark and evil. I can't stand it if people call them and Anthrax and Metallica the "big four of thrash". If somebody uses this discription for any of these bands you have my full permission punch his face in. Only Slayer is a real thrashmetal group. The other three are just ordinary metal. Megadeth is metal with clear hardrock roots. Enjoyable but not more than that.