Am I the only one who thinks Disturbed isn't that good?

[Gib Lover]

Most of their albums sound pretty similar. They haven't really changed much over the years and seem to be doing an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" thing with their style, but I can respect that.

Is that respectable in music, though? At a certain point doesn't "if it aint broke, don't fix it" become detrimental? Amon Amarth was releasing the same album over and over up until Twilight of the Thunder God, and all their albums since TotTG have just been Twilight part 2, 3, etc.
Consistency is good, Kalmah and Hypocrisy are "consistantly" good, but I think it's not a good philosophy to have to release almost the same album over and over.
Bear in mind, I am not a Disturbed fan and haven't heard anything beyong Sickness and Believe so I don't know if they made the same album over and over so this all might not be applicable.

[Ghouldan]

I recall liking them when I was younger, probably towards grade eight/early highschool years. I haven't really listened to them since then, however.

[Stormcall]

Is that respectable in music, though?

It can be, depends on how good the band is at what they do. Not every band needs to be progressive. And change isn't necessarily good....remember Metallica?

[Damajin]

It can be, depends on how good the band is at what they do. Not every band needs to be progressive. And change isn't necessarily good....remember Metallica?

It's not about being progressive, it is about expanding the core sound. You don't need to pull a Dream Theatre or Ulver to do that.

Your comment is the criticism and also applause of a band like Deicide. They've been making the same album for 30 years, with very minor tweaks that can't even be called expanding the sound. Yet some of those albums are good on their own merits but when lined up with the rest the perspective becomes one of why don't these guys keep the core sound and also throw some curveballs in there?