Don't try to pretend Def Leppard's Hysteria isn't one of the best albums of the 80's

Don't try to pretend Def Leppard's Hysteria isn't one of the best albums of the 80's.

i actually think is a great album overall.

Agreed. Love Bites is the only song I really can't tolerate on it. Every other song ranges from ok to amazing.

But user Pyromania is better in every regard

I don't know about that, user. It's more appeasing to the hard rock fans but that's it.

But user High and Dry and On Through The Night are better than that too. Hysteria is hot garbage.

Definitely one of the best 80's albums, hard rock fan or not, I don't know anybody who grew up around this album who didn't like it. It was unavoidable and I still listen to it constantly.

Explain. Is it because Hysteria was more mainstream? Because from the very beginning it was clear that Def Leppard was not only better at being mainstream, but was trying to be anyway.

Hysteria is just dripping with cheese and terrible songwriting not to mention the shitty electronic drumkit. Animal is the only good song.

>caring about lyrical content

I really don't get it. I understand the songwriting is dumb (except on Gods of War) but the instrumentation is great, especially in the guitar department. Steve Clark and Phil Collen worked amazingly well together and Clark's death is the primary reason the band has been so forgettable since. The tones, the riffs, the solos. It's very impressive.

I didnt mean lyrics, I meant the song itself sounds like a bad Bon Jovi rip off.

This is simply untrue. Bon Jovi doesn't hold a candle to Def Leppard.

Hysteria is basically discount Slippery When Wet.

If youre talking about On Through The Night, High and Dry, and Pyromania then youre absolutely right.

Pyromania [Mercury, 1983]

Fuckin' right new heavy metal is different from old heavy metal. The new stuff is about five silly beats faster. And the "new" metal singers all sound free, white, and more-or-less twenty-one. C+

Hysteria [Mercury, 1987]

You know the music and if you don't think you'll like it, you won't--impeccable pop metal of no discernible substance. In short, it's completely irrelevant to everyone except AOR programmers and the several million addicts of the genre. However, it's more interesting from a marketing and technical standpoint. Stuck with over an hour of material after four years (how long could 12 songs be?) and being the astute technocrats they are, they've conceived for hour-long formats such as cassette tapes, which outsell vinyl discs now, and CDs, which outdollar them, and put it all on one album. I find the cassette sound a little dim, as commercial cassette sound tends to be, and although I do find myself enjoying the depth of the vinyl once I've cranked my stereo up to 7 or 8, the CD's clarity comes through decisively as the needle approaches the outgroove. I mean, I have a difficult time perceiving these guys as human beings under ideal circumstances. Not docked a notch because at least they didn't pad it into a double. B-

Adrenalize [Mercury, 1992] *bomb*

This is wrong. That album's guitar work alone doesn't match up to Hysteria. If you actually listened to the albums you would understand this.

Everyone and their mother wanted to copy Bon Jovi back then.

>uses the word irrelevant to describe a type of music

The general public has never been very intelligent when it comes to music, so that doesn't surprise me. Bon Jovi wasn't shit or anything but Def Leppard was simply better. People (mostly women) liked Bon Jovi mostly because they thought they were hot.

Hey, Justin Bieber and Maroon 5 are completely irrelevant to anyone with taste, which is us.

"Irrelevant" is a term people use to denounce music because it isn't popular anymore.

>Who cares about Def Leppard? They haven't been popular since the 80's!

It's the word of choice for normies. If you like it, that's the end of it.

>Bon Jovi wasn't shit or anything
costanza.jpg