I noticed, and this is really strange, that Motorhead have only about 3-6 reviews on average per album.

Weirdly enough, Motorhead are one of the most mainstream metal bands. Most random people on the street have heard of them, their music is all over movies and in commercials/video games, etc.

And yet, lesser known bands like Morbid Angel, Manowar, Venom, Death, Darkthrone, Helloween, etc. absolutely cripple them in reviews per album.

Anyone else think it's strange and why has this happened? You can't say it's the old-school factor, because Judas Priest and Dio and stuff have no problem.

Maybe because all their albums are so similar to each other.

What?? Each Motorhead album is special and precious!

Probably because there are so damn many of them. The reviews get really spread out. Or maybe people just don't feel the need to point out the obvious - that Motorhead slay.

I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I was planning on reviewing all the Motorhead albums in alphabetical order and naming the reviews "Lemmy can do no wrong, part _" and so forth. I reviewed 1916, and since then I haven't been bothered because I've been too busy. I'm happy listening to their entire discography instead of spreading the good word.

I'm actually kind of pleased there aren't too many reviews for them because it would inevitably mean more negative scores, which I can't fathom and makes me sad. Most consistent quality of any band, ever.

Don't blame me, I've wrote my share -- you other fuckers should get on with it.



Every time I see this sort of sentiment I think to myself: "this person has heard 2, maybe 3 Motorhead albums at the most".

Its pretty difficult reviewing Motorhead albums. I decided to review 1916 a few months back but later gave up because I couldnt come up with enough synonyms for 'awesome'.

And yes all of their albums are similar. Similar in the sense that all of them kick ass.

Every time I see this sort of sentiment I think to myself: "this pretentious metalhead can't admit that Motorhead no matter how great tend to stick with an unchanging formula."

You're absolutely wrong, but whatever lets you sleep at night.

Durr, you know ears were attached to heads for a reason? Learn how to use 'em, mongoloid.

They might not be including progressive elements in their sound, but listen to Ace of Spades, 1916 and Another Perfect Day and tell me they're all exactly alike. Motorhead are a band that know what sound works for them, but they change it up a fair amount - no doubt in part to the changing lineups over the years.

And by "in part", you mean "mostly", right? The fact that your three examples each have different guitarists emphasizes that. Style wise, all the Clarke albums are very similar, and all the Würzel/Campbell ones as well. Which isn't an insult in any way. An insult would be to say that they're ripping themselves off, or that their inspiration faded away, which I don't think happened until the early 90s. Frankly, the Overkill/Bomber/Ace of Spades trilogy is so consistent that if I put all three albums together on random play, it feels like I'm listening to one 32 tracks long, fantastic Motörhead album. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

Apart from that, if/when I start submitting reviews, I'll try to remember that Motörhead might need them more than say, Maiden or Metallica.

I don't hear it that way. Overkill is more simplified, easier going and bluesier; Bomber flows more like a more straight-up heavy metal album than a rock 'n roll one, and; Ace of Spades is consistently fast-paced but has a weird sound of "dance to this."

Perhaps you're right, though, and I can't differentiate between my knowing that they're different albums from the actual sound.


I will pile on with the rest of you guys and say that the notion that they all sound the same is idiotic and ignorant. I've listened to all of them, and even consecutive albums sound different: 1916 doesn't sound like March or Die, that doesn't sound like Bastards, that doesn't sound like Sacrifice, and that doesn't sound like Overnight Sensation. Also, Inferno shares a similar production style to Kiss of Death, but are easily seperable.

I'd also like to add that Inferno is only six years old, yet is up there with the Overkill/Bomber/Ace of Spades trilogy & 1916 in terms of being practically perfect full-lengths. Orgasmatron, Overnight Sensation and a few others come really close, and Bastards' A-side would make for Greatest. EP. Ever.

Yeah, I guess I just don't understand why people would consider consistent high quality material from a band to be a bad thing. It's not as if every band ever has to constantly reinvent the wheel for their offerings to be considered viable metal.

I agree with those who say that all Motörhead albums basically follow the same formula. That's what makes them great, that they're not fucking around with retarded "new ideas" and "innovations" like so many other bands do (and thereby ruin their career and/or credibility).

What this doesn't mean is that Motörhead clone themselves, every new album sounds fresh in that it presents new songs done the Motörhead way, as opposed to rehashing previous songs in slightly altered versions with new titles, again like so many other bands do (and thereby ruin their career and/or credibility).

Plus, there are enough albums that stick out as unique as far as Motorhead goes. Another Perfect Day is more an adventurous one; Sacrifice stands out as being the most intense and heavy, I suppose; March Or Die has a Ted Nugent cover, a ballad with Ozzy & Slash and a song co-written by Ozzy, and; the last one, Motorizer, is perhaps as firmly entrenched in the metal genre as Motorhead has ever been. 'The Thousand Names of God' is the tightest-riffed song by them in a long time, for instance.

Probably because A) as people have said motorhead is flawless and legendary and they do not require reviews and B) because the mainstream people that hear motorhead have no clue or interest in what the Metal-Archives are.

Inferno is easily among my top 5 Motorhead albums

I agree with everyone that's said that Motorhead reviews are hard to write. I haven't heard a single bad album from them, but there are only so many ways you can talk about how consistent they are without sounding repetitive...

Some of their shoddier live albums are really, well, shoddy. Especially that live in 1977 one is terrible imo.

They went through a bit of a rough patch in the late 90s/earlier part of the 2000s and On Parole and the '77 S/T are hardly stellar. Snakebite Love's the worst studio album they've done. But still, compare that to any other huge band with a huge output -- they have never done anything even bordering on, say, Forbidden, The X Factor, Load, Jugulator etc etc.

I like just about every album listed there. So you're saying that there's no Motorhead album that I'd dislike...

Works for me!

an unchanged formula shouldn't matter for lack of reviews. slayer still have plenty. i actually wondered this the other day when i looked at Motorhead's page, i couldn't believe it.

Slayer don't have an unchanged formula though.

Seriously, who on earth could think they've been consistent over the course of their career no matter which records it is they like? I mean besides the obvious person.

Too many people taking Henry Rollin's idiotic quote as fact.

Maybe the issue here is more the negative connotations some people automatically see behind terms like "unchanged" and "formula". Several posters on this thread seemed outraged by the use of these terms in reference to Motörhead, and felt the need to defend Lemmy & co by going out of their way to pretend every single Motörhead album was wildly different from its predecessors. Which is just as untrue as stating that they've been copying-pasting the same album over and over again.

I'm not sure it's the case, but your statement that Slayer don't have an unchanged formula could indicate that you'd think less of them if they did. While there's been slight evolutions and changes of pace from one album to the next, Slayer has clearly kept a strong and consistent style and identity from 'Show no Mercy' to 'Seasons in the Abyss' inclusive. Whether you call it a formula or not, the fact is that anyone who has heard any of these albums will easily be able to tell "yep, that's Slayer!" if you play them a random song from another one. Not to mention the common theme used for their respective title tracks that ties the latter three albums even stronger together.

I think EntilZha summed things up rather well a few posts above. Neither changing your style nor sticking to your roots are bad things in and off themselves. Only doing either in a lazy or uninspired way can be.


After 'Seasons in the Abyss', you're probably right. And to be honest, I don't really care for that part of their career, as virtually all of their later efforts I gave a fair chance to turned out to suck regardless ('Divine Intervention', Diabolus in Musica', 'God Hates us All'). It may or may not be the main reason for that, but I remember noticing that one of these albums was mostly composed by King, contrary to the masterpieces of the 80s that were largely Hanneman's babies.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I don't think anyone was outraged, and nobody's so deaf as to believe every single album is a great deviation in style from the last.

The best way I can put it is that for a moment you'll be listening to, oh let's say, Orgasmatron, and you'll think gee, Rock 'n Roll was basically this album done again. Then you go ahead and listen to THAT, and you'll be surprised.

I don't listen to much of a variety of metal as I used to, and it's because I've been listening to them and about two or three other bands and that's it. They do an unbelievable job of suiting the mood every time you throw a disc in, yet they never get stale. Sometimes, there's something to say about quanitity, too. But enough gushing.

Wow, after all this talk about how Motorhead is great, I went to give them a chance (only heard a few songs before, didnt like em). All I can say is you guys should be glad I'm not writing the reviews for their albums. GENERIC ROCK N ROLL WOOOO!!!!!

You're as free as anyone else to voice your opinion here, but there is a high possibility you will get shat upon from great heights.

Blasphemy.

Ok, I was just pissed. I thought there was some great band I missed out on {you guys' said it was better than Judas Priest...}, so I listened to some Motorhead. Some shitty, shitty motorhead, and was supremely disappointed.

Maybe I'll try again later.

EDIT: To stay on subject: All the reviews for motorhead albums are good? What's up with that? Nobody has anything bad to say about motorhead? Am I retarded?

There's no law that says you have to worship Motorhead. At least I hope not, because I wouldn't make it a day in prison.

There is. Paragraph 4, subsection 2b of the metal code.

You don't have to worship Motorhead,nor Priest,Maiden,Sabbath,Saxon or Dio,but IMHO everyone should have some respect for them.

Honestly, I'd argue the exact opposite. If one of the major bands in metal history doesn't click with you for whatever reason, it shouldn't be a big deal. Pretending to "respect" (ie not dare to talk ill of) a band that you don't like just because most metalheads do would be hypocritical. It also tend to boost the fanboys' confidence, sometimes to the point that anyone criticising anything about such a band, even constructively, will just get bashed. I've personally experienced that with Maiden, for instance. Some people would rather say that "A Weekend Warrior" rocks, because you know, it's Maiden!!1!

At the other extreme, there's what MichaelSmith did in his first post on this thread, which was sort of pushing it: "you guys" seem to worship Motörhead, so I'll flat out call it shit to your (virtual) faces, this will be M4nly az H3llz!!1

@MichaelSmith: For argument's sake, what album(s) did you give a try to? Also, what type of metal do you usually like?

I think you should respect bands like that because they helped make metal what it is, without them some of your favorite bands would not be around. You don't have to <i>pretend</i> to respect them, lol.

I don't, never have, probably never will get what it is people see in Iron Maiden.. but 99% of the bands I love were influenced by them and would no doubt sound different or not be around if not for IM. I don't like em all that much but I respect their place in metal. I respect the Beatles place in rock and metal, and I loathe that band.

haha no it was nothing like that. I was just stating an opinion/anectdote. I didn't mean to generalize any of you or talk shit to anybody. it may have just seemed aggressive cause, well, fuck it, thats just the way I talk.

I've read more than enough of your posts to know that you in particular don't fit what I've described. But you know what I meant. "Judas Priest don't do much for me, plus I think they're kinda gay, you know, I prefer CoB, you know... but you know, kuddos to them because I hear they invented metal and shit, so I guess I respect them and shit, you know..."

Moving on...


I feel ya, man.

You didn't answer my question, though. Even if some on this thread might disagree, I think that whether you're basing your opinion on 'March or Die', 'Ace of Spades' or 'Sacrifice' will make a big difference quality wise. Also, if you're mostly receptive to subgenres very far removed from "speed metal", traditional hard/heavy and/or punk/rock 'n' roll influenced metal, then it's only natural if Motörhead don't float your boat. No need to force yourself either way.

Okay, I can't resist the urge to serve you one of my trademark fucked-up metaphors: there's a big difference between not liking cheese in general and disliking say, Gogonzola in particular. If you don't like any cheese and you try to demonstrate that Gorgonzola in particular is shit, you're out of line. If you like cheese but you have specific reasons to dislike Gorgonzola, that's more interesting. Sorry...