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.