Back to Basics

No need for this to be a double album. Way too long and totally not my thing.

I've tried and failed listening to this album 3 times now. I give up, sorry not sorry.

Why this album?

No va.

A few great DJ Premier tracks ruined here. Her vocals are unlistenable.

yeah, no.

I really struggled to listen to this album ... a couple of songs on the second were ok, but the rest really the worst imaginable pop music. Ok, I am aware that a lot of people like and enjoy this music but I will never, ever be one of them.

God her voice gets so annoying after a while. The problem with artists like her is that they think that vocal talent is all music is about. No amount of showy vomit-inducing vocal runs makes up for the lack of interesting songwriting. You might as well replace this album with a compilation of American Idol’s greatest hits: the overall effect would be exactly the same. Talent, but no deep artistry besides the vocal performance. This album is a perfect example of the fact that there’s so much more to music than good singing. I’m becoming convinced that there is an inverse correlation between the attractiveness of a musician and the quality of their music. I think that for many musicians, their music is really a vehicle for their ego, whether consciously or not. “Thank you” is the most masturbatory song I’ve ever heard lmao. Following that up with stupid circus music was one of the funniest musical segways I’ve ever heard

Great voice without a doubt but just not my style. 1/5

Got three songs in, realised they were all the same. Stopped.

So, it’s just very “basic” pop songs dressed up with vintage samples and jazz/blues/r&b/vaudeville/kitchen sink flourishes. It is boring and repetitive, and what good will I had was gone 45 minutes in… and there was another 30 minutes remaining. Nope.

This album was the toughest listen on the list so far. Clocking in at an hour and 18 minutes, it might be the most self-indulgent, bloated album I have ever sat through. There's cabaret, pseudo-gospel tracks, other genres that may be considered the bad kind of cultural appropriation, nods to Aretha Franklin, possible comparisons of Christina to Aretha Franklin, and a Steve Winwood feature. The fact that it came out in 2006 scares me because that means there is probably earlier Christina Aguilera albums on this list that I will ultimately end up listening to. I keep telling myself to give things a chance but this one was rough. She has pipes and can sing well, but these are just bad songs. Maybe if it had Dirrty on it, I could understand the inclusion of this album on the list, because that track bangs. But alas, all we get on this one was Still Dirty, and folks, it does not bang. I know I'm ranting and rambling at this point, but just thinking about this album again made me upset.

How on earth are there two Christina Aguilera albums on this list? This is some bullshit.

It is such a long album. Totally unremarkable and unnoteworthy. It was better than her previous album on this list but that does not take much. No desire to listen to it again. It is not a two but it is better than a one. I will round down.

I really hated this.

Christina Aguilera's performance goes through two modes for the supposed "bangers" found in this release: loud, and EVEN LOUDER. And her half-assed attempts to go to any other mode on less showy cuts often fall flat. Apart from that, you're subjected to the usual mid-naughts r'n'b shenanigans that made Beyoncé famous. Hilarious how many songs on the first disc (more on the second list later) are trying to copy the formula of "Crazy In Love" without ever managing to leave a somewhat similar imprint in the listener's mind. The formulaic songwriting is not solely to blame here: even in her less artsy pre-*Beyoncé* and *Lemonade* era, Beyoncé could sometimes offer performances that were way more dynamic than the exhausting "screaming-your-lungs-out" routine Aguilera goes through here. Here you just want the singer to buckle up, so gratuitously over-the-top her vocals are. Black Eyed Peas are masters in subtlety and humility compared to her. Which speaks volumes. Unnecessary LOUD volumes, of course. Going back to Beyoncé, *Back To Basics* is also some sort of early precursor to *Renaissance* in the sense that it supposedly aims at paying homage to older music styles. *Supposedly* because, here, contrary to *Renaissance*, such suggested aim is only a promotional rant that was learned by heart by PR sycophants at the time of the album's release--and this so as to artificially give identity to a project that was cruelly lacking one. There's absolutely no real musical substance to such a claim apart from a few discreet, hackneyed arrangements that poorly aged on certain songs. Some interesting artists, like DJ Premier, come to collect a check once in a while (the man has to pay taxes, like most other people), and if such contributions are decent, they're never mind-blowing. Those few features never affect the 100% commercial intent enough anyway. This thing stinks of money badly spent from start to finish. The overall effect of Aguilera's music is therefore massively *generic* on the first disc. Pre-*Renaissance* equals "medieval" here (see what I did?). Everything sounds dated without having any chance of even acquiring some quaint charm decades later. *Who* remembers this album overblown to ridiculous proportions today, really??? Who really feels like they have to go out of their way to point out how important this record is for music history at large??? That's right, nobody--except maybe the 1001 Albums book! Back in 2006, *Back To Basics* had a clear peremption date written in capital letters on its forehead. Once an album cycle was over, it was on to another commercial one. It's simply, utterly risible. Did I mention that this album is also f*cking long? Yeah, I told you there's a second disc earlier, didn't I? And somehow, that second disc manages to be even worse. The supposed intent for this one is to hearken back to a 20s, 30s cabaret / jazz era, yet the result is only a horrid simulacrum--nothing showing true artistic flair in it. That so many people with obvious musical skills and technical abilities could be involved in this record and fail to see how its contents could be so grating and misguided is just mind-boggling. Unless, as I said, they came to collect a check. One last thing: the *title* of this album. It's just hilarious that people in Aguilera's entourage (producers, assistants, label executives, syncophants...) failed to suggest to her how stupid that title was when you consider the *bloated* thing that the final product is. That so many people seemed to have missed such a cruel irony can only trigger snarls and smirks from anyone serious enough about music and how it's supposed to uplift souls through anything other than hypocritical PR plans. *Back To Basics" is not even "basic". It's an overlong, punishing experience that manages to be both dumb AND pretentious. It's a rare combination, and maybe a reason to remember it in 2023. But only as a cautionary tale for pop music. It might be OK to have commercial intents at times. But please, oh please: when your avowed reach exceeds your grasp in such blatant manners, it's maybe time to shift gears and do something else. Or maybe even consider another career. All the money in the world can't buy taste and a little honesty with yourself. *Back To Basics* should mean that first, and everything else later. 1/5 for the purposes of this list, which translates to a 4/10 grade for more general purposes (3 + 1). Next, please. Number of albums left to review: 382 Number of albums from the list I find relevant enough to be mandatory listens: 280 Albums from the list I *might* include in mine later on: 146 Albums from the list I won't include in mine (many others are more essential to me): 198 (including this one)

Back to overproduced autotuned rubbish lol...

I really can’t say that I’m looking forward to this album. I’ve never really been a fan of the diva belting, and the “look at how quickly I can sing loads of notes” type of singing. That said, Christina does have a few bangers (Genie In A Bottle is Great) so maybe it won’t be so bad. Songs I already knew: Ain’t No Other Man, Candyman, Hurt Favourites: Save Me From Myself Unfortunately, this was pretty bad. The first half had me simply bored, but when CD2 started and I heard Nasty Naughty Boy, it made me physically nauseous with how cringy it felt. I usually love cringe, but this was truly awful. There really wasn’t much here for me to remark on as I was just bored. She’s obvious a talented singer, but that’s not really doesn’t make the songs any more interesting. Definitely not a fan of this album.

No sé si escucharlo o no. Solo hay una canción entre las más oídas de Spotify que es Candyman. Venga voy pero empieza mal al estilo de Mariah Carey. No me ha interesado nada.

Kind of a 1

Intolerable. Plus, I fail to see what this album is doing in this forum (but then again, there’s so much of that here, I have to accept I just don’t get it).

horrible..

Terrible. It's as if the world has forgotten that songs are supposed to have a tune. Drum rythmns and expensive production don't make up for the obvious lack of decent songs. She clearly has a great voice, but this might just as well be a recording of vocal exercises.

Objectively, she’s a great singer. But I don’t like the diva style, with the never ending flourishes. And many of the songs are barely songs, with little to no melody, and just serve as vehicles for her singing.

Ook dit zal me echt aan mijn reet roesten. Zo'n hekel aan die greedy songbird

Nope

with two Xtina (remember that?) albums in a week the algorithms gonna think i'm a fan of women singing about being a bit slaggy. AI probably thinks i want to listen to WAP.

@SHACK AKA Andi McCormick LOVES this album. He once posted a picture of his dick on Facebook. Look him up.

Ehhhh, no.