Def Leppard
Hysteria


1.0
awful

Review

by dude64 USER (6 Reviews)
June 25th, 2008 | 23 replies | 7,582 views


Release Date: 1987 | Tracklist

Review Summary: Those who are stuck in the 80's need not read on...

2 of 8 thought this review was well written

In 1987, Def Leppard were one of the biggest bands in the world, in the same league as hard rockers Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin-wannabes Whitesnake. Every teenage girl in America wanted to make love with Joe Elliott, the band's vocalist. With songs like Pour Some Sugar On Me, it's not hard to see why they were the biggest band around. Teenage girls, well, teenagers in general are notorious for their stupidity and love for any type of music that has sexual innuendos in it, hidden or not, preferrably not hidden, so that way, the dumb kids would understand it. That's why Def Leppard were so popular.

Let's name off the good things. Bands in this genre tend to have decent guitarists and the late Steve Clark was in fact a decent guitarist. Creative and catchy riffs and melodies can be found all over the album. He's not overly technical or flashy, nor is he that good, but he suits this type of music. The one-armed drummer? He's got skills for a man with three limbs. He can drum quite well, but I have trouble telling what is actually him and what is the drum machine that Def Leppard got to make him sound as if he had all four limbs.

That's it, though. Everything else is atrocious. Joe Elliott has a terrible voice. Not many vocalists from this genre had a good voice, save Bret Michaels among few others, but Joe Elliott takes the cake for one of the most annoying glam singers ever. His voice is like a harder, rougher boy-band voice, and it is quite nasally. The bass? Virtually nonexistent. This is excusable considering this genre has inaudible bass anyway, but still, listening to this album made to wonder if Def Leppard had a bassist at all. Then again, this is a pop rock album more than anything (The fools in '87 thought that it was metal!!!), and there's no such thing as good basslines in pop music (sans a few people that I'm too lazy to name). Most of all, the album just doesn't flow well. It's such a blatant attempt to create the "rock 'n' roll" version of Michael Jackson's Thriller (which is a far better album), it's almost unbearable. Early Def Leppard is far more raw; far more real than this cheesy garbage. Their earlier material is borderline heavy metal, sans Pyromania which was a bit over-polished, yet a rock and roll record nonetheless. Hysteria? No, it's not rock in the slightest. Bob Rock is never hired unless the band wants to produce a hit. Just look at Metallica. Bob Rock ruined Def Leppard though. This is pop fluff. Thriller? Thriller is a classic album, and while I do not condone the molestation of children, I don't think anyone can deny this. Even the most brutal of people can't deny the catchy genious of songs like "Beat It". Thriller wasn't a desperate attempt to make a hit though. It was a collection of great, honest pop classics. Hysteria is different. The rocking side of Def Leppard was stripped away completely. I've said it before and I've said it again: This album is abysmal pop music with guitars.

Hysteria. Classic metal album or awful pop trainwreck? Unfortunately, I must go with the latter. I wanted a good, fun album, and while to some Hysteria may be the definition of fun, and I respect their opinions, but as for me, Hysteria is far from fun. It's one hour of terrible music, no more, no less. Although I can see why it is adored and revered as a classic, I just ain't diggin' it.



Recent reviews by this author
Pixies DoolittleIron Maiden Powerslave
Iron Maiden Fear of the DarkMastodon Blood Mountain
Yes Tales from Topographic Oceans
user ratings (416)
Chart.
3.8
excellent
other reviews of this album
1 of

Comments:Add a Comment 
rasputin
June 25th 2008



14504 Comments


Review is decent, you could perhaps split that long third paragraph though. It also reads a little more than a 1, seeing as you note several good things about the album. Terrible band though.

dude64
June 25th 2008



90 Comments

Album Rating: 1.0

Decent guitar and decent drums on maybe 4 of the songs with everything else being bad renders a 1 in my book.

BallsToTheWall
June 25th 2008



44164 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

Decent review but fuck you sir. A 1 is ridonkulous.

rasputin
June 25th 2008



14504 Comments


[quote=review]Creative and catchy riffs and melodies can be found all over the album[/quote]
[quote=review]He's got skills for a man with three limbs. He can drum quite well[/quote]This Message Edited On 06.25.08

Erratic
June 26th 2008



1120 Comments


That's basically the same thing as voting no on a review because they gave it a bad score and you like the album.

DaveyBoy
Staff Reviewer
June 26th 2008



20821 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0 | Sound Off

Rating this 1 is just looking for attention.
What's Michael Jackson's Thriller got to do with it? You state this is trying to replicate it, but don't give any reasoning...
You also state the album doesn't flow well, yet don't give any reasoning/example for that either...
You had plenty of time & space to do the above 2 things since the review is rather short anyway.


Ironpriest
June 26th 2008



403 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

Im just gonna say this album is classic, your review is not

magas92
June 26th 2008



3 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

Bob rock.What?!?!?!?!Mutt Lange produced this album.This is a classic album.

Willie
Moderator
June 26th 2008



15774 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

Those who are stuck in the 80's need not read on...
You fail from the start by insinuating that anyone that disagrees with you is simply trapped in the 80's.
Teenage girls, well, teenagers in general are notorious for their stupidity and love for any type of music that has sexual innuendos in it, hidden or not, preferrably not hidden, so that way, the dumb kids would understand it. That's why Def Leppard were so popular.
Again, fail for making broad encompassing statements that have no basis in reality. If only teens had bought that album it would not have sold nearly as many copies as it did.
He can drum quite well, but I have trouble telling what is actually him and what is the drum machine that Def Leppard got to make him sound as if he had all four limbs.
Do you even know anything about this band or was this entirely for attention? Def Leppard did not use a drum machine at all. What did happen was that they had someone create an electronic drum kit that would allow the drummer to use his feet to recreate sounds he used to his his other arm for.
The bass? Virtually nonexistent.
The bass is clear in the mix, it's just very minimalistic in style. Listen again.
The fools in '87 thought that it was metal!!!
Another stupid broad assumption.
It's such a blatant attempt to create the "rock 'n' roll" version of Michael Jackson's Thriller
How so? For such a direct insinuation you failed to expand on any reasoning behind it.
Bob Rock is never hired unless the band wants to produce a hit. Just look at Metallica. Bob Rock ruined Def Leppard though.
Mutt Lange, sorry.

This doesn't even include the "train wreck" that your review is. Did you half ass this in one sitting? Did you even try to orgnanize and string your thoughts together in any cohesive manner? ... And how the quality (or lack of) of this album has anything to do with the quality (or lack of) of Michael Jackson is beyond me. You should have compared them to Radiohead or Post Rock so that we could just assume you're Tribes pt 3.This Message Edited On 06.26.08

Digging: Teramaze - Esoteric Symbolism

ReturnToRock
June 26th 2008



3448 Comments


i don't think it's as good as people say it is either. but this review is risible.

and as for joe elliot being a slightly rougher boy-band singer, so was jon bon jovi, and that didn't keep his band from cranking out a couple of decent albums.

ASberg
June 26th 2008



2161 Comments


What kind of hat?

ASberg
June 26th 2008



2161 Comments


aw i was hoping for a fez...

dude64
June 26th 2008



90 Comments

Album Rating: 1.0

You fail from the start by insinuating that anyone that disagrees with you is simply trapped in the 80's.

I speak the truth.
Again, fail for making broad encompassing statements that have no basis in reality. If only teens had bought that album it would not have sold nearly as many copies as it did.

Ok so maybe you bought it when you were 20. Or maybe your copy was worn out and you repurchased it when you were 30.
Do you even know anything about this band or was this entirely for attention? Def Leppard did not use a drum machine at all. What did happen was that they had someone create an electronic drum kit that would allow the drummer to use his feet to recreate sounds he used to his his other arm for.

1. I don't have to know anything about a band to know they suck.
2. check wikipedia
The bass is clear in the mix, it's just very minimalistic in style. Listen again.

Sorry, wrong.
Another stupid broad assumption.

wtf? no. back in the 80's, even europe was considered metal.
How so? For such a direct insinuation you failed to expand on any reasoning behind it.

check wikipedia. the goal of hysteria was to make a rock version of thriller, and they failed.
Im just gonna say this album is classic, your review is not

dude you gave nostradamus a 5. im not listening to a 10 year old.
Rating this 1 is just looking for attention.

Yeah you're right I was just seeking cyber-attention. Let me go rate every DL album a 5 now. I'm sorry.



FenderUsa
June 26th 2008



582 Comments


I vote yes because Def Leppard sucks.

I vote yes because Def Leppard sucks.

Willie
Moderator
June 26th 2008



15774 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

Well, dude64 you've just proved that actually trying to have any intelligent discussion is a waste of time and that you're definitely just an attention whore.

science4
July 29th 2008



18 Comments


"Dude", if ever there was a blatant attention seeking action. I actually feel sorry for you, now. What I will say for you is that you mentioned the fact that people will like this and basically power to them.
However, be very careful.
You made wild sweeping statements (bordering discrimination), and they were just plain WRONG.

Personally, I love this album as it has helped me through tricky or uncertain times.

magas92
August 8th 2008



3 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

Come on, dude64 it's obvious you haven't even listened to the album. You just read the article in Wikipedia and decided to make a review. Am I right?

magas92
August 8th 2008



3 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

I bet you listen to alternative and grunge crap all the time

Aids
Contributing Reviewer
November 20th 2009



23649 Comments


Just a terrible review. One of the worst I've read here. And I'm not saying this because I disagree; I haven't even heard the album (nor do I have any interest in hearing it, I assume it's not very good). You talk about Thriller without saying why and it in no way relates to the flow of review. Well, the review doesn't really flow actually, but I guess you get the point.

This is a definite neg, and I rarely neg.

Digging: Trophy Scars - Holy Vacants

pacedown
May 22nd 2012



167 Comments


i like these cyber-arguements. haha. you people get angry in front of your laptops, trying your hardest to find the sickest answers for your cyber dispute. ? =)
i like reading though, fight some



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





FAQ // STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // SITE FORUM // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2013 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Privacy Policy