What a fun way to start the next phase of the project, after so much time off! I've vaguely heard of these guys, maybe having heard an album here and there over the years, but I certainly had never listened carefully. And this was just right: kind of a New Order-ish / Smiths-ish / early 80s jaunt into danceable darkness. A clear 4.
After seeing on Wikipedia that a couple of outlets gave this really awful reviews, I kind of wondered what I was getting into. But I didn't need to worry: it comes across as very Wall-era Pink Floyd, with all the ups and downs and emotional roller-coasters as usual. (And yes, I did say out loud at one point, "Can you believe this is the Pink Floyd founder who WASN'T the one who had serious mental problems??") Glad I heard about, since I'd never even heard of it before.
And yes the cover is ridiculous.
Perfectly nice. Probably the best male-driven indie rock can get these days, with some variety and fun mixed with some emotion. Which for me makes it a 3.4, pretty solidly.
Honestly, this slowly moved from 3 to 4 stars for me. The unusually high male singing voice is actually rather sweet, but it's the songs themselves that felt more intense and important as it went on. Perhaps a low 4, but I'm still convinced.
By now I think we all know how 90s electronica usually goes. It's fine but doesn't rise above a 3-something.
At one point I accidentally kept it playing while I left to feed Luna and marinate chicken, and when I got back I had no idea if it was the same song or not, because it's just that bland. That is, it moved from "inoffensively bland" to "I'm starting to feel offended because it's so bland."
A delightful historical record that sounds just like what you want it to sound like: mellow, Southern jazziness (of the kind Squirrel Nut Zippers were following) with danceable moments throughout. A little bit of singing, but I admit I like it best when it's instrumental. Definitely the kind of thing to have on regularly.
I guess it's fine. Kind of muddy sounding. Lots of songs sound the same. Good job for critiquing things that need critiquing, I guess.
Pretty inoffensively ok. I admit, coming the day after that other punk band whose name I can't even remember, I was bummed, but I like this a little more—but that means it's like a 3.1 or something.
Practically unparalleled. No need to say more.
Fun and pleasant: very 90s acoustic Irish folk rock that sounds exactly like you'd expect to hear in the background of a Party of Five episode. Probably a 3.5 but rounding down because I so rarely was shaken into excitement and notice.
Actually pretty remarkable, not what I was expecting. It's not even rapping: melodic, auto-tuned crooning over 80s-inspired, slow keyboard bass lines. Sure, it's too long and too similar, but I still want to return one day.
A little over-ambitious, a little over-produced, but hey! How cool that weird, varied, bizarre, story albums like this are still being made! Good for you, weirdos.
Ridiculous. Couldn't get through more than half of it, skipping around to the songs that have the most Spotify listens. Sometimes I wonder if the world would be better off without albums like this, but that's giving it too much credit. Just silly.
Really delightful—exactly the reason I'm continuing to listen to the user-generated albums, honestly. Perhaps on my first listen I'm not quite hearing the THIS IS THE MASTERPIECE OF THE 90S vibe that Wikipedia's quotes from reviewers say, but I'm also hearing it nearly 30 years later, and I think there's more depth here than I'm quite catching. And really, the variety, and the noisy tracks, are just right. (Is it disrespectful to call it "easier-to-listen-to Sonic Youth"??)
I must just be in a good mood, because even though if you described this to me (kind of Wilco/Spoon-inspired earnest Americana-tinged rock music with occasional keyboard and dual male/female vocalists) I wouldn't have been too excited--but actually hearing it was fun and engaging. Once again, one of the reasons I'm excited for the user albums!
Have to admit that I listened to less than half of this (something I'm letting myself do now, when I'm positive of the score). Never heard anyone in 2009 so earnestly try to sound like 70s hard rock: Aerosmith, Zeppelin, etc. (plus Soundgarden, I guess). They're fine, fine, and they know how to play their instruments and all that (solos are my favorite part). But it's so dreadfully boring.
Sometimes, rarely, you hear the first few notes of a new-to-you album and think, "This one is going to be a 5." That happened here, and it held up. So subtle and beautiful and crafted, like a dark morning.
I admit that when I first saw this pop up, I felt that high-school-era judginess in my heart. That's what this listen today did for me: it helped me actually listen enough to respect this (over-long) album. No, I don't love it, but it's at least a 3.5. It's silly enough that I'll round down, but I'm willing to admit that that might just be me as much as them.
Honestly pretty delightful. Great 2004 indie rock, with male & female vocalists and lots of pretty instruments and dynamic ups and downs.
You know that kind of embarrassed feeling you get at just how silly he sounds in the Mmm Mmm song? The whole album is like that. No way could anyone get away with this at any time in the 90s (though, I admit, just as there are occasional moments of "whoa, surprising lyric!" in Mmm Mmm, there are occasional moments of that throughout, musically or lyrically--just not very many).
Trying to think of the influences here: it's certainly post-Foo Fighters, but also . . . Anberlin?
Dang, a hard one to judge. For most of the album, I was very convinced it was a 3 (if a high 3), so I'll go with that, I think—but I need to acknowledge that it's also like a really good 3 (especially when there is some up and down variety): nice vocals, energetic power, catchiness, and so on. So I think I'm talking myself into rounding this 3.7 up to 4, right? Why not?
Exactly what you'd expect, in the best way. Especially loved a few tracks on Side B, driving home with the window down. I'm a fan.
Look, I respect this a LOT more than a lot of other metal that I don't particularly want to listen to. I'm intrigued by the long songs, the ups and downs, etc. I mean, in college I probably would have heard a song on WPRK and wanted to hear more!
But there's just something about this (nu-metal-inspired?) sound: the fake-sounding drums, the overly perfect singing voice and guitars. It's just so immediately off-putting.
So, it's a 3.4 that would be a 4 if it were rerecorded by Steve Albini or something.
Really, really weird--but dang, I think I like it. Clearly something Matt Gomes needs to hear, but I suspect he already has, since it so clearly influenced his main man, what's his name.
Ok, I liked that far more than I expected to like recent dance-pop-rock with slick production. I liked a couple of them on Spotify, but the next-to-last track "About You" actually moved me in a way that I still feel in my chest. 4.4.
I admit I didn't listen as carefully as I could have (doing work in the office and such), but it strikes me as pretty safe. Never offensive, and often quite sweet and thoughtful, but it's certainly not . . . challenging me in any way. It's "indie rock for when your parents are in the room," it seems.
Rarely has a storytelling album sounded so EARNEST. I mean, it's so earnest it makes me giggle a little bit, with all the 70s grandeur (somehow melding Beatles and Pink Floyd and Queen all at once?) that takes itself so intensely seriously. But it's also silly in its own right, and it successfully manages so many different styles, that it's really hard to imagine going lower than a 4. No, I'm not going to seek it out again soon, but if someone asks for songs about strippers in a 1920s New Orleans jazz style, I now know where to turn.
Started somewhat blah (though I wasn't listening closely enough), but as it went on, I increasingly liked its very 2005 blend of Pinback, Radiohead, and even Saxon Shore?? Deserves more attention, so I'll round up as a reminder.
Kind of remarkably reliant on Purity Ring and Grimes, but I guess it's enough of its own thing to be worth relistening to! (But why do I not LOVE it, when it seems purposefully designed for me to love it?)
Never heard of this band, even though Wikipedia makes them sound pretty big . . . but I have to say that I don't think I was missing anything. Pretty light/tame (even occasionally annoying) mid-90s alternative-lite, like 10,000 Maniacs for the sleepy crowd.
Weird in all the best ways, reminding me at times of KNX. Fun to have on, and I'm glad for the variety. Part of me finds myself holding back emotionally from song fragments, since I keep thinking the artist must have perfected them later, but that just makes me want to hear more of Paul's stuff.
Fun! Energetic in all the right ways! It's probably a 4, but I'm going 3 because a couple hours later, I already don't really remember anything in particular besides a generally positive vibe.
It's really quite good: those wild horns at the end of "Fake Empire," the intense likability of "Mistaken for Strangers," the amazing drumming (and drum sound!) throughout. Why do I want to go 4, then? Let's call it a 4.5 that I'm rounding up today but might not every day.
Honestly, way better than I would have expected from "melodic hardcore" (though the deep praise on the Wikipedia page piqued my interest). Essentially: no, I don't love screaming; but if there's going to be screaming, this is the best way to hear it. Glad I heard it.
Lots of weird variety, which is the only reason I'm giving a 3 to this at-times-actively-annoying album.
Ok, this is far better than I expected. Could totally have it on while cooking for a dance party in the kitchen. Impressed by her voice especially, making me want to look up a Tiny Desk concert to hear it in another context.
Yes, it's too long. Yes, too much of it sounds the same. But DANG what a mood—like being enveloped in the ocean, but it's an ocean of ocean-colored goo that you can breathe through, with distorted, beautiful sounds coming from all directions, and you're not scared but are perfectly safe, and as that person on Reddit wrote, it's December 26 and you don't have any obligations.
What fun! And what's more, it's not JUST fun—like, here and there I was tempted to compare it to that whistling indie band whose CD I got at the library in Winter Park, or the Where the Wild Things Are soundtrack. But it's a little more serious and thoughtful, probably with better instrument-playing, too. Not going to change my life, but worth coming back to.
After reading the GLOWING reviews on Wikipedia, I thought this would be . . . a whole lot better? It's just plain old rock and roll (ok, with some nice keyboards occasionally and an organ solo that grabbed my attention exactly once) with a less-than-mediocre singer, the end, like it's not the 21st century. 2.6.
Does ambient music largely sound kinda the same? Yes. But did this album, heard through headphones, somehow affect my body in strange, powerful, ASMR-ish ways that I can't forget? Also yes. Thus, a weirdly high score for an album like this, sorry/not sorry.
Ahh, this one takes me back to MTV in high school, jotting down her name to look up later at the record store. And she's really that good, with guitar but also production on display here. Complex and rich and begging for me to listen on repeat. Maybe a 4 but it feels like a 5.
Silly and light-hearted and just right, the kind of thing to put on without regret at any party.
Frankly, it's not nearly as bad as I expected. But no, I did not actually listen to every song or every minute of every song I started. Kind of reminds me of that Christian guy who raps about C.S. Lewis, but a bit less interesting and a bit more annoying.
Perfectly fine post-punk rock with a striking (but not particularly excellent) vocalist. Kind of 90s-ish, often. Definition of 3 stars.
Didn't finish. Giving it a two because if it were instrumental, there would be some really interesting guitar playing. But the screaming, sheesh. What a silly way to play music.
Honestly, I almost gave it a 2 after listening to the first 4 songs in the car. His 1989 "I wish I were Rusted Root" voice along with the boring, been-done-before blues-rock stylings didn't float my boat. But finishing later in on the computer while working, it seemed more natural and even kind of nice in a nostalgic-sounding way. Was it me? Did it improve? Who knows.
Couldn't get through most of it. When there's singing (not screaming), it's actually interesting-ish, but those moments are SO RARE. They even tease you with a couple of song intros that are pretty for about 30 seconds....before it falls again into the screaming. No thanks.
Pleasantly surprised by this big, modern, international-sounding, live-recorded jazz album. Always just a little weird, in a good way.
Just remarkably good. A nonstop flow of music that somehow blends Pink Floyd with Peter Gabriel with other things I can't think of right now. Needs to be returned to.
I probably enjoyed this more because I listened in the car, but that's okay. I love how the primary melodic (and even harmonic?) instrument is the bass, with the guitar so often just adding screechy atmosphere and vibes. Not my cup of tea for every day, but when you need this kind of power and energy, I get why it's so well-regarded.
Fascinatingly weird, and clearly something that belongs on this list. Even though, even though as some other reviewers point out . . . it's not really very transformative (just slightly slowed down and maybe "hazed over" versions of actual weather channel-style music). But what elevates it is the 9/11 implied commentary, all these people talking as if it never happened / hadn't happened yet. That's what makes it fascinating and bumps it up for me, even though I only really want cheesy music like this on occasionally/rarely.
Ok, actually pretty good: energetic punk/ska/rock that stays varied and interesting. Not quite enough to pull it up to a 4 for me, though I considered it a couple times.
So I admit I was hoping for more. Wikipedia had so many quotes about an album that is weird, that can't be easily classified, that jumps between genres . . . and yeah, I guess so. But mostly I noticed the whiny voice and lack of melodies?
Better with time, every time, especially as a whole experience. Weirdly, I listened to it while reading news about how fractured our country is / browsing the professor watch list for the first time, and now I'm covered in emotions that I don't know what to do with.
A hard one for me to rate, since it's been around in my head for so long. Ultimately I'm going high because of a few moments of transcendence (including of course Re:Stacks at the end, playing as I write this). But I think it's justifiable because of 1) how weird/unusual/special this kind of low-fi aesthetic sounded on release, and 2) all those little hints that he's not just landing on lo-fi and being done with it, but instead playing with song lengths and structures, adding little glimmers of sound that stay purposefully subtle, and so on.
Pretty good. I like the choir and the energy. Would put it on during a party. But I wasn't . . . moved. Ever.
This one's easy: when it's electronic, when he's actually singing, it reminds me of Further Seems Forever or something like that. (See "Jonny Sniper.") When he screams, it's dumb. He screams a lot, so I skipped a lot.
It's ok—I suppose it's an artist in the mid-70s playing the rock and roll he remembers growing up to, but with more guitar solos? Those guitar solos are really good, but they're just about the only notable part for me.
A ton of fun: early 2000s rap modeled on the coolest stuff from the 90s.
By now, this is such a normal occurrence on this list: I read Wikipedia, feel intrigued by how unique and special and unusual this album is going to be, listen to it, and discover . . . it's only very mildly unique and special and unusual. Plus his voice is a little annoying?
I was really glad to see a Spanish-language album on here, since that's lacking in the main list. But . . . this isn't it. It's mediocre/fine post-punk instrumentals with a really, really annoying singer. Couldn't get through it.
This was one where I went between 4 and 5 in my head the whole time. The lowest moment was the song with the most listens on Spotify, with such a boring, sampled drum sound that it sounded like a Casio. But then that final song (still have chills) got me so riled up (in a good way) that I can't land on the 4. It's remarkably like the National (I'm sure some say too much), but with songs (and strings!) that really stand on their own two feet. Would love to listen to on a road trip.
Ok, yeah, 12-minute songs, I can get behind that! I mean, they didn't all strike me as like REALLY GOOD 12-minute songs or anything, though occasionally I was grabbed, and there's plenty of variety and strength. What I'm saying is that I like it but am not putting it on my to-buy list.
This isn't bad, but it certainly doesn't stand out as excellent in any way that I noticed.
I know my most common praise here has been that an album is "varied," and this one certainly is. But . . . it's too much, right? Occasionally carnival-ironic-cheery, occasionally Sonic Youth / Albini-ish loud 90s guitar-y, and then with a couple of songs that are . . . neo-Pink Floyd? And at least at work with it in the background, it's rarely all that notably affecting.
I see, it's "Carrie and Lowell by someone who isn't Sufjan but who listened to a lot of Carrie and Lowell." That doesn't make it bad, but it draws an awkward comparison between Sufjan's magic and this . . . less magical friend. 3.5, rounding up to be nice.
Honestly a lot better than I expected—probably that part of me that is tethered emotionally to 2003 without even knowing it. Certainly much better than a lot of even-more-boring-than-this alternative rock slop on this list (but still verging on boring at times). 3.4.
A weird, silly album that is strange enough to deserve a spot here, sure. It's like if the Rolling Stones decided to play songs about zombies and vampires and Lucifer. Which, from me, isn't really high praise. (Gave up after 11 of 15 songs.)
I'm honestly SHOCKED that opening song "Waiting for Love" has 1.6 BILLION streams, when it's so, so, so boring. This is the Coldplay of EDM, and we're not the better for it as a society.
It's fine. I don't have the background to judge much beyond that, what makes one dub/reggae album better than another. Glad it's shared here, but it didn't do much for me either way.
I guess I didn't read Wikipedia closely enough, because I was expecting something more psychedelic and Pink Floyd-y—so when this nonstop barrage of rowdy garage rock started, my first impression was negative.
But man, that didn't last long, because this is energetic in and interesting in all the right ways: rhythmic variety, Sonic Youth-y uses of noise, and a gimmick (every song bleeding into the next) that actually works. Would love to return later when I need that energy in my life.
I like that it's weird, sure. And yes, I should know more about 1992 rock, even this kind of post-metal business. But did I skip the last 4 tracks, including "Jizzlobber," absolutely confident that I wasn't going to go above a 3-star rating? Indeed I did.
They seem like good musicians and all, but it really only grabbed me when it sounded most like the Flecktones. Otherwise, kind of an annoyingly big singer over so-so songs played excellently.
I admit I had low hopes after seeing such a silly cover, but dang, this electronic dance music sounds ahead of its time. Well worth a listen.
Perfectly good pop-punk, the kind of thing that I think I would have really enjoyed having on CD in the car in 2003. So it's a 3.5, but I'm having trouble talking myself up to a 4, so I'll round down.
Glad I finally listened to the whole thing. That's all I've got in me for today.
So glad to see this important band and album on the list, but whew, this is Dave at his darkest, most cynical, and it's not always an easy listen. That's his intent, of course, but that doesn't draw me to it.
What fun! Exactly the kind of new-ish jazz I love to discover. Accessible and Phish-like more than once. Yay for instrumental albums.
Sure, it's a prime example of what people think of when they think of 80s synth-driven pop . . . but it's not a prime example of *good* music in that genre. Mostly remarkably ho-hum, with a few nice little danceable moments thrown in.
What an absolute delight of a surprise. I mean, I wasn't even listening to the lyrics and I was moved and surprised over and over again—think what's awaiting me on a relisten? So glad someone put this here.
I kind of suspect that this might be more of a 3-star album, but it's REALLY easy to imagine cranking it up loud when you really need it.
Plus, that final scream: "SNAKES! SNAKES! SNAKES!"
It seems like Hornsby is Very Respected (esp. given all the guests on this album) and is probably a Very Fine Pianist but neither of those change the fact that this is Very Boring.
It was fine?
It's really a masterpiece. So varied, emotional, weird, special, hummable, danceable, and lovely. So glad it's on this list.
Delightful, chill, modern/thoughtful hip-hop from Chicago. What else do you need?
Pretty fun, funky live album, in the vein of Bela Fleck but a bit less in every way. Still glad I had it on!
Long, next-to-last song "Thin Blue Flame" jumped out at me a bit. It was notable for being the first time that anything jumped out at me. Reminds me of some boring white guy singer-songwriter album I would have downloaded for free from Derek Webb's music site like 12 years ago.
Super fun, but it's hard to score. Honestly, for a lot of it, it was just in the background as very 90s electronic-infused Latin background music (with a surprisingly heavy disco revival for a while), rarely grabbing me. I've got the last 3 songs on now, since I had already decided it was a 3.5 that rounded down, and that 3rd-from-last song "Shoshana" is so fun in a legit Latin dance music way that I almost want to go up . . . but no. Glad it's on the list.
Dang, I just love 70s British prog rock. That's all there is to it. Those guitar solos at the end of the final/7th track, but also all of it: whew. Big and important. If I had discovered more of this stuff in high school beyond just Pink Floyd, it would have changed everything for me.
Ah yes, the classic "synthpop album that isn't actually very interesting" experience, we've been here before.
First impression was 2 stars—like, I thought I was getting something like the Killers or Franz Ferdinand, and I was getting weird screaming and lo-fi weirdo rock. But as it went on, I started hearing it as something Dave Jones would have liked in 1997, which helped (except for a lot of the singing, which was always bad). And dang if by the end, I wasn't talked into 4 stars, because of the unusual song structures and variety.
Boring, with nothing to recommend it to a list of this stature. Not offensive or annoying, but it's a 2.8.
Really good (a 4.3), especially when you think of 2002: pre-Postal Service, the era of The Album Leaf and all that as the most electronic you really got in popular indie music. So glad I heard it.
So different from what I expected from Wikipedia! I thought it would literally be 60s-sounding Swedish folk music, but it's so much more produced (and 90s-produced) than that, but in a good way! At times like the Cranberries, at times like Medieval Baebes, at times with electronic-infused enthusiasm, and often so much more upbeat and . . . modern? than I expected. But then this final track, with a haunting rolling thunder sound that I can't even place, with a dirge-like repetitive melody sung over it . . . it's something weirdly special. Cool discovery.
As some others said in the reviews here, this was a really pleasant surprise. Hard to explain; kind of an energetic update of the Flaming Lips with more modern production and better singing? Upbeat, interesting indie rock that is more than just "rock."
There were moments where this was downright unlikeable, but I think it's mostly the voice (or I guess voices) of the lead singer(s). And it's too long and often cheesy (though they know that). But when I stopped thinking about it too much, there were occasionally interesting moments, where I was bobbing my head the way I might to, I don't know, Dave Matthew Band or something. 2.7.
That was fine! Very late 60s/early 70s, which means it was just fine. Fine. It's fine!
Really delightful. More like Low than anything else in my wheelhouse, including the turn to occasional, drony/electronic weirdness. But honestly, it's not as weird as I expected from Wikipedia—just patient and thoughtful, with lots of beautiful male/female harmonies.
Actually better than the average 90s rock albums; something in the production/sound or vocals just instantly brings you back to 1999, in a good way. It's a 3.5, though, with a couple songs noticeably at 4 level and plenty that sound cool but didn't grab me that much.
Weird and chaotic and infectious and not like anything I've ever heard before. More "the sound of the 2020s" than anything else I can think of, in a weirdly representational way. Exactly why I'm doing this listening project.
There are still a couple songs left on the album, and I'll let them finish, but sheesh, he's just such a bad singer that I can't go higher than a 2. I get that it's punk style blah blah blah, but that doesn't make me want to listen. Songs are ok otherwise.
I mean, I get why this is on here: widely considered as important, and with that one song everyone always associates with Ozzy. And honestly, 1980 metal like is so much more palatable than albums later in the decade; this is still making efforts toward variety, interest, even with instrumental and tonal shifts. Still, it's mostly just not for me. A 3.3.
