I really enjoyed this. At first, the vocals were a little too... "french?" But "The Noise of Carpet"... man, that was really something. Totally dug that. The grooves on it and the vocals really grew on me after a while. Quite refreshing.
I am really impressed at Little Simz' skill here. She has a lyrical deftness, a flow and capability I do not regularly hear. The brevity of the album is also a big factor here. A lot of rap albums have so much filler, skits and interludes that just... ugh. It makes it difficult for me to want to come back to the album and do a complete re-listen. Hearing the "n-word" so often I did start to tune it out. It is tough to hear in people's albums nowadays. Definitely a nice change of pace album for me. I really enjoyed this and the showcase of her skill as well as how the MC really compliments her.
Wow. This is... awful. The synth is annoying. The screaming is jarring. I mean, I totally get why this was ground-breaking for 1977, but it is just... annoying. I almost had to stop it at least twice, wondering if I wanted to continue. Yuck.
Wikipedia called this an example of shoegazing music, I think? I'd have to agree, although it was more watchgazing, as in when is this going to be over? It just sounded one long drone to me. I kept thinking "there's more TO this, right?" But nope, nothing else. Very disappointing. I did not loathe it, but it was very boring.
There's something to be said for an album that just seems to be done so care-free, so effortlessly. I know the band and everyone worked hard on this record, but it doesn't sound that way. And that, right there, is true professionalism. Making something challenging look easy. I don't know if I would have appreciated this album as much if I hadn't played an instrument. But wow, this stuff is great. And it's 65 years old, and it doesn't sound it. Great stuff.
I really enjoyed this album. Unexpected gem for me, hit in all the right places. I was a big fan of a lot of the grunge that came out (Pearl am, Nirvana, etc.). I don't know how I missed this group!
I have to say this - never been a big fan of Bryan Ferry's vocals. I'm not sure why they are so off-putting to me, maybe because they are a cross between a crooner and Peter Hammill's. But I have never liked them. The instrumentation is unique, and I liked how the sax blends with the other instruments, but Ferry's vocals just turn me off to the rest. I don't know why, it just does. So 2.5 rounding up to...
Yes, some of Eminem's best material ever is on this. And I can see how people have a problem with the lyrics and what they say. But you cannot deny the skill in which it is performed. Never been a big fan of the little skits in between songs, so I would very rarely play those.
This is is the album that started it all. All of the other Zeppelin songs and albums came from this.
Listened to the album for the first time. Goth-y type of feel, definitely an 80s Cure-ish vibe, but just not for me.
Good solid punk album. The vocals started to grate on me after a while, though. Standout tracks for me: “There Goes Norman” and “Under The Boardwalk.”
The album combines Blur's Brit Pop sensibilities with the grunge sound of Nirvana. At times, it works for me, other times not so much. Obviously a lot of people know this album thanks to "Song 2" but that one is vastly different from the rest of the album.
I really liked the style combination here of Britpop and Liverpool. Very raw, but a couple of the tracks felt too underdeveloped. Did not know “There She Goes” was originally theirs. Of the albums I’ve heard for the first time, this one I’ve liked best.
I was really surprised at how much I enjoyed this album. George Michael's vocals really stood out, and the seriousness in tone worked for all the songs. I had read some critics who scoffed saying he was overdoing it: "oh, look I'm serious now," but I did not get that at all. Of course, there is the Freedom90 song which we have all heard, but the other songs on the album were just as good to me.
Most people think of Janis Joplin as being the high point, but I really liked the guitar on this. I thought the solos worked well. I listened to the bonus tracks and they were definitely... uneven. "Ball and Chain" went on too long, I thought.
Van Halen's albums pretty much range from good to great. (Yes, even the one with Gary Cherone.) 1984 is a good album with some great songs. The problem is that the first few songs are GREAT, and the last three songs are just... okay. There's no consistency. When I mentioned to my wife about the last three songs, she could not name them. Heck, if "Hot For Teacher" was switched up and was the last song on the album, I would say it's a 5-star album. But as it is, it's...
This. Is. GREAT. Big fan of this kind of jazz, had never heard this before.
It was ok, I guess. A lot of the songs started to sound the same after a while. “Jazzie’s Groove” I could not stand. A song or two of this style would be good to hear as a palate cleanser. But a whole album? Pass.
I was initially turned off to this. "Kevin Carter" in particular, just seemed like a wall of noise. But as the album progressed, I warmed to it more and more. I appreciated the album more and more, particularly the title track. Watch the videos for it, I think it gives it more dimension.
I'll have to admit, this is very different from music I normally listen to. It was very refreshing. I don't know if I would put this on and listen to this every day, but I would imagine listening to it every so often; it was very "joyous."
The last two Fridays we have been getting albums I own. That makes it easy… While this is not my favorite Bowie album, it’s quite good. It does have probably my least favorite song on it. Going to go through each track: Station To Station - the opening of this song is so menacing. I heard live versions first, check out the “Stage” version if you haven’t already. Adrian Belew is great in it. 5/5 Golden Years - is it wrong that I think of this like a b-side to “Fame?” It was released afterward and it has that same kind of funk for me. 5/5 Word On A Wing - eh. I always forget about this one, which doesn’t say much about it. 3/5 TVC15 - Ugh. I. HATE. This song. I remember hearing it on Live Aid, the “oh oh oh oh oh” were so grating. Transmission indeed. 0/5 Stay - Ah, NOW we’re cooking. I like the backup vocal in the high register. Very creepy. 4/5 Wild Is The Wind - I always felt this song was like a verse too long. I don’t know why. 4/5 Averaging those that’s right at 3.5. That’s at an ok to good. The one song really drags it down for me.
I enjoyed listening to this. Part I in particular sounded very… lyrical. But I have to be honest, I started to lose focus on it somewhere in to part II. I think if I was there at the concert I would have appreciated it more.
Sparse instrumentation. Protest songs, but nothing has really changed. The pieces here are well done, but not something I am going to come back to again and again. You can only hear “Fast Car” so many times.
I enjoyed it, but I just kept thinking to myself “The Clash and The Ramones did it better.” But I always have that hang up with punk rock. There has to be something in it that’s unique. I did not really find it here. Maybe I need to listen to it again, I dunno….
Yeah, so I kinda get what Tom Waits was going for here. Just doesn't work for me. A couple of the tracks are ok, like "Town With No Cheer." It does remind me a lot of Captain Beefheart, though I do not know if that's a good thing.
Just a fun, funky album. At least one of these songs I’ve played in the Ravens Band. Really refreshing to hear.
“Oh yeah, those guys from that Paul Simon album. Whatever happened to them…?” These guys are great. Always enjoy hearing them. A capella music is always so refreshing to listen to, and this one I know none of the songs. Nice palate cleanser.
Ugh. I…. _HATE_ Lou Reed. So asking me to listen to VU is asking a lot. The song “White Light / White Heat” I know from Bowie. He performed it in concert a bunch of times. I can see where the foundation of punk came from from these songs, but some of them… people talk about prog rock bring pretentious, THIS stuff sounds pretentious to me. That 17-minute piece just meanders. God, it was bad. I’m adding one star for the song “White Light / White Heat” since I always liked it. So that’d be 1.5 stars, round up to…
Never heard of it. OK, seriously, such great staples of rock in this one too. I like this one more than the first, actually. Big step up in sound and experimentation here.
I like the musicality of the band, but I have never been a fan of death growl vocals. So it was really difficult for me to get past that.
Ugh. Well, their first album is markedly better than the second album. I do know “Waiting For The Man.” So there’s the one song, like in the other album. This one… it’s just so sixties. And not in a good way. It’s very dated. And you could feel the Andy Warhol influence all over it. So as opposed to the second album which was like a 1.8 rounded up, this is probably a 2.2 rounded down. I did not hate it as much, but it sounded so incredibly dated and pretentious I can’t imagine coming back to it.
I really dug this. We had watched a documentary on BritPop in the 90s so I had heard of this group but knew nothing about the songs. Some of the songs did start to blur together a bit, but maybe that was just me. Still, very enjoyable.
Hendrix. The master. I have so many of his albums so trying to do this with any criticism is not easy. So, I tried something different and listened to the tracks in the order of the UK release. One complaint I can have with these songs that way is the lack of “Purple Haze,” which is rectified in the US release. The only other one is that the tracks don’t… flow into each other as much as they do on the US release. But that just may be because of how I am used to hearing it. So many of these songs were never done live. By the time he became big, he was not interested in these tracks anymore but that’s what the audience wanted to hear. I wonder how he would have felt about bands playing entire albums live. He probably would have been bored with it.
This was a real winner for me. I don’t know why it resonated with me so much. But the intermingling of the instruments was great. Definitely on the list to pick up.
I don’t think anyone can deny the talent of Björk. She is truly a great singer and obviously has fans and detractors. When this album was released, she basically poo-pooed the concept of the standard guitar/bass/drums rock band as being past it’s prime. I would argue that any instrumentation can get in a rut, but people have to be willing to experiment before one can say “oh it’s all been done before.” So ultimately, what do we have here? It’s pretty much a dance album with one or two other songs thrown in. Kinda reminds me of what Radiohead was shooting for at one point, but more joyous. I’m just not that big of a fan of techno/dance music, so I don’t think I will come back to this. I appreciate it for what it is, and the significance of this album, but… just not for me.
I enjoyed the album for its rawness. A vital piece of music and rock history. The holiday piece at the end was just goofy. Supposedly the band is still active and touring.
Yeah, the music and the grooves are great. Undeniably that this stuff, if you are into Gangster Rap is great. But I just felt... uncomfortable listening to it. There's a scene in Office Space where one of the characters is listening to Gangster Rap blaring out of his car and then a car drives by with black people in the car. This is probably the first album I listened to on headphones, just because I didn't want anyone in the house hearing it. The music itself is really good, but it's all about getting stoned and killing and f**king. No way I am going to listen to this again. I can see how this could be considered a classic. I remember a number of my students having this way back when I first became a teacher, and even years later. It definitely has staying power.
Great stuff. The band was locked in, and everyone really had it together. Hard to believe that it was years ago. Definitely on my list to get.
Listening to this album, I could hear all of his contributions to the CSN & CSNY albums. A lot of the song ideas really can be plucked right into them. (Cowboy Movie = "Ohio," Tamalpais High = "Guinnevere"). Even with the obvious connection, I really enjoyed this. I keep thinking I should get this, but I never got around to it. This just solidifies that plan.
Each song sounds like there is a germ of an idea, but it needs a lot more development to me. It just doesn’t sound that great.
My mother in law is a huge Elvis fan. I guess because of that I find him incredibly… dated. This album did not convince me otherwise. The songs were too “boppy”. A few sounded okay, but it felt really stuck in the 50s.
I was always impressed by the fact that the band, like Queen, used no synths. I think I know every song on this album from type radio, but I do not own the album. That’s how popular it was. Production is stellar, of course.
I like how the music is syncopated. "Weekend" was pretty good. But once you autotune, I'm out. I cannot stand autotune. I know it's on pretty much every song now, but she seems to have a good voice. She doesn't need to sound like everyone else. But with autotune? She does.
Have never listened to Kraftwerk before. I get where they have influenced a number of different acts, and Bowie was so big on them in the 70s. But those first couple of tracks went on WAY too long. They easily could have cut out a minute or two from each. I started to think of it as just pretentious, but I eased up and kind of “got” what they were going for. But those first few should have been trimmed, especially “Hall of Mirrors,” by at least a verse. Yikes.
I dug this, but I wanted the pieces to not flow into each other. It made it difficult to get a sense of what each song truly was. Definitely a bigger step in evolution of electronica from Kraftwerk, but not something I would listen to on a regular basis.
Love Steely Dan. I thought that a few of the songs were a bit short, though. That was kind of surprising to me. But still, I had always enjoyed Aja and a few of their later albums.
I always enjoy Bob Marley’s stuff. Very masterful and a cut up above in reggae. The only real problem is that after him, who is there? Very few other reggae stars you can think of off the top of your head. I have heard most of this in collections or live performances, so it was nice to hear a couple imof tracks I had missed.
I did enjoy this. I never liked the term “math rock,” though. I like the idea of combining odd time signatures with raw energy. It just… went on too long. The album felt like it should have been 40 minutes. But with CDs, everyone was for a while all about releases being more than 45 minutes. Still, I wish the band came out with more stuff. I would have liked to have heard them evolve. So like a 3.6, rounds up to a 4.
About half of this album Is on the Best of Blondie CD I have, and it’s easy to see why. A lot of great tunes here. So I was familiar with the majority of the album. I knew Robert Fripp’s had played on a track, and it wasn’t even a “hit.” Really good stuff, but the filler is indeed filler…
The songs felt very… formulaic. Introduce a theme, beat it to near death. And just when you think it was over… they’ll beat it some more. A lot of the songs were definitely at least a minute or 90 seconds too long. I knew the two big songs from it, and Kalifornia was good, too. But man, use the edit button, there, FS.
I like Genesis. A lot. But they have never had an album for me that is solid throughout. Here, the last song kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth. A lot of the songs I heard the live “Seconds Out” version before. So they always hold up, except “Firth of Fifth.” What a masterpiece. “Cinema Show:” the studio version can’t compare to hearing Collins and Bruford going all out. So yeah, this is a good one, but not a GREAT one.
I've always liked Dire Straits, I wish I had a chance to see them perform when they came out in the early 90s. Their first album is not my favorite, but it definitely has some great stuff here, and not just "Sultans Of Swing." Listening to this album made me go listen to their other stuff, which is really what an album wants you to do: make you hunger for more. I want to hear more of the guitar, but there's a lot of it talking in spurts, more soloing please. It's more apparent in my favorite album "Love Over Gold." Still, I'd give it a 3.6, which does round up to a 4. But it's a weak 4, at best.
A comment on this album on YouTube was that this could be a greatest hits album. Boy, are they spot on. That one-two-three of the first three songs on it, man! I’ll be honest, I was not a big fan of The Cars. Mostly because of “Drive.” (So overplayed when I was a teenager.). But this first album is really good. They really have the songs down. Very concise and well-written.
Wikipedia called this an example of shoegazing music, I think? I'd have to agree, although it was more watchgazing, as in when is this going to be over? It just sounded one long drone to me. I kept thinking "there's more TO this, right?" But nope, nothing else. Very disappointing. I did not loathe it, but it was very boring.
I really enjoyed this. At first, the vocals were a little too... "french?" But "The Noise of Carpet"... man, that was really something. Totally dug that. The grooves on it and the vocals really grew on me after a while. Quite refreshing.
True story: I actually own this album. I found it in a book store for $1. I picked it up because: 1) It was $1. What had I got to lose? 2) Wu-tang is for the children. So yeah, it’s not something I regularly blast through the house, but they definitely made a statement here. Great flow, beats it’s all gear. Quintessential Wu-tang.
It's weird how we get one album soon after another from bands... Besides the hits, I keep forgetting that "Dirty Work" was also theirs, thanks to David Palmer. "Kings" sounds very much like a Steve Howe guitar solo to me, which was interesting. I liked this album a lot more than the previous Steely Dan album we have heard. I still think there is a better album which, from what I see on the list, we will come to. But the album tracks I liked almost as much as the "hits," so I think that that is something.
I had never heard of this group before. I enjoyed the groove, but it felt very… basic and dated in comparison to what I have heard out there now. It’s not really fair to put it that way, though. But De La Soul’s work doesn’t have that archaic sense to it. It all feels pretty timeless. This feels more like them trying stuff out.
Foo Fighters has always been a band where I have liked their "hits," but the album tracks have not really "hit" me. "Rope," from "Wasting Light", is a great example of this. So the 4 or 5 hits off of their first album are great, the "wheat," but the "chaff," the b-sides and the album tracks, are... well, there's a reason why they are not hits. I probably should stick to their "hits," I guess. But their "hits" are really damn good. The Nirvana influence is really worn close to the vest here, but Grohl as a musician has evolved a lot. But this really started him off.
Always been a big fan of Neil Young. This has a lot of great works on it. "For The Turnstiles" is always a good piece for me. Not a real clunker for me, although Vampire Blues" does drag on a bit. Still, great album from him, top-notch.
The album comes off really strong. Really liked the first half. Second half… the instrumentals were good, but I wanted to hear them more in a complete song. Still, this was a pleasant surprise, I really liked this guy.
The vocalist sounds a LOT like Pat Dinizio of The Smithereens (that's not a bad thing). It's too bad most people think of the "Mrs. Robinson" cover; these songs are catchy. But that just might be the vocals for me.
I only know a bit of EC's work. But what I do know I like. I guess this is as good as place as any to start. The whole DIY / punk feel to the songs really makes it POP. Really digging it.
It's interesting to see where Jerry Harrison came from before Talking Heads. But the singing here (or lack thereof) was dreadful. The lyrics didn't bother me, although it's interesting that the songs had lyrics that were more risque. I mean, it was 1972. "Saturday In The Park" kind of lyrics and here we have someone saying the word "a**hole" in a song. Quite a wide range. But Richman's vocals were so terrible they just pulled me out of enjoying the songs. Maybe a 1.6 so rounding up...
I thought it was good, but a little too "dreamy." I don't know if it is something I would ever come back to, but I get the appeal, I think. The tone and feel is sparse, but I get what they're going for.
Ugh. I. _HATE_ Bon Jovi. Damn you, rabbithole, for making me listen to this. As some of us are from NJ, and grew up during the Bon Jovi hysteria, you could not avoid Bon Jovi, he was everywhere. And listening to this album made me remember why I hated him. The lyrics are so insipid (although not as bad "only time will tell if we stand the test of time," BUT THEY COME CLOSE!!). Every cliche is in the lyrics and it makes me cringe. And the music? It's a blueprint for every 80s and early 90s "hair-metal" band would do. It's all there, the rockers, one or two songs to pull out the lighters. Gah. Nothing special to these songs at all. The production is skilled, but the keyboards, drums, nothing spectacular AT ALL. What they do here they do well, so they are lucky to get two stars.
Hard to believe that this album is 20 years old. I have "The Blueprint 3" because of "Empire State Of Mind," and a fe other tracks. It's funny because I mentioned Jay-Z and my kid was like "I don't know who he is." Kind of surprising, but he's a rock guy. Anyway, the flow here is a BEAST. And then putting Eminem in the one song, godDAMN. This is a great album, 20 years on. There's a reason he made 2 sequels to it. Hard for me to blast this in the house, though. The language does make it difficult.
This was… unique. I don’t think I have heard anything like this. The singer first reminded me of Mike Patton, but then he seemed closer to Scott Weiland. It grew on me a lot. Songs like “Charge” and “The Frog Princess “ I really enjoyed. Definitely something I am looking more into.
There's something to be said for an album that just seems to be done so care-free, so effortlessly. I know the band and everyone worked hard on this record, but it doesn't sound that way. And that, right there, is true professionalism. Making something challenging look easy. I don't know if I would have appreciated this album as much if I hadn't played an instrument. But wow, this stuff is great. And it's 65 years old, and it doesn't sound it. Great stuff.
The Mrs. is a big Fogerty fan, so I am pretty familiar with CCR. Although I think “Keep On Chooglin’ “ and “Graveyard Train” go on a bit long. I imagine stretching them out live must have been fanTASTic to witness. Definitive statement from the band.
I have heard a few Megadeth songs, but not many. Fun fact: Marty Friedman (guitarist) went to high school here in Laurel, MD. Mustaine’s vocals… take a bit to get used to. But the musicianship is clearly there. You can clearly see the line of evolution from Metallica to Megadeth.
Nice to hear Steely Dan again. I like this album better, the songs are a bit longer, seem to be more developed. Bodhisattva Vow is one of my favorite non-radio hits of theirs, so I will always give this a high ranking. I should just break down and get all of their stuff.
We all know the "hit". I played it for the Mrs. and she said "Oh, I liked her better in No Doubt." Me: "That's not Gwen Stefani." Which tells you either the generic-ness of this song or how little my wife can tell about singers. I am going to go with column A. Anyway, the songs grew on me after a while "Choke" to close out the album was really quite good. Definitely better than I was expecting, considering the "hit". I'd probably give this a 3.6, rounding up to...
I not a big fan of the Stones. I think growing up I got in my mind I had to choose between the Stones or the Beatles, and I chose the Beatles. But as I grew up, I began to appreciate them more and more. This album has a few well-known pieces to it, but I really encourage you to watch the youtube version. The lyric videos are really cool. "Sympathy For The Devil" has one of my favorite lyrics of all time: "I shouted out who killed the Kennedys, when after all it was you and me." So even with me not being into the Stones, this ws still real good. The slide guitar in "No Expectations" was ok, and little things bothered me, but it's really on the edge of being a 5-star for me.
Wow, this was just... amazing. Really hit that jazz craving I need every so often. Reading the background of the album was essential to this as well. Definitely going to seek out more of his work.
This is pure energy. John Lydon once sang "Anger is an energy," and this is proof of it right here. Hard to believe this is over 20 years old, and so little has changed. I did not buy this album when it was first released, but when I did WOW. Just an amazing piece of work telling the Man to go f**k himself. It's a hard one to listen to when my kid is in the car, I'll tell you that. But it is an important piece of musical history, and definitely worth all 5 stars.
We have an Elton John box set from 1990. I was surprised how many tracks are from this album, how many tracks I know so well. But then again, I shouldn't be; this is probably his best album, by far. So many of his other albums have great stuff on it too, though. Driving into work, there was at least two or three songs that had that 70s reverb and drum sound. You don't hear that on many albums and think that it doesn't sound dated. It fits in well with the music, and does NOT sound permanently lodged in the 70s. Not, almost FIFTY years later, we can listen to it and marvel in it. Perhaps if it was recorded now some of the songs would have a slightly different tinge or quality to it, but I doubt by much.
I have the first Buffalo Springfield album, and besides from the song "From What It's Worth," everything else sounds incredibly... dated. This is how I felt listening to Moby Grape. Every song sounded very dated, so old that it just does not break through the era it was made in. I imagine that's what's going to happen to a lot of the music that I knew growing up, when people who didn't live during the 70s and 80s hear it for the first time. Whereas for me it still fits into my head. So as good as the performances were, I doubt I would come back to it.
I am really impressed at Little Simz' skill here. She has a lyrical deftness, a flow and capability I do not regularly hear. The brevity of the album is also a big factor here. A lot of rap albums have so much filler, skits and interludes that just... ugh. It makes it difficult for me to want to come back to the album and do a complete re-listen. Hearing the "n-word" so often I did start to tune it out. It is tough to hear in people's albums nowadays. Definitely a nice change of pace album for me. I really enjoyed this and the showcase of her skill as well as how the MC really compliments her.
I was really surprised by this one. It reminded me a bit like Radiohead, probably around the Kid A / Amnesiac period. Very space rock-y. Although the vocals felt a bit generic (stronger, more forceful than Yorke's). I liked how the album opened, the intro really made a great statement. Their interpretation of "Moonchild" was... interesting. Not sure if I would keep coming back to that song, but at least they credited King Crimson.
Ahhh, that hit the spot. Some great latino-jazz here. It's sad that ten years ago people would have only thought of Tito Puente from the Simpsons, and now people don't even remember that. But wow, this band is tight. Definitely have to pick up both Volumes 1 AND 2.
OK, this is going to sound really bad. But I thought Sufjan Stevens was the lead singer from System Of A Down. Oops. Definitely not. Yeah, so this isn't bad. But it is a bit.... different. It's a bit noodle-y in places. Experimental music has (to me) sometimes the feel of pretentiousness. "Look, I can put together anything and package it and people will buy it." I get the point of the concept album, and maybe if I was from the midwest I could appreciate it more. As it is, it just didn't hit me like I was expecting. Not something I will revisit.
Wow. This is... awful. The synth is annoying. The screaming is jarring. I mean, I totally get why this was ground-breaking for 1977, but it is just... annoying. I almost had to stop it at least twice, wondering if I wanted to continue. Yuck.
Although I tend to group Fats Domino with other blues players, I found this a lot simpler than other albums by blues players that I've heard. Simple is not necessarily a bad thing, but here I was expecting a bit more from him. I respect Fats Domino because he broke so much ground as a rock and roll artist. I might put this on again, maybe as background music. It's just not hitting me emotionally.
The songs do tend to blur together on this, but that's how I always feel about techno. Eminem said it best: "Nobody listens to techno!" I like the groove, it's good background music. But there's nothing here that stood out.
That first side, man. Just floors you. Three of the greatest metal songs ever. Then there's the Planet Caravan song. Yikes. It reminds me of the Spinal Tap song, "Clam Caravan." I'm sure that that was what they were going for, but it just seems out of place here. Everything else fits really well. I remember getting this CD a few years back at Best Buy (remember when they had CDs, kids?). It was in a $5 bin. Only five dollars?! Sold. This defined the genre. Pretty much all of metal has taken from this album (except for "Planet Caravan", maybe...) The one song being a clunker, I am still going to rate this pretty high. How can you not?
Yeah, I was not really big into this style: New Order, The Cure, Joy Division... I do like a lot of punk. A good deal of it. This is not the kind I enjoy it. It's very flat for me,I don't know. It just doesn't hit me emotionally. I mean, it's well-crafted, but just... not for me.
I have only listened to "Duality" by these guys. No doubt they definitely have a LOT of musicality, particularly in the drums. This album solidifies it for me. But the amount of screaming and energy is... almost too much. I would have liked to have heard more guitar, solos and such. Have it brought more to the foreground, you know? I listened to the anniversary edition, which had some of their demos on it. Those are just a primal scream more than anything else. So the album itself is probably a 3.5 for me.
Really enjoyed this. It hit that punk/pop craving I was having. Going to have to pick up more if their stuff. Reminds a lot of the Clash, but more fun. I was hooked with the first track.
I had forgotten how many of these songs I had heard before. My sister was big into Prince for a while, so I imagine she played this tape in our room. I never really got into it at the time, but I should have appreciated his musicianship. I mean... WOW. The first three tracks are definite hits that were played over and over on the radio, but the others are just as solid. Truly a talent, gone too soon.
I have always been a big fan of B.B. King. His live albums are the best, studio albums seem too sterile for him... you have to be able to let Lucille out to play. It's strange, Spotify has a different track listing than on wikipedia or youtube. So I've listened to it a couple of times now. The difference between this and Fats Domino.... it seems so much rawer here. This is pure, unadulterated blues. This is where so many rock and rollers started. Or they should.
I have heard "Music From The Big Pink" and "The Last Waltz" a few times, so I am pretty familiar with the Band. The vocals always grated on me a bit. I'm not sure which singer it is, but he always sounds overly whiny. I know I should let that go. I mean, if I like Neil Young and Ian Anderson's vocals, this guy should be up my alley. But there's no forcefulness there. Then there's some of the songs... "Jemima Dancer" and "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" are definitely problematic (God, I hate that word.) songs today. At least "The Night" is a better song. "JD" is not that good to begin with. It's a good first effort by the group, but they definitely went up from here in their later efforts. They are NOT a group I have to get every 50th anniversary super deluxe edition set for, but a good comprehensive set would be good for me. I'd give this a good 3.7, minus "Jemima Dancer" (wow, what were they thinking?"
I don't know, there was nothing here that really stood out. With a name like \"Massive Attack,\" I was expecting something... harder. Something that was bigger, more MASSIVE. Instead it just seemed very... minor. There was a live track at the end of them covering \"Light My Fire,\" and it was very much how I felt about the album. It was... just unimpressive.
I only knew Jeff Buckley because I had heard his cover of "Back In NYC," which was not very good. People had been touting "Grace" for a long time. I was surprised by how much I liked the album. It was a lot better than I expected it to be. The singing and instrumentation worked a lot. More than I was expecting. The "Hallelujah," unfortunately, has been done to death. But even with that, the rest was surprisingly good. I did go back to listen to his cover of "Back In NYC." I still did not like it, but not as much as the first time. I appreciate it for what it is, but it's not something I have to have.
Flash in the pan. One-shot album, never heard from again. Seriously, I remember when this came out. I was in college and I gravitated towards it pretty quickly. You could not unhear this album; it was everywhere. Even the non-single, album tracks were played ALL the time. I tend to think of the album as overplayed, but every track on there (even Jeremy) is solid. It was their second album that solidified it for me “Go” is just a great opener. But this is where it all started.
I've had this album for a while and I really enjoy it. Definitely a jazz staple. Everyone knows the one song, but I realized I knew at least one other song, thanks to ELP. At first the songs feel a little... clinical, but once I got into it it was great. Probably Blue Rondo is my favorite of the whole 7. Really it's hard to believe that the band can have such different moods, but they really do get there. A definite must for any jazz fan.
So, it's funny we listened to this after the Brubeck album. Whereas the Brubeck album seems very clean and prepared, this is very experimental and out there. I know that's what Mingus was going for, but that last track, man... wow. It is definitely something I was not prepared for. I heard a lot of interesting things which, I think, with a number of listens, will go into something rewarding. But on the first listen or two, I can see people saying "what is this?" It reminded me a bit of early Zappa, very free-flowing. I liked what was there, but it's definitely not "safe" jazz. This is some dangerous, out there material. Definitely something that you have to listen to a few times to "get."
We had recently watched "Last Night In Soho" (great film, highly recommended). You can tell Edgar Wright is very particular about the music for his movies. Anyway, Dusty Springfield was on the soundtrack, along with a number of singers from the 60s whom I did not know at all. Yet they were HUGELY popular. I mean, Dusty Springfield had numerous hits. Nancy Sinatra is another one. HUGE in the 60s and early 70s, and then POOF, just gone. I didn't think that this album captured her vocal capabilities as well as it could. Supposedly that would be for "Dusty In Memphis". Also, a couple of the songs were better performed by the original artists, and her singing sounded very... white to me. Not as authentic as the real deal. So yes, I am giving this 3 stars, I think that other albums of hers are better.
I seem to remember hearing Babylon a few times. The album feels like one of those 90s singer / songwriter guys, like Jason Mraz or John Mayer. Listenable, but not memorable. Having said that, the last song on this album was WAY too long. I was expecting it to be like Phil Collins "We Said Hello Goodbye," and it went on for EIGHT MINUTES. OH MY GOD say GOODBYE already!
Every song was easily a minute or two too long. I have a lot of drum n' bass, but the songs either need to ba shortened or another theme needs to be put in there. They were getting tedious. I appreciated him for what he was trying to do, but... man.
I never disliked Disco. My biggest problem with disco was that every "hit" sounded the same. This, however, is different. Credit here definitely goes to Nile Rodgers and the bassist. They really put an emphasis on the music. The instrumentation for each sound is lush, the guitar solo for Savoir Faire was really great. The "hit" actually sounds overdone. The other pieces sound (to me) better. Really enjoyed it.
There's a very obvious Jerry Garcia influence to a number of songs here (not that there's anything wrong with that...). As the album progressed, the songs started to widen open in variety, which I appreciated. The band's appreciation for other bands (The Faces on the last track) really started to come out. I had heard of Wilco, but never really heard their stuff. Definitely refreshing.
The album reminded me a lot of early Jane’s Addiction, but much more punk. I know Nirvana used their producer for “In Utero.” You can really feel how raw the band is. I never realized listened to the Pixies, but I respect their influence on many bands I enjoy now. I did feel a couple of songs were a little “jokey,” but one can skip over those. (I’m looking at you, “Tony’s Theme!”) A joke song or two is ok, but you don’t want to overdo that. All in all, I liked what I heard. May have to do more listening of their work.
This one was difficult to do. How do you separate the art from the artist? Knowing how terrible of a person Marilyn Manson seems to be, it was very difficult to listen to this and be like "yeah, it's pretty good, BUT..." The unadulterated rage and anger built up in this album, you can really feel it. It's directed at the right people, the hypocrisy at the world, religion, society, etc. And yet we still have the man who created it, which makes this so much more difficult to deal with. I would have liked this more from someone else. Knowing more about the musician makes the songs more difficult. Knowing more about the actors certainly makes movies difficult for me, even if they are classics. But I am still giving this 4 stars, I liked it a lot, nut I have a LOT of misgivings with it. It was well-done, well-produced. There was at least one song that sounded a LOT like Nine Inch Nails to me.
Awesome beats for Missy to rap underneath. When she is going with her low vice, I felt she was really in command of the song. "Gossip Folks" was a bit annoying, though. The frantic-ness of her voice did not mesh well (I am a big fan of Ludacris, so that was kind of disappointing.) I liked the guest vocalist, they really added something to it. I am never a fan of interstitial stuff, so the outro / intro stuff in songs I could do without. It's hard to believe that she has been recording for so long, and Aaliyah has been gone for so long as well. After this I listened to her big hit, and it still really grooves (although the baby sample does get annoying after a while). So I enjoyed the Missy Elliot album, as long as she was using her speaking voice. But I do not think I will be coming back to it.
It's so weird to listen to something that's only 20 minutes long and say, "sure, that's an album." I have SONGS that are longer than this thing. Thinking about the previous review, things have come out about Marilyn Manson and his behaviour. And yet, if JLL was performing and behaving like this today, he would be shunned. Sure, things have changed, but it's weird to think about now. But what about the MUSIC, right? An incendiary performance, bar none. He was definitely in top form. It's so weird now to think of how he was such a different performer; few artists were rocking on the piano at the time. The sound quality itself should also factor into this. Hard to believe the recording is over 45 years old; I have heard bootlegs from the past 10 years of equal quality. Definitely a good listen, although I do not know if it's essential. It definitely gives you a good idea of the man playing live.
I have heard of these folks, but I have not really liked the albums I have heard. This was a step up from the albums I have heard, fortunately. This punk album was okay, but every song was under 2 minutes with no bridge or chorus. The songs seemed very underdeveloped. Don't get me wrong, songs don't have to be long to be good. But these just seemed like germs of ideas, as if they had a riff but nothing else. The Clash had riffs. And they turned them into songs. There were verses and bridges and all the things a song needs to have, and some of them were pretty short, too. These just seem like... half-baked ideas.
If you haven’t seen it, watch the Pharcyde’s video to “Drop”. That’s pretty amazing. As for this album, I liked the style and their flow was great. I just… I can’t listen to any track on this and feel comfortable. Is that wrong? There are rap albums I will listen to on my own, and some I will listen to with my 13-year old. But this… I feel dirty listening to it. 2 Live Crew is different. They’re going for shock. This is an emphasis on sex, and weed and the n-word that I cannot follow. Maybe I would have enjoyed this when I was younger, but the 50- year old says differently.
I have never heard any of Oldfield's stuff before. I am familiar with the riff from Tubular Bells, as any prog-head should. When I first sat down to listen to this, I hit play, and then I looked at the length. I did not realize this was going to be one of those "Thick As A Brick" type of affairs. Worse yet, there's no real lyrics on the album. It gets very... meander-y. The worst part of it was when he was naming the parts that came in. I wonder if that is what non-prog fans think of some of progressive rock music. I was impressed by his musicality, but as a whole I don't imagine me listening to this again.
I am a big fan of Doug Wimbish, so naturally I was looking forward to finally hearing his bass in this. It's nice to finally get the context of the other songs besides the famous song "The Message". Yeah, some of the songs are a bit dated, but they still work. The album is 40 years old, and it definitely feels it. It's not one that transgresses its years. The synths I think really hold it back, really. Still, it's a good album, one I will come back to (except them meeting Stevie Wonder, that seems kinda stalker-ish...)
Never heard of these guys. Seriously, the biggest problem with the Metallica album is that the good songs are never played and the great songs have been overplayed. To death. I have friends who are metal fans and if they never hear "Enter Sandman" or "Nothing Else Matters" again for the rest of their lives they would be ECSTATIC. Other songs are really, really good and you don't hear them very often anymore. My personal favorite is "Wherever I May Roam." The intro is so different from anything else the band had done before. Never in a million years would you have expected a progression from "Master of Puppets" to this. I liken "And Justice For All" like so many other progressive rock bands who went too far over the edge, a very divisive album, but then the band stepped back and tried something else. Some regained their fans (Yes, Genesis) others never really recovered (ELP). I picked up the 30th anniversary edition of the Black album (not the boxed set, that's overkill) and the lesser known tracks sound just as good (except "Through The Never", sounds kinda lurch-y. It feels like they aren't very sure about that one.) It's not my favorite album of theirs, but you cannot deny what they accomplished with it. My favorite quote about this album comes from Jason Newsted: "People said we sold out for this album. Yes, we did... every seat in every stadium." So I give this 4 stars, it's a really good, solid album, but it still isn't up there for me of their best (Master of Puppets, a quintessential metal album.).
I liked this album, but it did feel kind of same-y after a while. I considered the lyrics in a different language as another instrument, which was pretty good. It just didn't move me as much as I was expecting to, as I had heard some of Milton N's work before. Mostly just the acoustic guitar work. *shrug*
I think I mentioned this before, we watched a Britpop documentary a while back, it was quite interesting to hear more about Oasis. I only really knew this album. Still, the Beatles influence is overwhelming. It’s too bad the Gallagher brothers hate each other so. I would have liked to have heard their sound evolve. I think what they had was something that cannot be easily duplicated, and between brothers like that? Impossible. But Oasis sure gave it a try. I like this album a good deal, but I never get a chance to listen to the whole thing. It feels very slick, but we’ll-produced (that’s the 90s for you.) Really recommended.
Ska is always a bit iffy for me. It gets real hard to break free from that style. Fishbone was able to break free from it in the 90s, but that seems to be an exception. This album reminded me a lot of that problem: the guitar playing on the offbeat, which I wind up focusing on WAY too much. A lot of political statements as well. So what do we have here? I mean, the music itself is pretty good, I tended to get into the music more as the album progressed. But near the end I just started to lose interest. I mean, it was okay and I liked the instrumentation. But I guess I was hoping for more than I got.
Randy Newman is an amazing songwriter. I was really looking forward to the album. Then that first song came on. And I was like "wait, did he just say what I _HEARD_ him say?" I had to go look up the song and understand the context. I mean "Rednecks," right? Obviously, a song like this would have been different now. Heck, I remember when "Cop Killer" came out by Body Count (remember that pleasant little ditty?). It was not supposed to be singing about killing police, but playing a role. Same kind of thing here for that first track. It's not Newman is singing about being a redneck, but roleplaying. Still it's hard to wrap my head around. And I know it would not have been received so well in today's society. The other songs are classic Randy Newman. It's just that first song will make you pause without context, you know? Still going to give it 5 starts, but yikes.
A nice holiday surprise. Before, you know, he was in jail. The problem is, about half of the songs are difficult to tell who is singing. If you locked me in a room and played the Ronettes and then the Crystals, I would be hard-pressed to tell you who is who. The production doesn’t help, that wall of sound makes them sound identical. Of course, hearing Spector speak at the end is unintentionally creepy. It was a nice little album. Weird trivia: released on the day JFK was killed. I mean, it’s not like it was PLANNED. First printings are pretty rare, too. I like holiday music, but it always seems so… limited. There feels like there’s maybe about 100 songs, and they have to sound a specific way. So yeah, this was nice to hear, but I doubt I will come back to it.
There's something wrong about listening to this album on your phone, or your computer. You need to hear it on a record, or a dubbed tape on a crappy tape player. The Ramones should not be remastered for quality sound. My first encounter with the Ramones was when I was 15 or 16. My sister had two songs of theirs on a mixtape: "Blitzkrieg Bop" and "Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue." The second song made me pause because I wasn't sure if this band was a serious band or not. Even if they weren't, I still liked them. My kid came in and said "Is that the Ramones?" "Yeah," I said. "Every song of theirs sounds the same," he protested. "Not really," I countered. "Once you listen to the album, you start to notice the differences between the songs. Yeah, the songs are all at about 160 beats per minute. But you can still tell." Every song on this album has been covered by someone. I think that tells you something about the album in and of itself. I like this album a lot, but I can see how non-punk fans (like my kid) could be standoffish to it. It is pure energy (Almost every song you can hear the "1-2-3-4!" in the beginning.) and not much else. I understand how progfans can be towards punk (lack of talent and intricacy), but you cannot deny what the Ramones did and how this album really started it all. It is a great album. I did start to listen to the 40th anniversary edition, and it does get a bit repetitive. So steer clear of that one. The Blitzkrieg Bop single version has some weird reverb on it. Never heard it like that before.
I am impressed that Manu Chao sings in so many languages. I could do English and maybe… Pig Latin? (Okay, maybe a bit of Spanish if I was pressed.) I did not find his vocal range to be very impressive. I was hoping for more there. I did like how each song flowed into each other, which was different. The brevity of the songs was also good, not hanging on one riff too long. Least favorite track was Welcome to Tijuana. That got annoying really quickly. The instrumentation seemed pretty sparse, I was hoping for more. I just don’t see why THIS is in the top 1001.
I had heard them way back on SNL when they were on, and I do remember them because the last song led into a concert they did afterwards. The first time I listened to this, I was a bit turned off. Didn't like the vocalist, a little warbly. He reminded me a bit of Mark Coyne from The Flaming Lips. The drums were too simple, which bothered me. I did give it a second listen, and warmed up to it more. I found myself enjoying it, but I am still not a fan of the vocalist. And the drums do need work.
I only know Siouxsie & The Banshees from a few songs ("Happy House"). This is definitely NOT that. I get the experimentation and where this influenced so many other punk bands, but like "Suicide" I can't imagine me listening to this very often. I had to totally pause when "Helter Skelter" came on because I just wasn't sure what that was. It's never good when a song is totally unrecognizable.
The argument I have seen online is that the blues has a limited vocabulary. Yes, the blues can be somewhat... limited. But performed by a master, like Waters, the blues will always sound like a lot more. Hard to believe that this is from 60 years ago. The recording sounds pretty good for that long ago. I would have liked a bigger instrumentation, but it's live. So... what can you expect? Amazing guitar work by Muddy Waters here. Without stuff by him, most rock would have not existed.
I knew the one song by ELO, so there was a start. Jeff Lynne one said that he wanted ELO to be like where the Beatles would have gone next. I don't know if I follow that conclusion. I mean, if they continued on the path of Abbey Road, sure. But the Beatles were more than that. They also did "Let It Be," as we have seen from the recent documentary. They were willing to try different things. Anyway, the album itself is pretty good. I liked the concept album approach, although some of the songs did start to sound a little same-y. (Also there's this effect they used in "The Whale" that I first heard on Zappa's album "Sheik Yerbouti" so I associate it only with him, it's rather jarring to hear it somewhere else). I dug it for what it was, but it seemed a little out there? I think it's something I need to listen to again, because it feels like something I just did not "get."
When I was a kid, I HATED country music. Country music was my parents' music. You know what happens when you play country music backwards? Your wife comes back to you, your dog comes back to life and your truck miraculously gets fixed. My parents listened to country music of the time, in particular the group Alabama. But I remember hearing Willie Nelson on the radio, in particular "You Were Always On My Mind." I got back into Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash recently. Particularly with Cash being revitalized with producer Rick Rubin. Willie Nelson's cover of "The Scientist" is what made me want to look into his work. So the point is I had listened to this album before. It's a great album for Nelson, it complements his voice very well. Definitely well-done and great production.
The bassist / guitarist John Wilson is aMAZing. I will give them that... I like bits here and there, but this whole album reminds me a lot of that Friends episode where Ross pulls out his synthesizer and plays his music for everyone. It's just... very noodle-y.
It was a little too folksy for me. I don't know if I would combine psychedelia and folk for a full album like that. I mean, one song is refreshing, but geez. By the end, it was just too much. I enjoy folk music a good deal, but I always get a sense of variety within the songs. These just feel very flat with not a lot of energy to them. I guess you had to be there? And then there's "A Very Cellular Song." It's an ode to mitosis? REALLY? Okay... Sorry, I just can't take this seriously.
I was surprised by a few things on this album: 1) How many of these songs I knew that other artists covered. 2) How many of them Prima put the accents on very different spots in the songs. It was a little jarring, but definitely intriguing. This was not a surprise, as I already liked Prima's work. I was surprised at how the album was considered so... eclectic in some ways. The mix is very appealing. Definitely something I will revisit.
I never got big into Duran Duran when I was growing up. I will give them big props, their sound is very 80s but it's definitely good at what it does. I was very impressed with the non hits of this one for the most part. They were all very solid... except for the Chauffeur. Yikes. Not sure what they were going for there, but that was a real bad song to end the album with. "Save A Prayer," THAT is an album closer. The Chauffeur felt like a b-side to me. It was a real filler. Kind of left a bad taste in my mouth about the whole album. So I did enjoy it (on the strength of the hit songs I did know), but not as much as I had hoped and I blame that a lot on that last song. It's not very to do that, I guess, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
I'm a big fan of Tracy Bonham. So a lot of times I would get PJ Harvey as a recommendation. Not as similar as I would think. I will say I'm glad to have listened to this multiple times. The first listen I was not liking this, but a second more active listening I began to like this a lot more. I got into it a good deal, digging the time signatures and how the songs came together. Gonna give this a strong 3.
The majority of this album is on their greatest hits, Volume 2. I remember when I was in high school listening to Greatest Hits Volume 1 & 2 over and over again. I grew out of the Eagles. Part of it is that the only song the play on the radio is "Hotel California," which grew tedious. And then they were having a farewell tour, but then changed their minds. They could have gone out in a big finale, but decided "nah, let's not do that." That bugs me still. The few songs not on their greatest hits are also good, although I do not like how "Pretty Maids All In A Row" fades out. It's like Walsh couldn't figure out how to end the song. And Joe Walsh was the secret weapon for that band in this album, man. He was just... awesome. I don't think I would revisit the album, but it was nice to come back to once again.
There's a reason this album is so solidly regarded. Most of the songs on this album show up on later Wings retrospectives. Up until this point, Paul's solo works had not done well, but this has so many great things going. McCartney definitely needs that foil to write off of (in this case, Ronnie Laine). His own solo albums never really strike me as much as these. Perhaps that's why I like the solo album he did with Elvis Costello so much. The title track... I used to love this track a lot more, but there's something about it that bothers me now, maybe that it just sounds like a lot of riffs strung together before we get to the main chorus. I mean, they did that on "Abbey Road" with a bunch of short songs. Still, even those small pieces are so damn catchy. "Jet": who knew that this song was about his dog? Well, now you know. "Bluebird" is pretty good as well, but then the album starts to meander as well. But just on the strength on the first two songs ALONE this a damn good album. Sure, some of the other songs have a bit of head-scratching moment's like "Picasso's Last Words" but I still dig it. I'd probably give this 4 1/2 stars, rounding up to 5.
I remember seeing Meat Loaf in college, before "Bat Out Of Hell 2". He gave a great performance, played a lot of this album live. He really poured his heart into every song, you could tell he loved it, but he was ready to move on to that next level... Wait, so what was I talking about? Oh yeah, Bat Out Of Hell. Every song on this album is so... bombastic. Any one of these songs would take an album up another level. I could imagine someone like Springsteen taking one of them on, and really going for it, just like Meat Loaf does. The problem is that EVERY SONG is like that. You would think that "Paradise By The Dashboard Light" would be that epic song, the longest track, right? Nope. "For Crying Out Loud," the NEXT song, is LONGER. It's just so... exhausting. Even the slow songs are over the top. I'm surprised Meat Loaf is able to perform these songs without an oxygen tank. It's a really good album, but just... WAY over the top. I feel like I burn off a couple hundred calories listening to it.
This album is all over the place for me; it's like it doesn't know what it wants to be. I hadn't heard of this band before this. The first track I thought the band was one thing, then the next couple of tracks made think it was something else. I... _WANT_ to like this, but the variation is too great. I can't get a bead on what this wants to BE. The detours into electronica were like... playing a country song in the middle of a metallica album. It was too confusing.
I first got into Jane's Addiction right before "Been Caught Stealing" came out. "Mountain Song" and "Ocean Size" just... wow. "Pigs In Zen" at the time I really dug, but I can see it being a little cringe-y now. Most of the songs still hold up for me, Perry Farrell is one of the amazing vocalists from the 90s where it's just... wow. I know most people like the one song, but most of this album is really solid for me. It's interesting to hear the band compositions and see how different they are from the songs credited just to Farrell. Most people talk about Farrell, but can I take a moment to mention how stunning Navarro is in this stuff? I think it's a crime that he did not gel as much with Red Hot Chili Peppers that he could have, he could have taken them to another level. This album really sets up the next album to be their peak, but I think of it more as a one-two punch. Really enjoyed coming back to this, it had been a while (although Pigs In Zen I may skip next time around...).
So. What to do with a problem like Kanye? It becomes more and more difficult to review or listen to past works of people who become more and more known for their antics on the Hollywood gossip column than their records and tours. Still, and Kanye's swagger just reminds me more and more of Chad Ochocinco Johnson, where there he keeps saying"hey look at me, I'm still here, remember me?" Chad Ochocinco Johnson just got older and lost a step, where as Kanye? Kanye's life got intertwined with the Kardashians, and everything he released afterward doesn't... quite feel right. But. There was a reason both of them became famous before. It's different than say, watching old footage of OJ Simpson. This album and the next few afterwards have some great and I mean great stuff. "Two Words" is just... wow. The Workout tape song is pretty funny, and the skits aren't bad. But those skit interlude kind of things always grate on me a bit on albums. They do not warrant a lot of relistens. (The only one I ever liked was Fishbone's "If I Were A... I'd") I can see West's flow and lyrical sense. It is something to behold. He has definite skill, and this first album shows where he's going. "Last Call" did tend to ramble on, but so does Kanye. Best track for me was "Two Words"
Big Miles Davis fan. I don't listen to him as much as I should. It's funny how in jazz an album with just two tracks is regarded highly whereas in rock it's regarded as pretentious. Anyway, "In A Silent Way" is always a good one. I like how each piece gets their chance to shine. It's nice to hear the guitar in there along with sax and trumpet. A classic for me.
I had been listening to "Sand In The Vaseline," a compilation from <checks notes> THIRTY years ago?! Wow. A number of the songs are on this compilation, but I do not have this album. It took me a long time to get used to the elegant simplicity of those songs, as opposed to the well-known "hits" by the band. Because of this, as much as I enjoy the band, I can't give this 5 stars. I mean, yes it does have the great "Psycho Killer" on it. But it then has other songs which... yeah. (For example, "Who Is It?")
My wife had said I am not a big "ABBA" fan. And I will admit, it's not the first thing I reach for when I want something to listen to. Having said that, this album is really well-crafted 70s pop. I liked a lot of the feel of some of the songs. Even hearing the 1977 version, with "Fernando," an inescapable song. And "Dancing Queen"... I mean, how can you NOT like that song? Having said THAT, this album is really well-crafted 70s pop. So some of the songs are very dated. Seeing that the first song is called "When I Kissed The Teacher," yikes. The sense of what is acceptable really is different from 50 years ago. "Tiger" is another one that just teeters on the edge of camp. I'm sure they were like "oh, this is going to be a great one." But now it's just... what were you thinking? It's interesting that the album is just over 30 minutes long. Each song is a crafted 3-minute piece, going for that pop kind of classic. Do they all make it? At the time, yes. It's just now some of them seem so... dated. (To be fair, I'm sure of the stuff I listened to as a kid is really dated as well. But I have been listening to it over and over so I do not notice.) So yeah, I am going to take it a bit more off for it sounding so dated. But I guess that's not their fault. They were going for a specific sound that just didn't age well.
Strangely, this felt a lot like Nirvana to me. Which is good because I am a big fan of Nirvana. I had heard good things and how influential they were so I listened to one of their albums (I think it was "Goo"? Now I'm not sure.) and I just didn't get it. At the time it seemed like a lot of noise. Listening to this album, I "get" their sound a lot more. It was more enjoyable than I remember. I liked the layering of guitars and how it worked within the songs. Will I go out and seek more of their work? I don't know, but I do respect them a bit more and my stance on them has changed a bit.
The Black Crowes are a band I drifted away from and then came back to (Stone Temple Pilots is another). Their hits really "hit" but their b-sides and album tracks are middling. But the first album is very solid. I recently picked up the anniversary edition (if you can, try to get the Target version. It is basically the music in the box set without all the extra crap, trinkets and tchotchkes.) It's funny how everyone assumes "Hard To Handle" was a Crowes original. I never understood why they couldn't play that one with Page (they couldn't do any Black Crowes material on that fantastic album they did because of recording rights, but "H2H" could have been done...?) Although my favorite track of theirs is not on here, this is a very good (if not great) album. Solid all the way through.
On wikipedia, it says 'the music has been described as "bubblegum pop drowned in feedback"...' This seemed pretty accurate. In fact the feedback was so bad I could barely tell the songs. The noise was just too much. And can we talk about the recording itself? It sounded like it was in a garage, or an echo chamber. I could barely hear the singer. It was awful. I'm sure there's something there, maybe it's like the Sonic Youth the first time I heard them. I don't know, it just seemed like the band thought the waves of feedback would make them more endearing, but really it just annoyed me.
Superunknown was the first Soundgarden album I picked up. I had read an early review that said that it was going to be an amazing album, groundbreaking even. I was into Pearl Jam & Nirvana, they had broken right around college. But somehow Soundgarden had slipped me by when I was in college. When I did hear it back in March of 1994, my mind was blown. Listen to the original, not the remastered version (they boosted the volume too much, gah.). I go back and forth between my favorites on this album. Sure "Black Hole Sun" is overplayed, but there's a reason for that: it's a damn good song. I don't skip it when I listen to the whole album, but I don't listen to it by itself. They play songs with odd time signatures so flawlessly, it doesn't sound as clumsy as in other bands. I would steer clear from the Super Deluxe Edition version, only because the Demo & Rehearsal versions... like, how many times can you hear the songs in one sitting? I know fans of the band frown on this album, thinking of it as the "sell out," but honestly I think of it as a progression from their previous album. "Down On The Upside" is a fantastic album as well. Highly recommended.
I think I heard a lot of the songs from this album from different concerts ("Stage", in particular). It's amazing how many great songs are on this album, and they vary so much in style, too... things like "Ziggy Stardust" and "Suffragette City." But even deeper cuts like "Starman" and "Five Years" (which really aren't that much deeper when you think about it) vary in style. People talk about the short shelf life of prog rock, but when it was in big heyday in the early 70s it was something to behold. Glam rock was the same, and T-Rex and this album in particular. The true test of an album is its "re-listenability". I listened to it, and wanted to listen to it again right away. Definitely tells you something about the addictiveness and how much those songs become earworms in your head. "Five Years" for me really sticks with me for a long time. Maybe it was because I first heard it on "Stage" and it was so intriguing, but just... man, I feel like listening to it again right now. Great, great album.
I had picked up this album a while back, and at the time I did not really care for it. Think I sold it back. It's interesting how my taste has evolved, because listening to it now I am really enjoying it. Maybe it's the wide range of songs, or my larger appreciation of Beck in general, but it's just got something to it. Call it a swagger, call it what you will. It reminds me a lot of Beastie Boys' "Ill Communication," but in a good way. The big hit songs are great, but the other tracks stand by themselves, too. Really surprising to me.
Some music does not age well. This is probably an example of that. I got up to the second track and... yikes. You hear "the n-words are coming" and I was wondering what they were thinking. I get that it was about white flight, but still I was very taken aback. Also, go ahead and watch YouTube "SNL Shindells". It's a parody of doo-wop groups, and because of that, songs like "I Ain't Got Nothin' " have been RUINED for me. I will say the 12-minute "Papa Was A Rollin' Stone" was probably the highlight for me. But this was definitely not a good album for me.
This was a very pleasant surprise. Knowing the big band sound Sinatra usually gives, this was different, that bossa nova style. The Girl From Ipanema is pretty much required if you're playing bossa nova, though, isn't it? The one song, "Wave".... Frank really went for that low note, didn't he? He was almost at the legendary brown note, he was singing so low. And he kept NAILING it. Really dug this, it was nice to hear, something to listen to on a quiet Sunday afternoon, except for maybe "Wave." That "cling togeTHERRRRR" would be a little disturbing.
The lyrics to this album (for the most part) are so... hopeless. 2Pac knows he is "born to die." Songs like "Death 'Around The Corner" are just so... nihilistic. It really got depressing after a while, I mean it seemed like there was no point. Although "Old School" made me smile, to know that he honors those that came before him. 2Pac's rhyming skills are definitely there for all to hear, no doubt. Although listening to "Can U Get Away" he sounds a little... cartoony. I didn't take it as seriously as he wanted it to be. All in all, I thought it was a good album, really reflected the hopelessness of the streets. I don't know if I would listen to something so bleak, but I'm glad to have done so.
I can understand why S & G broke up, a folk duo can only do so much. This album kind of tells that. I mean, once you hear the fist song (the title track) there really isn't anywhere to go from there. I really think they should have put this as the last song, as it gives a bigger finish to the album. As an opener, it's like... great, NOW what? Most of the other songs are not on a level of that first one, although some do come close: "The Boxer" being one. "Cecilia" I have heard WAY too many times for some reason. So yeah, I had heard this album a good deal, I just think shooting your wad with the title track makes it tough to go on afterwards.
It’s weird that the song everyone knows from this album (“Waterfalls”) knows a little antithetical to the album. The album itself felt more hip-hop than R&B. I have to wonder what would have happened if they had continued. Anyway, most of the songs were pretty good, even the interludes were enjoyable (probably because they were music and not skits). I would have liked to have known the guest vocals, that made it more hip-hop to me, having Busta Rhymes and whoever else there. Overall there were one or two songs I might say meh to, but a strong outing.
There was a point somewhere in the middle where a number of the songs sounded exactly the same. I mean, the vocalists he got were of, although "Disco II Disco" was REALLY annoying. And hey, it's Nik Kershaw! Haven't heard him in a while. The last song I really enjoyed, too. There was a really interesting video for it up on YouTube. But a lot of the stuff was very same-y, so yeah. Not something I am going to come back to. I am sure this club stuff is big, but just not a fan. But the few high points make me round up to a 3.
There are some really strong tracks here; I really enjoyed things like "Regular John." "I Was A Teenage Hand Model" was... interesting, but it kind of meandered a bit. I listened to the reissue, and I think if I listened to the original I would have liked it more. It would have been tighter, and not all the chaff. I obviously had heard of QOTSA before (particularly the stuff from the radio and such) but the stuff on the album I liked I REALLY liked. I just wish the electronica stuff wasn't so noodle-y. So yeah, I will give 4 stars. Definitely a band I want to check more of.
The Mamas & The Papas sing about 60s sleaze, but they do it in such a folksy, white way you don't even notice. Groovy, man. They remind me so much of "A Might Wind." Not surprised by it, but jst a general observation. The music sounds so... dated to me. Even the hits that I know, hard to believe they are well over 50 years old. But they are, and each one has the weight of those 50 year on it. I'd probably give this a meh. Recognized the songs I was supposed to, but not much jumped out at me.
It's weird that this is the album that came up. The big sone from it, "Get It On" has a number of people on it who I enjoy. One of whom passed away the other day, Ian McDonald. That song in and of itself, is almost enough to buy the album. It is perfectly positioned, unlike "Bridge Over Troubled Water", which is right at the beginning of the album. This is right in the middle, so you have to listen to a good deal of the album, which is pretty good glam rock. He really gives a lot of sex appeal to those songs. They smolder a LOT. But it's "Get It On" that really sells it, without it, the album just doesn't go as far for me. It's funny how that one song does that, isn't it? Definitely something I will be going back to.
Reminds me a lot of the Clash. I mean, I guess that's the point? Still, liked the album a lot. Definitely a band I am going to have to listen to more. A good 4.3 for me, close to 5 stars. Really digging it, along with all the things they drew on.
It's amazing, for a guitarist, how much saxophone is in this album. The first time I heard this album, it did not become one of my favorites. But still, it has some great songs. "Peaches" is probably one of his greatest works. Listening to that piece today I really tuned in to the drums and marveled at how well-constructed they were. "Son of Mr. Green Genes" I had heard as a live performance, with lyrics. Surprising that it was originally just an instrumental. I have the Hot Rats Session box set. I need to listen to that at some point. The album itself is important as it is listed as "Frank Zappa" and not "Frank Zappa and the Mothers". I tend to gravitate to his Grand Wazoo era and Waka / Jawaka. But as a Zappa fan, I should listen to this one more often. Great stuff here.
Lynyrd Skynyrd. I have their greatest hits, and not surprisingly, half of this album is on it. There's a reason this album is on the list. As much as this is YEE-HAW southern rock, it is done well. The songs are catchy, even the ones on here that are over (FREEBIRD! PLAY FREEBIRD!!!) played. I remember hearing Freebird for the first time, and that whole twin guitar thing just blew my mind. Even though it's still a bit on the sloppy side and I know others can do it just as well, it's still great. The production on this and all the other songs are great. The formula for pretty much all of their albums exist right here, little changes from their other albums. I mean, did they peak with this one? Probably, it's the one with some of their best known (FREEBIRD! PLAY FREEBIRD!!!) stuff on it. But I was always partial to Mr. Saturday Night Special, not sure why. Anyway, it is probably an essential to that southern rock archetype. I just wish there was some evolution to it.
I liked the improvisational feel of all the songs on this album. It is what he was going for, that jazzy type of mood. "Everyone" could have sounded annoying and repetitive, and yet it holds up because of the delivery. It's one of my favorite tunes on the album. I think we've all heard the title track "Moondance" at least once or twice in our lives (I've had to play it a few times, not an easy tune.). But the other stuff on the album is just as freeform and improvisational, I quite enjoyed it. I wonder if that feel is brought to the songs live, and how many of the songs were performed live. So yeah, really enjoyable high marks for me. I'm glad the album is more than just the title track. A lot of times albums can't get past that big hit, but this one was able to do so.
The shortness of hte album really impressed me. Each song is not even 3 minutes long. For a guy who normally listens to 10 minute songs without batting an eye, this was a nice change of pace. And the energy! Wow, I haven't heard this kind of enthusiasm since punk, but happier. It made sense that this is just the A & B sides they work really well. There's no need for there to be an album flow, it's just hit after hit after hit. Don't listen to the extended cut / anniversary version of this, the 30 minutes in and out is all you need. Great stuff.
One of the things I really liked about this album was how every song was different from the previous song. I have only seen that happen once before (Faith No More's King For A Day, Fool For A Lifetime). Sir Duke... I played this song when I was in the Marching Ravens, what a great piece, but that brass part is a bear. Pastime Paradise... did not know that that was where Gangsta's Paradise came from. Shows you what I know. Easy Goin' Evenin' - Loved the harmonica on this I was surprised at how much there were a few songs that sounded like things were sampled, but it was 76 so I know that that wasn't the case. Great album, listened to it a few times and that doesn't happen too much for these.
Honestly, nothing on this album stood out for me. Reviews called it melancholy, I just found it dreary. Even the big "hit" I had never heard of. It was just all "meh."
The only problem with Led Zeppelin III is that it isn't Led Zeppelin I or II. It had a lot to prove as the band tried to stretch itself and had some growing pains. Even with that, some of the songs on it still really deliver: "Immigrant Song," "Since I've Been Lovin' You"... The last couple of songs are ones I always forget Bron-Y-Aur Stomp, and Hats Off To Roy Harper. I don't really call this album a misstep; bands would kill to have a misstep like this. But it is an important link from II to Runes. So yeah, I will give it 4 stars, but it just barely gets 4 (like a 4.4).
When I was a kid, I had joined the Columbia House Record Club. I picked a number of Bruce Springsteen albums because hey, he's from Jersey, right? I still only listen to Born To Run and Born In The USA with any frequency at all. If I had gotten this album then I probably would have need mental help. This is the bleakest album I have ever heard. I mean, it's him trying hard to be Dylan in a lot of ways, but wow. I find it interesting that the sides are so unbalanced on the record and tape. I would have found that confusing as a kid as well. Why put them so unbalanced? I guess there was a point... It's a very stark record, compared to the bombast of a lot of his other stuff, impressive that range. But still, man, Bruce lighten UP. So yeah, it was very well made, a stark record, but it was VERY depressing. Going to have to be in a good mood before I come back to that one.
Listening through the whole album, there was something digging about the music and I couldn't tell what it was. Suddenly, I started thinking about Billy Joel (of all people) and it hit me: There's no bridge in any songs on this album. Every song is just verse verse verse chorus, but there's no bridge. It's all A-A-A-A. As a dance song, that's great, but it gets very repetitive after a while. Maybe that's why dance music doesn't hit me as much. The lack of variation in the song, it doesn't shake things up as much as I want them to. So for me, the songs all wear out the welcome about a minute too long. And I think that lack of bridge is what does it.
Kind of reminds me of the music my parents listened to. Ver-r-r-r-r-r-r-ry twangy. But in a good way. Songs not stretched out too long. There's something to be said about succinctness.
The biggest thing this album had going for it is Annie Lennox's voice. Man, it is just incredible. The singles definitely benefit from her incredible vocals, and so do the other tracks. But one they start to get experimental, and her voice gets lost in those 80s synths, it's very hard to focus on the songs themselves. "This Is The House" is REALLY annoying, for example. Along with the bonus tracks on the 2005 edition, yikes. So yeah the singles are indeed what make this album. It reminds me of a few albums where the single is the best part of the album, and that's why they are the singles.
I am liking the sparseness of the songs. Even with just a guitar, there is still variety in the songs. Ruination Part Day is so dark, whereas other songs are more cheerful. My confusion as to why this album is on the 1001 list. There are other country artists that could have easily made the list: Alison Krauss comes to mind immediately. I don't see what Gilian Welch's voice or style stands out from other country artists of this ilk. Still, I like this type of music every so often as a bit of a "palate cleanser" so to speak. I just don't find it a cut above the rest of this type.
I liked this album more than I expected to. Maybe it was the crooning of the vocals, or the instrumentation. But there was something about it that I really kind of dug. It was really appealing to me for some reason. Probably the vocals, being a lower-voiced singer myself. Conversation 16 had some interesting lyrics to it. I think the only song that didn't stand out to me was England. The problem was there wasn't one song that was catchy. I liked the band, but there wasn't a song I was humming afterward. They were good, but forgettable. That's never good for a band "hey what's the name of that album by that band...?"
I've seen this album cover before and have always heard the Strokes were the "next big thing." I just don't see it. I do see a band that has a few catchy tunes, but not so much that I want to run out and but their stuff. The non-hit tunes sound very same-y. At least it's only 30 minutes long and not 75 minutes, so they get in and out pretty quickly. But it just didn't floor me. "Last Nite" is really catchy, I will give them that.
There is a definite influence here of a number of things: Cream, Pink Floyd's first album, Sgt. Pepper. The band really wears all of them very heavily on their sleeve, but somehow makes them all their own. I liked the songs each individually, but was not convinced of the actual story until I read Wikipedia. I think the Who did a better job with rock operas and had a more cohesive story. Maybe because they did it on a double album as opposed to a single album? I don't know. The music itself has a lot of good stuff going for it, I think I had heard of these guys before (with a band member called Twink you would think I would have).v SO I really did enjoy it for what it was. There are only a few live performances of this, with narration to pull the whole story together. I may go hunt that down on youtube orr something to hear all of that and maybe I will be more convinced of the story. As it is, I'd give a 3.6 which rounds up to a 4.
I've heard this album so many times when I was a teen. Being a prog head it was weird to listen to a lot of punk as well. I mean, so many of the songs were basic and raw, but there was an earnestness to them that is undeniable. It would be interesting to have heard more from this bband, but it was so manufactured they were never going to last. The songs themselves, now that I listen to them as a whole again 35 years later... well, some of them were obviously made to shock. I can see how "Bodies" or "Seventeen" would NOT go on the radio. But there are some great songs here: "Pretty Vacant" is still very catchy. I never did like "Submission;" Rotten trying to be sexy and just sounding scuzzy. The performances themselves are pretty sloppy, but they still hold up. Man, "Anarchy In The UK," "God Save The Queen"... they just really smack you in the face and do not let up, do they? So yeah, I have listened to this album a lot in my youth, but hadn't listened to the whole thing in a while. It was refreshing to come back to it and hear it with a new (and more mature) set of ears. Still really like it, though. I just can't give it 5 stars, just because of the embarrassment of songs like "Submission," "Seventeen" and "Bodies" (I still like "Bodies" but geez man...)
Let me start off by saying: I do not like Depeche Mode. A comedian once said the lead singer is getting to the point where his skin was almost transluscent. Dude, go outside once in a while. So I was probably prejudiced to this album. The electronic percussion was particularly grating. Having said that... Personal Jesus is just a damn good song. It is undeniable. I have listened to that one song over and over again. It just runs over you like a freight train. The rest is decent, but that one song almost redeems the album for me. Almost.
What a beautiful, desolate album. That last song "I Can't Give Everything Away" just floors me every time I hear it. I don't know why Bowie's passing hit me so hard. Freddie Mercury's dying was more of a shock to me, but when Bowie died, it just... I went numb. And I cannot imagine recording this, while he could probably feel the life draining away. I will say there a few songs on here are a little iffy: Girl Loves Me and Dollar Days are a bit... hmmmm, but I do like the instrumentation of all the songs on this album, the sax coming back so much after so long. The harmonica on the last song, wow. I can only play this album every so often as it chokes me up a little. But it's hard to separate the album from the man and his death. As a piece of art, it has so many strong songs, but those few weak songs do kinda bring it down a little. Is it his best work? I would say no, but it's definitely in his top 5 easily.
Although this is not my favorite album by Faith No More, it is definitely their most well-known because of "the song." Even with that song, I like this one a lot. It's funny, a friend of mine and I diverge right around here for FNM. I started to like them more and more, with this being where I really became more interested in them. By the time the next album came out, I was all in and my friend had bailed. The band has evolved so much past "Epic." However, you can hear a lot of their future endeavors in this, going from "From Out Of Nowhere" to "Zombie Eaters." Patton's voice is an interesting choice here. It is so much more than what is featured here, but I get the feeling he was trying to be a bit like Chuck Moseley, the previous singer. The trio bass/keys/drums really puts such an effective groove. I can pick out Bordin's drumming pretty easily, he has a very distinctive snare hit, kind of like Bill Bruford, actually. The music is wide-ranging, although not as much as later albums, which made it not so easy to pigeonhole the band. But as it is it's an amazing effort by the band. I wish that they had held onto Jim Martin for longer. But, the work he does here is great. I would definitely say this is the album to start with if you wanted to get into Faith No More, but it is not their best. I never bought "Edge Of The World", But one clunker doesn't mean the album sucks, right? And "Woodpecker From Mars..." holy crap is that great! So high praise for this one, I will give it 5, great intro album for this band, but their later albums really progress from here.
It's obvious how important this album is to punk. Having said that, there is a lot of this that reminds me of the "Suicide" album, and I did NOT like that album at all. Iggy Pop is also not one of my faves. Still, you can feel the energy coming off of this, especially for 1970, and that's saying something. The Damned had covered one of the tracks and it's nice to hear the original. The last track, LA Blues just sounded like an ungodly mess. I originally thought this was a punk album, not realized it predated it by so much. Even so, it just didn't work for me, it was just a mess.
I'm not sure why this is the Metallica album we had to hear. The orchestra really adds a lot to the songs that I was lukewarm to. The songs I really like or love of Metallica's... eh. It didn't make me hate the arrangements, it just didn't add a new layer. For example, I'm going to say it: "The Call of Ktulu" is a boring song. So the orchestra really does add a lot to it. But most of those other 80s classics, not so much. And wow, two new songs! No Leaf Clover and um... that other one! Yeah! There are other orchestral albums I've heard that have done good jobs with rock artists. I guess because of it closing a huge chapter of the band, as Newsted's last album. Still, there is a lot to like, but not a lot to love.
Back in the 60s and 70s, you were either a Beatles fan or a Stones fan. It was a whole light / dark thing, I guess. Listening to Yes I was more of a Beatles fan, so I never heard a lot of Stones' albums all the way through. I know a good deal of their music, but not complete albums. This one I knew some of the tracks going in, so that's a plus, I guess. The songs I did not know are sandwiched between two of the band's greatest songs. I think my biggest confusion was "Country Honk," which seems more like a one-off. They released "Honky Tonk Women" as a non-album single, so I guess they figured not to put it on the album. Still it seems like the only song you could probably lose off of the album. Imagine if they had put the single on the album instead... Other thoughts about this album: "Love In Vain" - really good acoustic blues song. "Live With Me" - damn good groove going there. "Let It Bleed" - I knew I had heard this song before, but I don't think I had ever knew the title. This could easily be a country song. "Midnight Rambler" - Jagger's beginning vocals seem a little off, not sure why. "You Got The Silver" - very Dylanesque "Monkey Man" - seems like this was from a jam and this was the best part of it. Would not want to hear the whole extended jam. Definitely a good album to get for any non-Stones fan, even without "Gimme Shelter" and "You Can't..." I would probably switch out "Country Honk" and I don't know how many times I would listen to "Monkey". Still, definitely a great album.
This album suffers the same problem as “Bridge Over Troubled Water” for me. The big hit, the most well-known song is first. The other stuff is good, but not at the level of that first song. Still, it runs right over and through you because LEMMY. Great, headbanging stuff, but a slight letdown after that first song. The dead man’s hand again…
As much as I enjoy the first 2 albums of Queen, here is where they really develop their sound. Going from metal (Brighton Rock) to glam (Killer Queen), they can really do it all. Even the songs that don't clunk resonate on this album. Yes, "Killer Queen" is overplayed on the radio, but it's still a damn good song. As great as Mercury's voice is, I think it's May's guitar work that really shines here. "Brighton Rock" and "Stone Cold Crazy" are real statements as to what he can do. Definitely one of my favorite Queen albums.
The cover made me think the album was going to be very different than I expected. Still, the album was a pleasant surprise. The jazz was pretty good, for the most part, but nothing mind-blowing. Their big "hit", "Street Life"... went on twice as long than it should have. I mean, it just meandered. Easily could have been cut in half. Perhaps that's how the single version is, I don't know... The other tunes had that electric 70s early 80s jazz feel. I liked it for what it was, but nothing stood out as "whoa".
Top five of Billy Joel's albums. It's weird how I have moved on from his stuff, but it's nice to come back to it, like an old friend. Every song on this one is a singalong, as opposed to some of his other albums which are really good, but you just don't have that feeling to sing along with them. Billy Joel himself seemed to push Vienna a LOT in later years, and it's easy to see why, it is an underrated gem. Even the songs that are the hits do not feel overplayed to me (I'm looking at you, "Piano Man." God if I hear that song one more time...) This one really put him out there in the mainstream. And rightfully so, it's a great album.
Honestly, I am not a big fan of R.E.M. I find Michael Stripe’s voice too whiny. But there are a handful of their hits I do enjoy, and one of them was on this album: “Man on the Moon.” Unfortunately, so is “Everybody Hurts,” which is very much on my least favorite songs of theirs. The other songs were okay. But nothing that stood out. Nothing that made me change my opinion on them as a band. So a big meh from me.
A lot of the songs on this album sound like the big hit single "Hate To Say I Told You So." They were very RRRAHH RAHHH RAAAAH after a bit, although a few songs did stand out. And on the plus side, each song was very short, got in and out to not overstay their welcome, I will give them that. The instrumental was interesting at the end. I dug that, along with "A.K.A. I-D-I-O-T." It's interesting that it's basically a best of from their first two albums. I have a Kinks collection like this. I assume that the rest of the first two albums aren't any better. Anyway, I'd give it a middle of the road, but there were some good bits in there, probably about half of the album. Favorites" "Hate To Say I Told You So" "Die, All Right!" "A.K.A. I-D-I-O-T" "The Hives Are Law , You Are Crime"
Huh, that's weird. I didn't know this band had a fourth album.... Just kidding. My son discovered this album a few months ago and has been playing it nonstop. He has great taste. Someone asked me a while ago what is Zeppelin's best album, and it obviously has to be this one. Yes, it's overplayed. But there's a reason for that. It's because the songs themselves hold up so well. There are very few albums that radio stations will play any track from, I think I can count them on one hand: Who's Next, Dark Side Of The Moon and this one. Even "Stairway" as many billions of times I have heard it is still a great song. It just doesn't get old. I vacillate as to what is my favorite song, and right now it's "When The Levee Breaks." Ask me next week and it will be something else. Just a great, great album.
My first experience with Kate Bush was her cover of "Rocket Man" for the Elton John tribute album. This kind of turned me off to her. So going in, I felt her voice was a little too... breath-y? I don't know if that really bes describes it, but that's where I was. That really is best heard in the title track. But as the album went on, I began to appreciate her vocal more and more. The instrumentation really helped as well (Karn's bass work was solid throughout). By the time I got to the last track, the piano / vocals really worked. I'm still not a huge fan, but I liked the album for what it was.
I was never into Kiss growing up. The boy went through a brief Kiss when he was younger. Most of that was watching "Kiss Meets Scooby Doo" hundreds of times. He hasn't grown out of that music, but has... moved on. So I think I'm familiar with about 1/3 of these songs. First off, the "live" version of "Detroit Rock City" is better. (I say it in quotes because the live Kiss albums had massive amounts of fixes in the studio). "Great Expectations" is a bit on the cringe-y side. The lyrics are, yikes. Originally I thought it was going to be about the book, so I'm glad they did not try to do that. "Beth" is... look, it's their highest charted single, but it is a bit on the schmaltzy side. But I am not going to take anything away from the success of the song. Ultimately, Kiss has always been a party rock band and they really do bring it home with this album. But I don't know, I always feel like their music is just so... pandering. "We know what you want, and we're going to give it to you!" But does it have any merit? The merchandise doesn't. Who wants to be buried in a Kiss coffin? It's a party album, but I don't think at a party "this place needs some Kiss music!" Not my go to band.
Wow, this was a bit tough to go through. It felt like they gave The Young Ones a bunch of instruments and said "put together some anti-establishment songs." They were very noodle-y. As a punk semi-fan, I had heard good things about the fall. I'm glad not to have paid attention.
My mother in-law is a big Elvis fan. So my wife knows a good deal more about him than I would. I do listen to him from time to time, so I was familiar with a lot of these. While I know a number of rock songs were later sung by white artists, hearing "Tutti Frutti" sung by Elvis is just... weird. It's just such an iconic song, and having someone else do it and not change it up more... it doesn't sound right. I'm sure there's stuff of mine that my kid thinks "that's Dad-music." But he has been listening to Rush and Zeppelin, so I don't know. I really consider this "parent music," and it's just nothing I get into. Roll into that people calling him the King of Rock and Roll when they basically ignore a huge percentage of the population, it does take some of the enjoyment out. Still, what he does he does well. It's just not for me.
Ah, ZZTop. You can't escape these guys on classic rock. They're good comfort food, and pretty fun, too. If you can, catch the documentary on them up on Netflix. It was pretty entertaining. It's really hard to believe that these guys have been around for so long. Still going after one of them passed away, too. I did not like the transition between the first two songs. Sounded kinda clunky. They reminded me a bit of Mountain, but looser (particularly in songs like Beer Drinkers and Hell Raisers). La Grange is that old? Wow. Really fun stuff, this I could imagine as more of a party album than Kiss' Destroyer.
I think calling this noise rock is a bit unfair. The first time I heard this, I started thinking of this as just noise. Now, there are some moments where it does get very repetitive, and a BIT more melody would be more helpful. But as a whole, it's pretty good. A whole album does get a little... on the nerves. A song or two on shuffle is a nice palate cleanser, but 45 minutes worth? Nope.
You can really tell this is the debut album of the band. The songs felt raw and unpolished. In fact, if you had told me that this was a demo tape for a band, I would have not been surprised. A lot of these felt like a producer should have worked with them more, developed them into better songs. I could not pick out the "hit" of this album. It's not that they all sounded the same, but no song stood out above the rest. So a big "meh" from me.
I liked the first half of this album quite a bit. But then it kind of fizzled out for me. I think that MP3 player have ruined my patience for things like this. I can imagine listening to a track or two of this on shuffle with everything else and enjoying it, but listening to the whole album my attention really wandered. It just did not hold my interest.
Had this album for a while, picked it up cheap a while back. It's a good one. Alice Cooper is still playing a few of these live. "I Love The Dead" is his closer. So these are songs the fans still love after almost 50 years. I like the feel of all these songs, most of them still have a bit of the 70s wrapped in them in. What I mean is that they could have only come from that era, I doubt the production styles of later eras would have made these songs sound like they do later, like in the 80s. It doesn't have as strong or as hummable a song as "School's Out," but I like all the songs on it: "Elected," "Hello, Hooray," "No Mr. Nice Guy" are some of my favorites of Alice Cooper. It's really weird to separate the two eras: the band Alice Cooper and the person Alice Cooper. But hey, that's rock and roll, right?
I had mentioned before about the BritPop documentary. Again, all I really knew about Blur before that was "Song 2" (woo hoo.). This album really puts them in a new light. It really gives you a feel of Britain, I think. The songs don't drag on, and the instrumentals blended in pretty well with the songs. Watching the videos did not really give you insight to the songs, particularly "To The End". I am still not 100% sure what that was about... Anyway I felt that this whole album was a bit more tongue in cheek than they were letting on. But not being from England, there were probably more in-jokes that I was missing. Still, I enjoyed this more than I was expecting.
My first true introduction to the Who was through Tommy. When they were doing their first comeback tour back in 1989, I remember watching the concert downstairs in the basement of my college freshman dorm. There were a number of us watching it, too young to have seen them when they were first touring but now experiencing them live on TV. I remember watching them play Tommy with special guest stars Phil Collins and Billy Idol... Then I heard the studio album, and it did not sound like that concert. It sounded... tinnier. My biggest problem with Tommy is how the development of the lead is through all these different characters that float in and out of the opera. In the story, it's not through his own internal development that Tommy as a character grows. Townshend's writing for character development really hit its peak in the next rock opera, Quadrophenia. The songs themselves do a lot of variation, and Moon pounds the HELL out of the drums. So yeah, as much as I appreciate this album for what it is, it only has a few great songs on it. I mean, you cannot deny the greatness of "Pinball Wizard" or "See Me, Feel Me." But besides that, a lot of the other songs are to beholden to the opera itself. So if Quadrophenia is a 5-star (which in my mind it is) this is definitely a 4-star album.
I had watched the show "Treme" on HBO, this reminded me a lot of that, but like the previous generation. I think that's just because of some of the dated production. I like the false ending on the last song, that was a bit of a surprise. But honestly this sounded very dated. Not surprising as it was 1968. I like a few songs by Dr. John, but this whole voodoo thing seemed kinda... goofy to me. I get what he was going for, but it just didn't connect with me.
I was surprised at how many of these songs I knew. I think I had heard of Supergrass before, but I don't think I knew any of their songs really. But there were at least 2 or three of these I knew from films or the radio. As a whole, this grew on me as the album progressed. The vocalist reminded me initially of Jack White. But the music doesn't really sound like his, there's a bit more variety here which I thought was pretty cool. All in all, this might be a band I look more into. I really dug this album. A low 4, at the least.
"Isn't this where we came in?" I have been listening to this album for almost 40 years. My feelings for it have evolved as I have. Learning things about the album and the band as I have read more and more. Pink Floyd is not my favorite band, but they are definitely one I can always turn to and listen to for a good 60 minutes or so. There is so much in the Wall that is similar to a lot of double albums. Somewhere in the middle, things start to meander a little ("Nobody Home" / "Vera". They're good songs, but still....) and then "Comfortably Numb" just floors you. Man, does it floor you. This album could not be made today. ("In The Flesh," anyone?). And the movie... yikes. I like Animals more, but still, how could I not give this 5 stars?
I was really surprised by this one. I knew of Thundercat from different things, he was (of all things) in the Book of Boba Fett. This album reminded me a LOT of the first couple of Frank Zappa albums of Frank Zappa, and Mike Keneally's "hat" album. It was very collage-like. The songs had that 60s Zappa-like feel too, which is always a plus for me. I liked the guest stars, and I keep meaning to check out "To Pimp A Butterfly." This gives me more of a reason to do so. So yeah, I really dug the feel of this, it kind of was in my wheelhouse. Definitely something I will be looking for. The cover is a little... disturbing, but not worse than I had seen before. Probably give this a 4.2 or 4.3, might go up with repeated listens.
I was surprised that those first two tracks were the big hits. I thought they'd be scattered throughout the album. "Bawitdaba" gets stuck in your head pretty quick. It's been said that the key to the album is that is doesn't try to be a hip-hop album. And yet a lot of the lyrics feel that way, like what would guys who are out in the midwest THINK rappers would go on about? And then instead of it being on rap, it was forced into a blend of country and "nu metal". It works, but the lyrics to some of the songs are pretty brutal. More brutal than some rap records we have listened to? Probably not. Maybe if I had heard them over and over again I wouldn't think about it as much. But now, 20 years later, the lyrics are a bit more cringe-y. So yeah, I remember the big "hits" from this one, but not something I would come back to for a bunch of reasons. But the construction and production is done well. So I'd give it a 3.
I'm surprised that it's taking us this long to get to the Beatles. But I guess that's the way the randomizer... randomizes. When I was younger, I did not care much for early Beatles. Somewhere around Revolver I was a fan. That changed later, understanding how their sound was groundbreaking. It's hard to believe how much their sound did evolve, though. But this is their starting point, really. And I've come to appreciate these songs. Still... the songs themselves are simplistic in comparison to their later work. I can't give this a 5 because of that. Still... you can't go wrong with the Beatles.
I know I've heard "El Paso" numerous times. It's a great song, and when I played this album it was the one my wife was waiting to hear. Definitely a change of pace album for me. It is such a different type of album from what I normally listen to, but that's not a bad thing. It's a simple recording but the songs are not simple. You would think that the songs being of the same type would be boring, but not really. Most of them are short enough to hold your interest, get in and get done fairly quickly. The Beatles' tracks were like that, too. 2 minutes or so and bam, you're done. That brevity is sometimes lacking in thing I listen to. Anyway, I dug the pieces, even though they harken back to a time before rock. It is a novelty but not a bad one. Something to come back to but not to listen to every day.
I felt the sound for a show over 50 years was pretty good, actually. I first appreciated Bob Dylan thanks to the Concert for Bob Dylan that was released back in 1992. It's hard to believe that that's 30 years old now. He even came to perform at my college in 92 or 93, but I did not go to see him. Thing is, the Concert for Bob Dylan was just about performances where almost of it was other artists singing his material. Listening to this performance, it makes me appreciate his songs, but it really cements the fact that I just do not care for his singing. The studio really brings out the vocals better, because live he can't sing for crap, even in the 60s. And his harmonica playing is just sloppy and all over the place. And not in a good way. It's great to hear Mr. Tambourine Man by the writer, but an 8 minute live version without the Byrds just doesn't cut it. And there are very odd... pauses in some of the verses. I mean, he wrote it, so he can choose to do what he wants, but still, it's very off-putting. Live with a full band, Robertson's guitar does a great job of harmonizing with Dylan's harmonica, but it's a struggle. As someone who has heard a lot of bootlegs from many bands, it's interesting to hear the audience cut out of this. There's applause, but the pause in between the songs is cut out (for time, I assume). I would have liked to have heard their reactions to the electric portion, as from what I understand, it was less than favorable. So yeah, I would rather hear the studio versions of these songs, or another artist cover these.
I men, I know who Biggie Smalls was. But I never really heard any of his stuff. It was kind of the same for Tupac, but "California Love" was on MTV all the time. So I had that at least. The songs felt like B.I.G. was a prizefighter, bobbing and weaving, dodging everything that was being thrown at him. The lyrical prowess on those first few songs were just amazing. The few interludes were a bit annoying, but at least they were few and far between. "Suicidal Thoughts" was disturbing. But apart from that, this was very solid. Every non-interlude track was intense. Rolling Stone called him "the greatest rapper that ever lived." I don't know if I would believe that, but he is definitely up there. Really good album.
I have a lot of questions about this album. Why is this considered an EP when other albums were of the same length? Heck, the first four Van Halen albums were about 30 minutes long. How old is the 1001 albums list? I ask this because this album came out in early 2021. I would think that albums would have to be at least in the world for at least a little bit of time before it's a "must-listen". Listening to the album I thought that Jazmine Sullivan was... adequate. The autotune was a bit overwhelming at times and I wonder what she sounds like without it. The songs were decent, many of them felt like they were cursing and using the "n"-word for the sake of it. And as I have said before, I am not a fan of spoken-word interludes. But if you're going to have them don't have as many as there are songs. I just don't why this is in the list. It just doesn't seem to be anything special.
My only experience with HD is "Dreams Reoccurring," which was recorded backward. I didn't get in context until reading about that album. It's too bad how the band fell apart after this one, but I can see it. The album is too much, and they admitted it. It should have been edited down to a single album (although which songs should have been cut I am not sure they would have been able to agree upon). A lot of the songs started to sound the same to me. I want to _like_ their stuff, it sounds like something I would be interested in, but this album seemed... bloated to me. Is it highly regarded by HD fans? I wonder...
There's something about Tom Waits that I still totally can't wrap my head around. His vocal range goes from anger to an almost Bruce Springsteen-like crooning. I imagined that when Springsteen got older he was going to sound a bit more like Tom Waits. I think my first impression of Waits was on Primus' "Tommy The Cat." The scat-like voice he used was just so... bizarre. (Makes sense since Claypool is on this album.) Listening to this album, he went from songs angry to almost Beefheart-like. "Who Are You This Time" and "Whistle Down The Wind" were both very haunting. I guess my point is I'm still not sure of his work, like Beefheart. It's something I may have to listen to numerous times. It's just so... odd. So I'm going to give it a 3. Hard to believe this is album #200. Really?
I think this album is a big step up from Talking Heads' first album, even though a lot of the songs at first have a similar feel to the first album. There's a lot more of this album I know though, whether it's from "Stop Making Sense" or greatest hits. My 2 favorite songs: 1) "Thank You For Sending Me An Angel" - every time I hear this song, I envision Jackie Gleason dancing. It just has that musical freneticism to it. 2) "Take Me To The River" - It's so weird to hear the original Al Green version now. This one is so definitive to me. Although not my favorite of their albums (either Fear of Music or Remain In Light), there were so many of the songs I sang along to in the car while listening to it.
Man, some of these songs sounded so 70s, but in a GOOD way. That funky vibe just sounded so damn good... I knew "Freddy's Dead" because Fishbone had covered, but the rest of this was just as good (although "Pusherman" was a little cringe-y, lyricwise.). The first song, sounded like it was alternating measures of 4/4 and 5/4. That off-kilter beat made for a chaotic sound. But it works really well. Short soundtrack, but I wanted to listen to it again almost right away. That's when you know something is pretty good. But I am going to ding it a star for "Pusherman," but it is definitely going on my list of stuff to look for.
I liked this one a lot better than the previous PJ Harvey album. THere were some definite highs on this one, songs that I really enjoyed, sand a few that were just kinda so so. Still, it's a step up from the last one which was a strong 3. So this would be a 4. I like the harmonies, and listening to it on youtube the song intros worked for me.
I like the mixture between country and lounge act lang straddles here. It was her first record so I guess she was still trying to figure things out, but you can hear the real emotion and fire in some of those tunes. Go for it girl, yeah! So... would you file this under country? I guess so. But the jazzier bits break up the monotony. I really dug it, reminded me of Lyle Lovett. Nice refreshing change of pace for me.
It was 1984, I think, or 1985, when I first got this album. I got it through the Columbia House Records & Tapes Club. I had gotten a bunch of Springsteen albums, but the only one I really went back to was “Born To Run.” Even “Born In The USA” did not overly thrill me. You have to understand, when you come from Jersey, you had to choose: Springsteen, Sinatra, or (later) Bon Jovi. I chose Springsteen. But then I kind of grew out it. It’s weird how that musical hero from that age left me. Maybe I just felt I had to like Springsteen for some reason, since “Born In The USA” was EVERYWHERE. Listening to the album in one sitting now, it’s a lot more polished than “Born To Run" (not necessarily a good thing). I keep joking about Springsteen becoming a country singer, and there are at least 2 or 3 songs that point to it here. The title track… it’s another one of those tracks with no bridge. This irks me, because it feels so repetitive. And yet the song itself is so well-known. “I’m On Fire” should have done more, it’s such a haunting song. “Glory Days” I can go my entire life without hearing again. Honest. It’s a good album with one or two iconic songs, but “Born To Run” is still his greatest album. This does not hold a candle to that. So it has to get a slightly lower rating, like a 4.4 maybe?
You can't deny the poetry of the lyrics. But yeah, this studio offering doesn't convince me of the musicality of Dylan's voice. I have to wonder how many takes it took. He seems pretty restrained as opposed to the live performance we heard. I know about half of these songs from other performances. "Like A Rolling Stone," though, is all Bob. It's iconic and no one can take the warbly version he puts out away from him. The instrumentation. Listening to "Just Like Tom's Thumb's Blues..." I felt the keyboards were kind of in the way of each other. And Dylan's harmonica... ugh. So I can't deny the importance of this album and the poetry of the lyrics, but I can't give it 5 stars. Dylan's singing just... ugh.
The album is a bit dated now, compared to their later stuff. But NO SLEEP TILL BROOKLYN will always get me cranked up and in a good mood. The band has disowned "Girls" which was pretty big of them. Hard to believe they went from being so sophomoric to what they became. I don't listen to this one a lot, but when I do it's put very L-O-U-D.
Such great stuff on this, even besides "Bohemian Rhapsody," which everyone knows. I mean "You're My Best Friend," " '39," "I'm In Love With My Car" are all great as well. But you can't get around the elephant in the room, can you? It's just too big. I tend to listen to the B-sides / deep cuts of Queen more only because I have heard those greatest hits so often. And BR is one I think I have heard hundreds of time now. It's still a great song, though. The band is firing on all cylinders on just about every song. Not one I would skip at all.
It feels kind of like an Irish country album. A lot of the songs go on a good minute too long. Kind of dragged, you know? So, probably not going to come back to it because of that.
I have the first album of Buffalo Springfield with "For What It's Worth." They had released the album and then Stills had written "For What It's Worth It" and the record company was all "Holy crap put that song on the record you numbskulls!" That song is better than any of the stuff on the first album. The second album is much better by leaps and bounds. They knew a lot more about what they were doing. It's too bad things were already falling apart, because this album was really good. I mean yes, it's very 60s, but not as dated as The Mamas and The Papas. And "Mr. Soul" is such a good song. "Stick around for the clown who is sick does a trick of disaster, for the race of my face and my head is moving much faster..." Such a great lyrical turn by Neil Young. I had never heard the original version of "Everydays," just Yes covering it. So it was interesting to hear the original finally. You can really tell the difference in the songs by writer, which tells you how the band is pulling apart a bit. There's no cohesion, you know? I will have to listen to the third album of theirs, but I suspect this is the best one of all three of them.
AC/DC. Every album of theirs, to me, sounds like the previous album. It's an amazing thing. A friend of mine took me to one of their shows. Concerts you can clearly divide up into shows where you get drunk and shows where you get high. At least in shows where you get high, you kind of stay within your own personal bubble. Drunks kept bumping in to me. Swear to god, I was ready to throw one off the top level. During the show, they had the cameras focused on women basically egging them on to take their tops off. Which some of them did. It was very surreal. Anyway, anytime I listen to their stuff I cannot feel a progression, one album to the next. The only difference is going from Bon Scott to Brian Johnson. That's a big leap to Back In Black. But this is about Highway To Hell. Each of the songs here has that sloppiness, vocal-wise. Like the guy is half-drunk. That was the beauty of Scott. He sounded like that all the time, but he was always on. Even though the albums are same-y, the songs vary to some extent. They're not all exactly the same. And there are a few deep cuts I recognize, like "Night Prowler," which I have always liked. So I don't say I hate them, but I get bored easily by them is my point. One album, like this one is good. Good enough.
Wow. Pretty much everyone associates "Smooth Operator" with Sade. And thinks the one track, because that was her big crossover hit. But MAN this whole album just exudes sultry. I didn't think it was possible, but she was able to outdo the sax there all throughout the album. "Sally" really struck a chord with me, not sure why. I really liked the lyrics and how she brought those out. I had to listen to more of the band's stuff after listening to the album, which says a lot about that first album. Really enjoyed the whole first album. Close to a 5-star rating, although the "Why Can't We Live Together?" seemed kind of forced. Still, all in all a really good album.
So I liked this album a little bit more than the other VU albums we have heard. It is more accessible, yes. But honestly, I can't see anything special about it. And "Murder Mystery"... um, WTF was that all about? The rest of the songs just had that air of pretentiousness. "Look I am being art." Sure you are, Lou. Just not buying it. Next.
The whole story behind this group and the fact that it was formed for a soundtrack fascinated me. The few songs "Apache" & "Last Bongo In Belgium" are so noteworthy as they are sampled on pretty well-known pieces. Jim Gordon was involved? Derek & The Dominoes' Jim Gordon? Oh, wow! "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" I liked, but having it be instrumental felt a bit too cheesy. The original Iron Butterfly version is cheesy enough. The CD has a lot of bonus tracks on it. The original album, just the 8 tracks, I rate higher than with the bonus stuff. I did not like what they particularly did with "Wipeout" or "Satisfaction", for example. "WipeOut" sounded like the batteries on the player were slowing down as they were playing. By the time I was on the bonus tracks I felt they were scraping the bottom of the barrel. I liked this album quite a bit, but there's just... something off about it. I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe it's all the covers. It reminds me a bit of the whole "Hooked On Classics" / "Up With People" thing. It feels too.... white? Sterile? It seems that way in particular with the bonus tracks. So it was good, and I may get it at some point, but it wasn't mind-blowing.
Pure anger. Justified anger, but anger nonetheless. It's probably too bad I only know "It Was A Good Day," but the other stuff hits hard. The interstitial tracks work, they're not just skits. I get how they tie the other tracks together. I don't know how many times I could listen to it with the language, but I still enjoyed it a lot.
I knew three of the songs of this already, so I guess that says something about the album. The tracks are well-liked enough that they are played more often than not. But I hate to say it, Coldplay bores me. You know that scene in "Coming To America" when Randy Watson comes out and starts singing, and everyone gets uncomfortable? That's how I feel listening to Coldplay. It just isn't for me. "Clocks" feels kinda too simple, and it shouldn't, with the piano and how it's being used. And "The Scientist...." I have a cover of Willie Nelson doing it, it sounds great. It's like Cash doing "Hurt", it takes it to the next level. So yeah it just is not my cup of tea, but I can tell it was well done.
I don't really care for the guitar tone on the album. It's too... jangly. I kept expecting the tone to change up, and it never did. From wikipedia: "Smith deliberately sought to record an album that was depressing, as it was a reflection of the despondency he felt at the time." Well. That's going to make you excited to listen to it. The longer intros to some of the sings were pretty good, I thought. But the songs were all very... gloomy. I mean, that's the Cure as a whole, right? Anyway, it was ok, I guess. But I didn't fall in LOVE with it. I get the sense the Cure is one of those things you either love or are ambivalent to. I'm in the second. It didn't really move me, but the intros and the instrumental work were interesting, but the guitar tone was offsetting after a while.
I remember when this came out. For a good year, you could not escape this album. The hit singles "Ready Or Not" and "Killing Me Softly" were played all the time right around the time I was getting ready for my wedding. Hard to believe it's 25 years that that's been around. I really thought Lauryn Hill was going to be such a star. And then she completely flaked out after her first album. But she is just so good her, the rhymes are crisp and really flowing. But it's hard to take Wyclef Jean so seriously as being "gangster." I just don't think of him that way, but that was the image he was trying to pull off, along with the third guy (what happened to him, anyway?) Hill's harmonizing worked so well with the big singles it's no wonder they were played so often. They became so damn catchy. But even the other songs work well, even with the goofy skits in the middle of them (the Chinese Restaurant thing is just silly, taking me completely out of the song). It's just a shame that there was no real follow-up to this album. The big stuff on it did so well. I keep coming back to it in my head. The filler is skippable after a listen. Why do all of these albums have these skits on it? Why does it seem necessary to them? I know I've said it before, it just makes it a track to skip after a while. I mean, now albums seem like suck a thing of the past with the technology available, people will just buy the songs they want and not the whole album. I just don't get it.
This album rates pretty high for me because it was one of the first ones I got on CD. That first side is just so strong, back to back to back killer tracks, although "Wild Honey Pie" is a bit of a filler. The second side has "Don't Pass Me By," which isn't bad for a first track by Ringo. Little heavy on the keys, making it feel very calliope-like. The third side doesn't have a real clunker, although Sexy Sadie is probably the one I like least of those, but it's still real good. Then there's side four. First off, I like the single version of "Revolution" that was released. I think it's much better than Revolution 1. I wish they had included it as a bonus on the remaster or something. Then there's "Revolution 9." Look, I get that they were experimenting with all different styles throughout the album. Sgt. Pepper is strictly an album of its time, but it opened up everyone to the possibility of doing more than just "rock and roll." The White Album is more malleable, much looser in form because of the experimentation. Having said that, "Revolution 9" is just... boring. Boring and too long. So I usually skip it. "Good Night" closes ou tthe album, and it's a bit too mich treacle. SO since I've skipped "Revolution 9" I usually skip that too. So there you have it. I've played this album so many times since it was one of my first CDs. But even so, there are still a few tracks I tend to skip, so as much as I have a fondness for it, I can only give 4 out of 5 because of those weak tracks.
The worldliness of the album was nice to hear. I listened to the last song a few times and I don't get it. The appeal of it escaped me a bit. I always felt that Sinead O'Connor got a bum rap back in the 90s, and her performance on this album is great. It'd be nice to hear her in more stuff like this, maybe more atmospheric. Imagine her in one of Fripp's soundscapes... But you know Wobble is a forgiving and gracious artist. He had to deal with John Lydon for a few albums in Public Image, didn't he? So yeah, I dug this. May have to seek out some more.
I enjoyed the album. Jazz, man. Dig it. The problem with a jazz trio is that you are not going to get a lot of variation. I mean, it's piano, bass and drums. What else are they going to do? Piano solo, bass solo, drum solo. That's it. It does start to sound a bit same-y after a while. So I can't imagine me getting the whole Bill Evans Trio collection. But a live performance like this one or two definitely cleanses the palate.
Why does every one have to be a "b***h a$$ mother-f***er?" on this record? Even with Nas' flow going, it still just seemed a LOT to call out everyone like that ALL the TIME. Still, he really had it going. I liked his word play and the groove was really nice. Short album, not skits. Pretty good.
A song or two of this is good. You know, 3 to 5 minutes or so. But a whole album? The problem with free jazz is that because there is no structure, every song starts to run together. There is no contrast. By the time any song sounded different, I was about 20 minutes into the album. That's a problem. It's just... all over the place. Not something I need to revisit.
I will say I liked this Tom Waits album more than the previous one we had. The whole jazz club atmosphere, the feeling you're in there with them. Waits really captured it. His singing was really heartfelt, and I guess not as... "Beefheart-felt." The tracks, well... I have this problem with how albums divide up tracks. This one particularly frustrated me, with the intros to the tracks being separate from the tracks was really... baffling. A lot of live albums also frustrate me in that the song starts on with the first note and not them saying "here's a song about blah blah blah, it's called xyz." That usually is on the end of the previous song. So if you have it on a shuffle of some sort, it's very jarring. And now this one has it so the intros are separate songs?! Ugh. Maybe it sounds like I'm nitpicking, but I just didn't get why so many intros were separate from the songs themselves, unless he was trying to make more tracks. And oh yeah, the "Big Joe and Phantom 309" track... it just annoyed me. Don't know why. It felt a little too beatnik. So yeah, I liked the album much more. Would I buy it? Probably not. The music was a vast improvement to the last one, though. I may pull it up again and listen to it. Maybe. The tracks thing, it just... annoys me.
I have never been a big fan of Green Day, or "pop punk," as it were. To me, "punk" is not popular. In its rawest form, it is a sign of rebellion against the norm, against conformity. Against popularity, "pop." So the two together is an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp, or military intelligence. Anyway, there were four songs on here that we've all heard, but what was interesting is how much the non-hits blended together for me. Billie Joe's vocals just blended into the same kind of wanker-y voice. And the guitar sounded... blah. Flat, nothing piercing through the wall of sound. The drummer didn't bring much to the table either. If you're in a trio, all three really have to be able to shine at their instruments, and really only the bass player stood out. So this is one of those "I know the hits, kinda like them, but the non-hits are non-hits for a reason." So nothing exciting here for me.
I liked the guitar riffs sampled by CH. Although that did get a little tiresome after a while. B Real has a very interesting voice, it has a kind of cartoony feel. I like the funkiness of the beat for most of the songs. I was surprised that many of the songs were shorter than I expected. The first song, "Pigs," made a statement about the establishment, but I felt that Public Enemy (the next album up) made better statements about the establishment. I always felt that Cypress Hill was not as serious, so it was weird to hear them rapping like they were. Don't get me wrong, I don't think they're the Fat Boys or the Beastie Boys "Licensed To Ill"-era. But I just didn't think of them on the same level as Public Enemy. So I dug it, but as a person who is not into stoner rock, it's hard to listen to you know?
There's something about Public Enemy. Their rhymes really sound important, even when it's Flavor Flav being goofy. And they are. I mean, even when they give props to Terminator X (which they do a lot here). I dug this album a lot, it was more serious than Cypress Hill, a bit refreshing. It's weird, knowing that B-Real and Chuck D would be working together in the disappointing "Prophets of Rage." I remember hearing "Party For Your Right To Fight" back in college. I didn't get it back then, but I understand it more now.
It can be really difficult to separate the person from the music. This is one of those cases. I first became aware of Afrika Bambaataa in high school. A friend of mine put "World Destruction" on a mix tape. It's a good song, him and John Lydon going round and round, their vocals. I hadn't heard the song in 20 years. It popped up on the PiL box set I picked up and brought me back to my teen years in an instant. So I was surprised to hear his work on this album, a very different context. Anyway, this album seems so... dated. At the time, I'm sure it seemed very much ahead of its time, but I listen to it, and compare it to some of the other rap hits of the era, and a lot of them still hold up, while this just... doesn't. Then "Renegades of Funk" came on. I was unaware that this is where Rage Against The Machine covered it from. I knew it was a cover, but didn't realize that this was the original. The cover is better, way better. So then I looked up in wikipedia about Afrika Bambaataa. Do your rating of this album or any of his work, then look him up. Because once I read it (not going to summarize), it really colored my feelings toward any of his work. I know it shouldn't, but it's like looking at a painting, critiquing it, and THEN finding out it was Hitler's. Do you still give it the same regard? _CAN_ you?
I thought this was interesting. The only post rock I have in my collection is Jambinai, which I don't know if I would call that post rock. The first track probably could have been broken up into different movements as the ideas went along. I have to wonder if they play only portions of it live or not. Instrumentals like this, it's hard to imagine them playing exactly note for note live, because it sounds more like a jam in the studio. Still, it' nice background music and I appreciated it for what it was. Do I need to listen to it again to find deeper meaning? Probably not, but it's there if I wanted to. Up on the high 3's, I think. Rounds up to a 4. I think it may warrant another listen.
A while back, I had criticized an album that was released last year. I said that I thought the album had to be around for at least a little bit of time before it's a "must-listen." Well, 2019 must be that amount of time, because holy crap this was not what I was expecting. That first track hit and smoked. The entire album emanated 70s soul, but still sounded modern at the same time. Very impressed by this one. In the low 4's for me.
Back to R.E.M. again. Blergh. I mean, Stipe's voice isn't too bad, and the three songs I knew were good. The one song with saxophone (!!), that was an interesting change of pace. But then there's just... Stipe. Maybe it isn't his voice. I mean, I listen to Neil Young and Ian Anderson and like them. They are just as nasal and whiny. But I just find Stipe so pretentious. And R.E.M. makes me think of 120 Minutes from MTV, and "oh, we're college rock. We're more ART." I don't know, it just somehow annoys me more. So the non-hits were a bit better than the last one, and the sax was a pleasant change of pace. But not enough to turn my loathing of Stipe around, sorry.
I felt the vocal processing wasn't too bad on this album. Lorde's unique vocals still were able to come through. The comments for a lot of the songs online were WAY too gushy for songs that quite frankly, were very generic. They didn't move me one way or the other. Neither hate or love. They were mostly... forgettable. Moving on.
Real good punk / new wave feel to it. The male vocalist has a bit of a David Byrne vibe in his voice (not a bad thing, mind you). Universal Corner feels a bit lke "Shape Of Things To Come." Its nice to finally hear the whole song RHCP sampled for their song "Good Tine Boys." Now there's one song off the samples I don't know as of yet. Anyway, back to X. Even with it being punk, there's still a bit of variation, which is good. Nice short punk album, I really dug it.
I thought that the Folsom Prison recording pretty much said it all. Although this is the infamous concert where he gave the camera crew the finger. The original recording is nice, but it's probably better to listen to the entire concert. It's interesting to note the fact he played San Quentin twice, playing it again at the request of the audience. You never hear that happen anywhere these days. So as much as I enjoy Johnny Cash, I can't give the original album 5 stars. It's too short. I would rather listen to the whole concert, and even then it just seems redundant with Folsom Prison out there. So down to 4 it goes.
A lot of albums that may not have been completely geared towards me as a demographic I can still get something out of. Music is normally an equalizer. This album, which seems to be an inspirational album, is one of the few times I did not feel anything. It just didn't hit me. A lot of the songs seemed very mantra-ish. There wasn't that song structure: verse-chorus-verse. Maybe that was part of it, I was waiting for someone to start singing, when the songs all just seemed to be intros. Not getting it at all.
Me: I didn't care too much for this Tom Waits album. Randomizer: How about... ANOTHER Tom Waits album? Me: ... Hmmm...Umm... OK. Well, it's better I guess, but maybe I can listen to something else...? Randomizer: How about... ANOTHER Tom Waits album? Me: <throws arms into the air> what the hell? So here we are with ANOTHER Tom Waits album. First off, I did not realize "Jersey Girl" was written by Waits. And yeah, this is another step up from the last two. I probably would rank this even higher than the last two. But so close to the last two. I mean... I'm trying to separate it. They're trying to make me rank it higher, or what? OK, but seriously, folks. What about the songs and the performances? I felt that Waits was more "on" here than "Nighthawks At The Diner," and I liked his performance there. The songs were pretty well-written, and Waits himself did a pretty good job. So yeah, I'm going to say comparatively, of the three, this would be the best. So this would get a 4 because of that. I just wish it wasn't so close to the last one.
Fogerty is always good for an album. A few of the songs do start to sound similar, at least in the intros. "Lodi" is probably one of my favorite of their songs, although I guess I did know it wasn't about the town in New Jersey, I secretly wanted to believe it was. Other random thoughts: I never really liked the big hit "Bad Moon Rising," it sounds too simple in comparison to the other songs. "The Night Time Is The Right Time"... Ray Charles does it a heck of a lot better. "Sinister Purpose" man, that is a damn good one. Should have caught on. So there's some good, and some "eh" songs. Still, I enjoy CCR so I can imagine putting this on every now and then, although skipping "Night Time".
Simple country. No steel guitars needed. There's something... pure about it. It's quite refreshing, actually. Nice to hear very little overproduction. No pitch correction, no artificiality to it. Simple and to the point. Really dug it.
I know Hanoi Rocks from the "Peacemaker" show. So I was kinda prepared for HR... ...what I was not prepared for was the fact that I was going to actually like the album. Yeah, it's very 80s, but it hit something in me that I kinda was missing. I really kinda dug it. Can't explain, really, Maybe it was the other stuff I was listening to previously today, I don't know. But I really enjoyed it.
The choices within each of the songs for tempo, rhythm, and style are interesting to say the least. Originally I thought that the cover was one of those retro covers. Nope, it's for an album of the time. The bottom line is, even with the innovation of the song choices, it still sounds incredibly dated. Not something I would choose to come back to.
When I was younger, I had the "red" and "blue" albums. Pretty much the greatest "hits" of the Beatles. This still had a bit of the whimsy of the earlier albums, but something was definitely looming, something big. The songs still hold up (although I could go the rest of my life never hearing "Yellow Submarine" again) for me, unlike a lot of the other albums we have heard. I can't imagine what it was like to hear this when it was first released, thinking "what IS this? How did they do all of these songs like this?" It's just so varied, but nothing really misses. "Got To Get You Into My Life" is one of my favorites. Those horns come in and, man! I just get this big grin on my face every time. Such a great album.
Now THIS is the kind of stuff I was expecting to find in the list. There is no way a middle class WASP from Jersey would have ever found this album growing up. Having said that, I really enjoyed it. Listened through it twice in a row. The only song I found annoying was “One More Dance.” I thought Charles Coleman’s laughing was annoying throughout the song; like a stand- up laughing at a joke before he finishes telling it. The interpretation of “House of the Rising Sun” was pretty daring, particularly in 1960. I cannot imagine a lot of singers putting themselves out there like that. I checked on this so I would not feel dumb: “Mbube” means lion. So it’s only natural that song sounds a lot like “The Lion Sleeps Tonight.” I imagine “Mbube” came first and was… shall we say, “appropriated…?” Definitely an album I will come back to, a nice change of pace for me.
Combining country and punk. Not something I would consider. On some of the pieces, it works. But doing it for the whole album, the novelty wore thin for me. And that spoken word piece, WTH was THAT all about? I totally get the vibe they were going for, but I wasn't feeling it. The best country punk song I ever heard was "The Country Death Song" by Violent Femmes. This was NOT comparable. Fortunately it was only 35 minutes. But still, not enough to sustain me. Give it 2.6, round up to 3. Moving on...
I was pleasantly surprised by this album. It reminds me of Love and Rockets by a bit, actually. Had that 80s new wave alternative feel to it. Honestly, I had heard of the band back in the day, and I knew one or two people who wore a t-shirt of theirs, but it always seemed kind of odd for a name, so I never took that step to try them out. This album was a real unexpected treat, and I would say if you are a fan of that style of post-punk, this is definitely a band you should check out.
This felt a bit poppier band than I was expecting. As such, the songs needed to be shorter. (Girl From Mars, for example. It seemed to go on a good 2 or 3 choruses too long.) So the juxtaposition of the band being a bit "noisy" (in a good way. Really.) as they were playing songs that were trying to be more pop sounded is fine. But I just felt that they went too long. The songs need to be briefer, like the Hives.
Standard blues-y fare, but Clapton on guitar. It's hard to believe that it's close to 60 years ago now. But the simplicity of the songs for the most part does date it. Cream did "Steppin' Out" a lot better than this version, I thought. It's interesting to hear the beginnings of what became some of the biggest acts in the world. But as a musical piece of history, it just sounds like that. I never got the whole "Clapton is God" thing. Don't get me wrong, I always thought he was great, but deifying him seemed a bit much. Particularly listening to what he was doing here. So it's of musical significance for history, but I don't see myself coming back to this.
I have TL's "Jailbreak". But besides the two or three big hits from that album, I could not tell you the other tracks. Having said that, I kind of liked this album. It's a nice live representation of the band and what their style was. And Huey Lewis plays harmonica on a track?! Whoa. I don't think I've ever complained about this on an album before, but the mix is very off. It's like they had vocals pumped through one lead, and all the instruments on another. I know other live albums of the era were not like this. Then there's the argument of this is even a live album to begin with. A lot of live albums of that time had MASSIVE overdubs. This one (at least by one of the producers) seems to be of similar feel. That's what I get from the stuff online, anyway. So I can't really say either way. Regardless, I liked the songs they did play, even though I only knew two of them. The others seemed to groove pretty well, and even with a fairly lame drum solo, this would be the disc I would pick to be a good representation of the band. Definitely one I would pick out.
Always a good album to come to. It drips 70s, but in a good way (yes I know it was released in 1969). Besides the songs that were hits, “Liberation “ has to be mentioned as an amazing track. A tour de force, really. “Free Form Guitar,” um… yeah. Guess you had to be there. Solid album, all the way through. The first few Chicago albums are really good stuff, I really recommend them.
This album reminds me a bit of the scene in Chasing Amy where they're at the comic book convention, and everyone is at a panel. And the one guy (Hooper X) starts making claims about Star Wars that are WAY overreaching. This felt like, although they were making salient points, it was very much hitting me over the head with very little subtlety. Public Enemy seemed... tame in comparison. After three or four songs, it just got... tiresome. A track or two is good, and definitely "Television, the Drug of the Nation" was great. But still... I needed to lighten up after that. Phew.
Great mix here of rock with the funk. As the one song says "who says a funk band can't play rock?" It's obvious where bands like Fishbone & RHCP get their chops from. The guitar solo on Maggot Brain is aMAZing. All hail Funkadelic! Reviews do talk about their owing a lot to progressive rock. I don't know if I see that as much. I see them owing more to jam bands than anything else, longer rock solos and instrumentals are not necessarily only linked to progressive rock. I mean, live versions of "Dazed and Confused" go on (and on and on...) for a half and hour. Even with that, it was really good. I had it on on a long car ride, but I did not get a chance to really *listen* so I listened to it again and really appreciated what was going on there. Definitely one I will come back to. Maybe a 4.3 or 4.4, one that is going on the list to purchase.
I had this album for a time and got rid of it. I honestly think I did not "get it" at the time. This is not an album to be taken seriously, but I was taking it too seriously. It's a "punk" album but the band is a bunch of punks. Listening to it years later, I have remorse for getting rid of the album. This is a lot better than I gave it credit. The stuff you hear on some of their later hits is really all here: "Why Don't You Just Get A Job?" is just like "What Happened To You?". "The Kids Aren't Alright" is like a few of the songs, probably a cross between "Bad Habit" and something else. So it's interesting to see that they haven't really evolved. Going to have to find this one again.
It's weird how jazz albums with 2 songs on an album side are considered "classic" yet rock albums with just 2 songs are "excessive" or "pretentious". I don't listen to enough jazz, but what I do listen to I like or love. And this album I love. I wish I listened to it more.
Fairport Convention is one of those bands I have heard OF but not heard anything BY. I should have by this point, but this is my first full album listen. I can see why Robert Plant wanted Sandy Denny's voice for "The Battle Of Evermore." It's a very good counter and has a very Irish tinge here in a lot of the songs, I really hear it in "Percy's Song." Steve Howe once said how record execs were willing to try almost anything back in the early 70s. I could see how this caught on back then and how folk rock like this co ntinued throughout, but it's not something I imagine would be big now. It does seem pretty late 60s and 70s. But I still dug it. Maybe it was all the Dylan songs, I don't know.
Watching the one video from this album (The Boy With The Thorns In His Side), I remember why I don't like The Smiths: Morrissey is just a whiny little s**t. He just... tries to hold himself like he doesn't know what to do with his arms. He is no Jim Morrison, I can tell you that. And that whole jangle-y guitar. Gah. Just... irritating. Next.
All I can hear in my mind as I am listening to this is "Weird Al" Yankovic's parody "Pancreas." And I _KNOW_ I shouldn't be thinking of it, but it's stuck in there as I am listening to this. The whole thing feels very... childish. But then, I always felt that way with the Beach Boys. Like, the songs never dealt with overly mature stuff, and the music reflected this (Good Vibrations and all). It's too clean cut. Speaking of that, Good Vibrations to me will unfortunately be linked to Sunkist soda. I remember seeing the commercials when I was 13 or 14. I didn't realize the corporate linking, I just assumed the song was for the soda. Little did I know... So now I cannot unlink it in my head. So I think it was a great accomplish for Brian Wilson to come back to this work over 35 years later. Are the melodies hummable? Probably. But it's so... light and sugar-y. It's an important album in the history of rock, but I just don't know if it's something I would come back to and listen to again and again.
I knew Q-Tip from A Tribe Called Quest and his collaboration with the Beastie Boys on Ill Communication. But man, this takes it to another level. His flow was great, the guest stars really hit the mark. Every track was concise and did not overstay their welcome. I really REALLY enjoyed this album. Definitely one to pick up.
This was a real pleasant surprise. I knew the big hit "I Bet You Look Good On The Dance Floor," but pretty much every song on this album is really good. It's not just your standard early 200s rock-fare, maybe it's the combination of all the different styles? I dunno. The start-stop beat of that first track really hooked me in. I also liked the fake ending for "Perhaps Vampires Is a Bit Strong But..." Maybe it was something I was in the mood for, but I really enjoyed this one. More than I was expecting to.
Damn this is SICK stuff. Great beats, the flow is amazing. This is what a hip-hop group at their peak really sounds like. It is definitely going on the list of planned purchases. Just... WOW.
I remember hearing about how this album is so momentous for a lot of musicians. My biggest problem with this album is the vocals by Richard Manuel. They are very whiny. "I Shall Be Released," for example. The vocals got really grating after a while. There are a number of covers that are so much better of that song. And "Tears of Rage" starts off very warbly. It made me think there was something with the wrong with the track the first few times I heard it. "The Weight," however is such a damn good song. I can't tell you how many times I've heard it. It's just perfection as a song. All of the music as a whole reminds me so much of the Dead (not that that is necessarily a BAD thing). But ultimately, it's hard to give this album super high marks when half the songs have such a whiny, nasally vocalist.
This was a pretty intriguing album. I really liked her vocals throughout. I also liked how some of the songs bled into each other. The lyrics... I started to lose a bit of focus on them. Bob Dylan's lyrics I can listen to them and get really into the tory of them, but these kinda just lost me. The last song was a bit of a jazzy riff, and I get what she was going for there. Yes, it is a cover and it was fitting for her to sing a song about analysis because she had gone through some of her own. It's weird how almost 50 years later we still don't totally accept therapy. This song is kinda making fun of it, and I mean we should be able to move past that. But we should also be able to be a little tongue in cheek about it too, right? This is one of those albums I had to listen to twice. I could tell there is more to it than what I was hearing. I think I may need another listen, but as it is, I like what I hear. But I don't think I should have to listen to it three or more times to say if it's good or not. So I'm going to say that it was good, bordering on great. But I am cautious on that. I mean, maybe I am just going off of what other people are saying? Shouldn't I be able to decide it for myself? Don't know. Perhaps I should give it another listen.
It's obvious how the band and this album influenced Nirvana and Jane's Addiction. When I first put the album on, it was like I had found the missing piece to the puzzle. Because those other albums don't just suddenly appear. There has to be some evolution, right? So, what about this album? Wikipedia said that NME writers voted it the second greatest album of all time. Now that's REALLY pushing it. I thought it was good. The songs were short and to the point. "Hey" was... um, yeah. Definitely made me want to hear more, which is a good thing.
The few skits that were on this were a bit distracting. I have stated before that skits do take away from the re-listenability of the entire album. Tracks produced by MF DOOM I can pick out pretty easily now, which is weird, because it wasn't that long ago I didn't know who he was. But now he's really on my radar. It's sad he's no longer with us, as he seemed to be a really highly regarded force in hip-hop, but not known outside that circle. Ghostface Killah really draws you in. The beat was great. It's interesting that all the members of Wu-Tang guest-starred. That the group were willing to do solo albums and help each other out like that is great. It's not an album I would come back to often, only because of the language and violence. But the lyrics are real and I totally get where he is coming from. I did enjoy this a lot. If this came on, I wouldn't turn it off.
Wow. So the Byrds are to blame. Seriously, this is in fact the first Country Rock album. It sounds more like a country album. Or at least what I consider a straight-up country album. As it is, I am not a big fan of that type of music, but recognizing that this is really the first instance of this type of genre makes me a little more appreciative of it. Probably my favorite track was the Dylan track "Nothing Was Delivered."
I had enjoyed Fela Kuti's "Zombie" album when it came up on randomly on the generator. I really dug the afro-jazz vibe. And now, with Ginger Baker added in to the mix, this made it even better. The bonus track: do we need a 16 minute drum solo? No, but it's still nice to hear. Baker is infamous for this, the song "Toad" by Cream, performed live has a THIRTEEN minute drum solo. So a 16 minute drum duet is no surprise. The other songs are in the same vein as "Zombie," although a bit more scat-singing. So high marks from me!
I had heard this album once before, a while back. A few of the tracks remind me a bit of the Moody Blues' album "Days of Future Past", but not in a good way. I guess being born in 70, the whole psychedelic movement kinda passed me by. I like Cream a lot, but songs. like "SWLABR" and "Tales of Brave Ulysses" kinda make me pause because the lyrics are WAY too out there. Some of these are the same way, like "The Red Telephone." What was THAT all about? Sometimes lyrics are supposed to paint a picture, Jon Anderson does that a lot with Yes lyrics, but it's still ABOUT something. A lot of these songs feel too silly. The first track "Alone Again Or" has been covered by a lot of acts, and I had first heard the Damned's recording of it. The track stand out as being the best piece over the other songs on the album. The rest is very middling fare for me. One song does not make the entire album, in fact it's rather frustrating because you wish the rest of the album could be this good. Blue Oyster Cult's album Agents of Fortune is like that for me, too. The rest of the album does not do a lot for me, and then "Don't Fear The Reaper" comes on and you think "why can't the rest of the album be as good as this song?" So it's not that the album itself is BAD, it's just that the first song is really good, and the rest is just... fair. And that really is frustrating and drives the score down for me. So just listen to the first song, and move on from there.
It's interesting that these songs are all similar in style. Probably the first "concept album," as wikipedia stated. Honestly, I don't like blanketing all of the albums as concept albums. In my head, I consider a concept album something more grandiose. But, I guess you have to start somewhere. <shrugs> Honestly, as I was listening to the album, at first I was intrigued that Sinatra was putting all of those type of songs together. You really don't get a lot of acts thinking "let's put all of these type of songs together so that they sound the same," but that's where we are. And it's not like it's a bad thing that they sound similar, as opposed to acts who have a specific sound and they can't vary it so that the songs sound different. Frank's music on the album does vary somewhat. However, "In the Wee Small Hours" is right. Because as I was listening to it, I kept thinking that a lot of the music sounded like something I would listen to to drift off to sleep to. Not necessarily BAD, but not the best to say it's "great music to fall asleep to."
UGH. This is the kind of country that I remember my parents listening to in the car that I would just roll my eyes at. The kind that the crowd was looking for when The Blues Brothers when into the bar that served both kinds of music: country AND western. The kind of music that sounds just... out of touch with the world and what is going on in America. Music that is just... white. Like a wonder bread sandwich with mayonnaise. Lots of mayo. Music you listen to while watching how to make a meal by Paula Deen. I can feel my arteries hardening while I listen to this. Moving on.
Aside from "Seven Nation Army," which I could be ecstatic to never hear again, I did enjoy this album. <Bass guitar? Where's the bass guitar??> Meg White's vocals were a bit... ingratiating after a while, though. Maybe as backing vocals it could have worked, but... yeah. "The Hardest Button To Button" I always liked. The video is pretty simple, but effective. So, it's a pretty good album, I enjoy the album as a whole: simple, but effective.
I went down a rabbit hole, looking up info about the Shaft films (yes, films plural). There's part of me that wants to watch the film and see how the songs fit in. Maybe I will. A number of the songs, as instrumentals, work except they feel like they need vocals. And the few songs (except for the Theme from Shaft) feel a bit clunky because... well... because of the lyrics. "Soulsville" in particular felt a little cringe-y. I mean, the topic was one that transcends the song itself about abject poverty. I don't know, maybe it was the delivery? I can't tell. One that caught my eye was "Be Yourself." It felt like it needed lyrics, and all I could think of was that the Audioslave song "Be Yourself" would somehow fit in there somewhere. I think the highlight for me was "Do Your Thing". The guitar solos were amazing. I didn't realize it was 20 minutes when I first started listening. A _DOUBLE_ album?! Wow, it's interesting that there was so much music in the movie like that. Definitely going to come back to this, especially "Do Your Thing."
Pretty strong album by Stevie. I have listened to the first song way too much, but it's still a damn good song. "Maybe Your Baby" just seemed like a riff that went nowhere. I was expecting a bridge or a chorus, but it was just the one thing over and over, even with... Ray Parker Jr.?!. Loved "Tuesday Heartbreak," very funky sort of a precursor to "Superstition". I've played the song "Superstition" and it is a bear. Although I think "Sir Duke" is probably harder, I think I probably like "Superstition" more. The songs have a real good range, too. Going from a funk feel to a real R&B vibe. The one song I liked, but feels weird was "I Believe (When I Fall In Love It Will Be Forever)". The song came out in '72, which is when he divorced his FIRST wife. So will it be forever? I don't know for him, since he got married two more times. The synths all throughout this album really make it stand out. It's hard to believe it was done in 72, it gives it a bit of a futuristic sound. Really cool stuff. All in all, I really enjoyed this album.
The one thing I marvel about this live set is how tight it is. It's only slightly over a half hour, and there's no mic talk "hey how you all doing?" "Here's a song about..." "Blah Blah Blah" They just go right into each song, bing bang boom. I figured that most of James Brown's live songs would be pretty short, I was surprised that there was at least one song he REALLY stretched out. The medleys were pretty cool, too. So energetic, and the band was just aMAZing. Just great stuff.
To me, DJ Music always seems so... light and inconsequential. I put it on and listen to the whole album, and not even notice when it's over. There's nothing ever profound there. It's music to take some E to, get out on the dance floor and have a good time. Like, who cares if it's the UK version of the album or not, where they had to re-record tracks because of sampling? No one goes to a rave and listens THAT closely. "Ohhhhh, listen to the beat, they used THIS kind of drum machine instead of THIS kind." You're listening for that BOOM BOOM BOOM to bump and grind, get blitzed to and have some kind of communal, dance experience. So deep listening to this is almost impossible. And giving it a high rating is almost impossible too. It's the fast food of music, it will satisfy, but will you really remember it afterwards?
I can hear the obvious influences. But man, it is a bit of a downer. The singer suffered from depression? Couldn't tell at all from the songs. The singing reminds me of the tonality the Clash used for "The Guns of Brixton." It's ok, but as a whole it just didn't quite move me the way I thought it would. Kinda meh.
The shorter songs were better, I thought. Most of the songs over 4 minutes felt like they were DEFINITELY over 4 minutes long. They went on and on, and you could feel that they could have ended at least a minute or two earlier. Again, the kind of music you listen to, and then pretty much forget afterward.
Living Colour is one of my favorite bands from the 90s. This album is pretty bright, compared to their later albums. I personally prefer 'Time's Up' and 'Stain' to this one, but I understand why they chose this one, as it has "the hit" on it. This album has the song of theirs that I never got into, which was "Glamour Boys". Maybe it's because I'm neither a "Glamour Boy" nor do I consider myself "Fierce." The song seems different, lighter and a little goofier than their later stuff, even with Reid's guitar crunch. But despite that, this album started them on their journey, and everything comes from this album. They've really progressed from here, and you should really check their other stuff if you liked this one.
I can't get past the fact that I think of Elvis as just... always sounding dated to me. Although the Mrs. doesn't hear it, and maybe that's just her hearing it all the time when she was growing up. But the album does have some of Elvis' strongest material ("Suspicious Minds" is probably my favorite of his pieces), and the cringiest (ugh, "In The Ghetto" just does NOT hold up well today.). Gentle On My Mind... I am familiar with the song, because I remember hearing a joke in a comic once, which always stuck with me. It was only today that I realize they were making fun of this song. "It's knowing that your door is always open and your furniture is gone..." which struck me as comical. Maybe it's just with the back-up singers, and how they're used, it just all sounds like something my Dad was interested in. But I've felt that way with all the Elvis albums we've heard. So... yeah.
It's weird, the title track on the album was NOT on Spotify. Had to go onto YouTube to hear it. It's interesting, the music reminded me a bit of Vince Guaraldi. Perhaps that's why I enjoyed it so much. The other instruments really added something to it as well. I don't want to call it "classic" jazz, but it was a straight up jazz album. But definitely more of what you expect in a jazz album. I did enjoy this very much.
I think the Rod Stewart Unplugged album really ruined this album for me. There are some really good tracks here, but the Unplugged version of "Mandolin Wind" soured me on that track, and especially "Reason To Believe". Then there's the repetition. A lot of the songs are stretched out by the repetition in the lyrics. (For example, the title track.). It started to get a bit tiresome. I was also particularly bothered by "That's All Right." The extra addition of "Amazing Grace" really made that song 1 that would be listened to once or twice and that's IT. I don't mind noodling at the end of songs, but doing the whole song was unnecessary. Maggie May... how many times have I heard that one. Still, a great song, though. I can hear all of the other Faces on the album, even though contractually they don't say really who's on each track EXACTLY. So I liked the album, but probably would have liked it more if I hadn't heard the Unplugged album so much.
I mean, it was okay. I just didn't hear anything groundbreaking in this. It sounded like your average alternative rock from the 80s. How was this different from what others were doing? I don't get it. The opening in particular kinda bothered me. Th scratching or whatever was grating. It just didn't hit me at all. I mean, I guess it was... ok? Low 3 AT BEST.
I cannot imagine being there when this album first came out. That would mean being in a world BEFORE this album existed. I have only witnessed such a world-changing piece of art like this once or twice. Nirvana's explosion was one such moment, but it still does not totally depict how much the world changed from this album. But let's talk about the songs by themselves, shall we? Almost every single one of these songs I've heard on the radio, except for a few. There's one or two albums where every song is playable on the radio, this one is not one such album. Probably my least favorite song on this is "She's Leaving Home," and even that is not a bad song. It's just a little... sappy. "Lovely Rita" is... ok. On an album with great songs, being ok is a slight. The sides of John songs and Paul songs can easily be detected. As opposed to some of the earlier albums where it wasn't so easy to say "oh that's a Lennon song." That's not a bad thing, but it's something you start to notice. From here, you can tell how the band started to shoot off in separate directions, particularly in The White Album. But here on this one moment, they were really firing on all cylinders. And even just "ok" songs are enough.
Ah, the old trope: "If the old guy can't sell the record on his own, let's get people who are influenced by him to guest on the album." (Although if we got everyone influenced by JLH there would be no room to hear anyone...) Still, for the most part, I liked the album. I didn't feel like they were trying to pigeonhole him into songs he wouldn't really do. I thought the last two songs dragged on a bit too much, but sometimes that happens in the blues. They overstay their welcome. Never been a big fanned of Canned Heat, but they weren't as overbearing as I thought they would be on Cuttin't Out. The album, as a whole, isn't as straight-up blues as I was expecting. But even so, I enjoyed it for what it was. Probably the stand out songs here were the first three tracks and the one with Los Lobos.
I was surprised how many of these songs I knew, over half, in fact. A few I thought were on later albums. The other songs... well, there's a reason the other songs were hits. Although looking at the wikipedia, wow they released NINE songs as singles? And one of them was Liberian Girl? That was probably one of the weakest songs on the album for me. Interesting how "Leave Me Alone" was the last song on the album. Trying to drive a point there? Still, a really good album with a few weak spots. (Looking at you, "Liberian Girl"). I mean, "Smooth Criminal" _AND_ "Dirty Diana" are probably two of his most rocking songs. Hearing "DD" for the first time in a while, I had forgotten Steve Stevens does the guitar on the track. Great stuff.
I get what the band is trying to here. But the energy is completely directionless. It's all over the place. I can totally see pnk coming from this, but I felt that a good deal of punk still has a bit more focus. This just sounds... drunk.
Lots of questions here... So this album was on the original list of 1001 albums, and then later pulled. Why was it put on the list? What are the qualifications of being put on this list? Furthermore? What made it get pulled off the list? Looking at Oct 2000, there were a number of albums that were released around that same time that I hold in higher regard that did not make the list. I have to wonder why they did not make the list. The album itself is not bad. There are a couple of songs I knew from previously. But I mean... Fred Durst? Really? Not exactly the most skilled artist. But hey, Limp Bizkit sells, so there must be something to it, right? There is a definite energy there. But 75 minutes of it? Nope. Just tiring. Next.
I went looking through some of the negative reviews of this album. It was interesting to see what naysayers had to say. "They took no risks." - First off, the band was polished, and playing a great blend of smooth jazz and rock. I don't see many other bands doing this type of music. Not sure what KIND of risk you are hoping for. "The songs went on forever." - Punk songs go on for only a few minutes. One thing I found interesting is I always think of "Aja" being this epic song. But "Deacon Blues" (which I love) is about the same length. So I can see people being a little squirmy for songs at 8 minutes long. (Although I do not have a problem with it.) So it really comes down to not liking the style of the songs. And really, the pieces here are great. Even the ones that did not get traction on the radio. The secret weapon here is Michael McDonald. God, "Peg" is just such an astounding song. And MM's background vocals... just SLAY me every time. "Black Cow" was one of the tracks on a best of I heard and was like... "WOW!" Josie I think I heard here, first, but it grew on me really. The two songs left are not as great, but they still are really good. If you haven't watched the Classic Albums series about this one, find it up on youtube or somewhere. It's really insightful to this album. And like they said, it IS a classic album.
I don’t know why I never got big into Cheap Trick. They consistently bring it live. I will say I like the whole and outro being songs. That is not done much anymore. Maybe it’s that the only song people know by them is “I Want You To Want Me.” And the crowd sounds like it was just a bunch of teenage girls, which is… creepy. Were they sex symbols back in the day? I really don’t know. “Surrender” keeps getting stuck in my head. Still a good song. Now it’s stuck in yours. You’re welcome.
Wikipedia said the album was not instantly a success, but it grew to be extremely popular. I kind of felt that way listening to it. It didn't grab me when i first heard it, but it started to grow on me. I mean the whole jangle rock genre is not big on me. But the songs are crafted well. The fade in and fade out of "I Am The Resurrection" was pretty good. The vocalist was... okay. I was hoping for. bit more emotion in the lyrics, but I guess I wasn't going to get that. So, I guess a "meh" for me. Maybe if I listen to it again I'll get the appeal? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Very different, very entertaining. Liked the vibraphone piece "Vibraphonissimo" especially. The different time signatures and styles wove in and out through each of the pieces. It was quite refreshing, and a very different type of album than I normally listen to. Really enjoyed it.
For some reason, the vocals reminded me of Thomas Dolby. Can't put my finger on why. Probably my favorite track was "All I Ask," wow what a sudden change of pace from the other stuff on the album. That was really nice. Kinda wish the album ended with that. That would have been a big risk, though. The other stuff was good, too. The more I think of it, the more I grow fond of the stuff on it. So yeah, I did dig this album a good deal. It had a... quirkiness to it.
How can you possibly follow up Nevermind? Do you remember what it was like when that came out? "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was EVERYWHERE. That was such a defining musical statement back then. I got the Nevermind album, but did not listen to it as much. This I listened to a _LOT_. So a few years later this comes out, and it's so... different, but utterly of the band. I remember not liking it as much at first, but a few listens later, I felt it was a musical evolution of the band. Thinking back, I could liken it to how "Angel Dust" was to Faith No More's "The Real Thing". "Serve The Servants" - I never liked it as the opener. But honestly I am not sure where there is a good place to put the song that fits the album. It kind of feels a bit like a b-side. "Scentless Apprentice" is credited by all three members, but is pretty noisy. Think it could have used a little more work, actually. "Heart Shaped Box" is just such a damn good song. It really shows you how far the band had come. I think at first I gravitated towards "Heart Shaped Box" as my favorite, but now it's "All Apologies." It makes me a bit sad, since it was the last song off their last studio album. "Rape Me" - ... I know what the song is, but it's still hard to sing along to. "Frances Farmer..." - interesting song, particularly once you know that the song is about the actress (Cobain's 'patron saint' as it were) "Dumb" - great song, both this version and the unplugged version. "Very Ape" - I always liked this tune, the crunchiness of the guitars, the line "If you need anything please don't hesitate to ask someone else first." "Milk It" - I always thought this song was a bit over the top, although I dug what they were trying for here. "Pennyroyal Tea" - I like the contrast of the two versions, this one and the unplugged version. "Radio Friendly Unit Shifter" - I liked the droniness of it. I imagine it being sort of done after a night of no sleep. "Tourette's" is very much a sequel to "Territorial Pissings" for me. Much shorter, though it doesn't need to be too long. Listening to a few different mixes of "All Apologies" it's obviously influenced by "Tomorrow Never Knows". Still it is probably one of their finest moments. I wish it wasn't their last. The album itself is a little uneven, but the great moments still outshine the previous album for me. So I am still going to give it 5 stars. Probably because I listened to it so much in my early 20s. A defining moment for me, musically, I think.
This was a very interesting album. The beats were all produced by Bjork, she said she created them all. Her vocals are very dreamy. Many of the songs felt... ethereal. The lyrics are a bit undecipherable to me, though. I think that if she just did more singing of oohs and ahs, I would like it more. I don't know, I would think Bjork would be more in my wheelhouse, something I would really get into. But for some reason, I just don't totally get it. I'm not saying she's talented, I just never got her stuff. It's just a bit too... far out for me? (And I think that's saying something, considering some of the stuff I listen to.) So it's ok, but I am never going to pull it up and say "oooooh, I want to listen to THAT."
The album seemed very egocentric. A lot of the songs had "me" in the title or it was implied ("Honky Tonk Heroes Like Me", "Old Five and Diners (Like Me)" "Willy The Wandering Gypsy And Me,"... ) BTW, why did the third song have to have the "and me" on it? I mean, "Willy The Wandering Gypsy" is a sufficient name." You really didn't need to put yourself into that song. "Omaha" sounded like a low-budget rip-off of "The City Of New Orleans" Not impressed. Next.
Here's the thing: I listened to this album on Spotify. And then it did the whole "You listened to 25, so you'll like this..." and it played another Adele track: "Right As Rain" from her 19 album. I liked that one song better than the whole of the 25 album. Why? Because it was different than all of that album. 25 seemed to just be torch song after torch song. It just... got very morose. Halfway in, I was looking for a knife to slit my wrists (ok not really, but you get the idea). I will say I did not hear as much vocal processing. Adele's distinct vocals were very easy to pick out; it did not sound like anyone else (which always frustrates me, how autotune will usually kill any uniqueness of a person's voice.) So the album is pretty depressing just because the songs themselves feel the same (I think the 4th song was a little upbeat, and maybe one other). So as well done it was, and how great of a voice Adele has, it's not going to be something I go back to.
I'm not sure what to make of this one. I like Joni Mitchell's voice, and I get the feeling that this is somewhat of a proto-"Graceland", where she is incorporating the things Paul Simon later used. But I still think Paul Simon did better. The lyrics were hard to fathom as well, but I think that has always been the way for Joni. You can't have gotten all those accolades without those lyrics meaning something. Still, I think of her more like Bob Dylan in that I like when others do her music (i.e. "Woodstock"). Anyway, this just didn't click for me, and I'm not sure why. Maybe I need to listen to it again or twice more...
I had forgotten how much of this album I knew and how much of a triumph it was for it to come out. The album really rocks, and it isn't until you get to the second side do you get a clunker or two. I only have the album before it ("Pyromania") but this was a great follow-up. The electronic drumwork was a real technological breakthrough. Musicianship was great. I remember not being a fan of the vocals as much, there was a bit of the way Joe Elliott was singing on some of the songs bothered me, and I can't say what it was. But now I seem to be over it. Good stuff.
I don't hate disco. Really. But I can understand the hatred. Particularly when songs are repetitive and go on WAY too long. But I mean, if you're out on the dance floor, all coked up and having a good time, an 8 minute song (like the first one) will seem like 30 seconds. So yeah, those first three songs went on WAY too long. I can imagine the single edits were more enjoyable. And "My Forbidden Lover," even clocking in at 4 and a half minutes could be cut down to a good three and I wouldn't mind. But maybe listening to it actively and not actually out on the dance floor was the problem. The time for the song would probably have gone zipping by if you were out there dancing the night away. But trust me, you don't want me out there doing THAT... Nile Rodgers did a lot of great work on this, "Will You Cry (When You Hear This Song)" was devastating. But the album versions of the hits are way too long and overstay their welcome for me. It's like getting a huge banana split when all you wanted was a small dish of ice cream. Too, too much.
For me, the first disc used to be miles better than the second. But then after listening a number of times, I really got to appreciate the second disc. Still not a big fan of "Down By The Seaside," but it's listenable. Usually when bands do that double album, it's hard to recover. It's overblown and critics call them out on it. But this doesn't feel like it. It's got a lot of great stuff on it, and is probably my second favorite LZ album.
Cream is probably my favorite group Clapton was in. But for Jack Bruce, I felt it held him back. Clapton needed the other bandmates, but they really didn't need him. Their solo output could develop well. And yet HIS is the name people know. Go figure. The biggest problem with Cream is their sound. If they had a better producer, their sound could have developed more. When you listen to "Strange Brew" or "Sunshine Of Your Love," the music is really stuck in the time. Whereas Zeppelin's music really transcends the 70s. I always wonder if they got Jimmy Page or someone as good as a producer what Cream's sound would have been. Songs like "World Of Pain" and "Strange Brew," the guitar, bass and drums are struggling to be in the foreground. It makes it difficult to imagine what they were like live until we got the live albums, whrre they took some of these pieces and stretched them out a good 10 minutes long. Even with their most well-known song on here, this is still not where they peak for me. It had to be "Wheels of Fire" they really go for a lot of range in that album. Here, there is also a lot of imagery in the lyrics with little meaning. "SWLABR," for example, or "She Was Like A Bearded Rainbow." ........ WTH is that all about? I have heard that song a number of times and I still don't know. And that last song "Mother's Lament" could have been completely taken off. Funny only gets you so far. So as much as I love the band, it is not their best. So 4 stars from me.
There are so many of these songs I know and love. And not just the hits: "Words Between The Lines Of Age," "The Needle And The Damage Done" "A Man Needs A Maid" (Ok, the last one is a bit shmaltzy, but still... Neil YOUNG, man.) Although at first, when I listen to this album I think "Oh boy here comes country again." But it is so much more varied than that. Weird fact: I sang "The Needle and the Damage Done" as a lullaby for my kid. Is that weird? No, not weird at all. Classic album. Love it.
I listened to the Special Edition which had a number of songs which were a bit too noodle-y for me. Even "Pimpf" was a bit much for me. Depeche Mode always has this feel of not being overly emotional. It always comes off as cold to me. The few big hits are able to overcome the sterility of their sound, but not the the album itself. It wasn't bad, but again not a big fan. It just doesn't feel very emotional to me.
I really did not know what to expect with this work. The cover makes you think hmmmm.... overtly religious...? Techno is not my first choice to listen to, but this had a definite groove I really dug. When I played the opening bit for the Mrs., she remarked that it sounded a bit like "Thriller," which makes sense since later on in the album they had the tribute to Michael Jackson. But... man, those first two tracks are so damn funky, more than I expected. Really quite enjoyable. As for "D.A.N.C.E.," I was not a big fan of the vocals. "The Party": Uffie's vocals sounded a lot like Ke$ha. Is that a good or bad thing, though? I think actually the songs without vocals were a bit more enigmatic and enjoyable. Something to rock on in the house as a change of pace. Really enjoyed it.
The problem with ska is that only a small amount of ska carries you pretty far. A lot of the songs are very same-y. The whole "chik-chik-chik" by the singer gets grating, the offbeat guitar gets boring, and an album that is only 30 minutes long goes on for an hour. They can extend songs for twice as long and you don't even notice. The vocals start to become indeterminant, and god forbid you see the band live. You won't be able to tell one song from another. And then I just lost interest. I don't hate ska, and they performed ok (aside from the repetitive "Too Much Too Young"), but it's just... I can only take so much of it before I have to go on to something else. So maybe a high 2, rounding up to a 3. So let's go on to something else, shall we?
The first time I listened to this, I thought it was "When I Grow Old." That really changes the dynamic of the song, actually. The electronica in the music doesn't sound bad, but her vocals just seem so... dull. Even when she makes them lower on "Dry and Dusty." Listening to the last track, my boy asked "Coconut? Why would anyone do a song called Coconut?" So I had to put on Harry Nilsson's "Coconut," which is a better song. Bjork did some work remixing some of her tracks. I feel like she needs someone like that to do more work on this. There's a lot of experimentation, but there needs to be someone there to say "that sounds cool, but what if you did this to it...?" A voice to help her figure out what to DO with her ideas. Electronica otherwise just seems like... noodling. Pass.
I've listened to this album three times now, and it's just... forgettable. There's nothing that makes it stand out. The three things I noted: 1) I dug "Metal Mickey" a little more than the other track 2) "Moving" has a familiar drum intro that I've heard at least in one or two other songs 3) "Sleeping Pills" - the first time I heard it, I thought he sang "You're a water sign, I'm an asshole..." you know what? That would have worked better. Besides that, it was just... unremarkable. And I tried to pick stuff out of it, I really did. But there was nothing I could pull out of it. They seemed to try too hard to be glam ("Pantomime Horse," wtf?) I've given this album way too much of my time. Moving on.
Old school rap. Love this stuff. The tunes take me back to high school, and even though back then I truly didn't get the lyrics or the music, it's something I really appreciate now. Pieces like "As I Read My S-A" have a lyrical acumen that you don't hear in a lot of rap nowadays. It reminds me a lot of De La Soul, actually. And it wanted me to look for more. Definitely not something I do with a lot of albums. No skits or throwaway songs, these were all coherent to the album, fitting very well. If you had not heard of Gangstarr, this is probably a good one to listen to because it sold me on them.
Lots of great stuff on this album, but there are a few forgettable tracks. And then there's "P.Y.T." (more on that later...) "Beat It" was a song I had not hear din a while, but then my kid wanted us to play "Beat It" in the car ALL THE TIME when we'd drive to daycare. That was like... 5 years ago? So I kind of got back in to the mindframe of not wanting to hear the song again. Even with Eddie Van Halen in it. "Wanna Be Startin' Something" is a great opener to the album. So... "P.Y.T.' I have mixed feelings about this song. The whole high-pitched thing is really annoying. The whole bridge works well, but the chipmunk bit is just... ugh. The three non-hits are just ... forgettable to me. But the other ones are pretty strong to me. So on the strength of those, I am giving it a 4.
It's interesting because I went from Gang Starr to this. Incredible how much the art form has evolved in the 30 years. Kendrick Lamar's rhymes even in the first song are stark contrast. There's not really a bridge, but you start to realize that the first song is more of a poem than a song. Later songs has bits interstiched in them, but it's not as bothersome as some of the skits that some rappers put in. They come together to form a bit of a story, a pastiche, really. It works on both levels here. I was hoping for hearing "To Pimp A Butterfly" first, as I have heard nothing but praise for that album, but this is really good too as well. It takes a minute to get past the swearing, but once you get immersed in what he is trying to do, you let it pass you by. The sampling is really great too, it's not overly repetitive, and still comes off with a solidity throughout. Looking forward to hearing his other stuff.
During "Breaking Bad," one of the characters listened to a song called "Crapa Pelada" by Quartetto Certa. It means (roughly) "Bald Head." It's a goofy comical piece in a blend of Italian and Milanese. The quarter sing it in a cartoon voice, but I tend to think of it more like another instrument along with the band playing behind them. Knowing this, it made me appreciate "Os Mutantes" a bit more I think. Yeah, knowing the language would have been a lot more helpful for the songs. But I think ultimately it's not necessary for the enjoyment of the album. The flat-out goofiness of the sound effects and music really lent itself to what the band was tying to do here. Ultimately yes, it would have been helpful to understand the lyrics and that ultimately drew me back. But the music itself was pretty good, but it did have that late 60s experimental feel. I will say I really dug "Bat Macumba," and "Ave Genghis Khan" (as opposed to "Ave Maria" lol). So although I won't be coming back to it as an album, I did enjoy it. But relistenability is key here to my giving it a 3. Not something I am coming back to.
Nice, solid soulful album. If you new "Cruisin' " from the Huey Lewis / Gwyneth Paltrow version, that has to be the whitest version of that song I have ever heard. D'Angelo makes it about 1,000 times better and smoother. Wow. The album version is a bit long, though. I imagine the radio edit is better. I'm surprised that he's only done three albums. But I guess quality over quantity? Although they called this neo-soul, there were a lot of times it drifted into more jazz. Not a bad thing, but the lines were definitely blurred. Good album to "get it on" to.
I run hot and cold with the Doors. Their hits definitely are great, the songs that got played on the radio were meant to be, you know? "Roadhouse Blues" and "Waiting For The Sun" definitely are good songs. But then we get to the rest of the album and you wonder what happened. I mean... "Peace Frog?" "Land Ho" isn't too bad, even if does hit the nail right on the head. "The Spy" is ok and so is "Maggie McGill." But OK doesn't really cut it. If you're going to listen to the Doors, their best of is really all you need. The albums have so much "poetry" that really goes nowhere. You shouldn't have to sit through 25 minutes of drek to listen to a couple of ok songs and 2 songs that are really good.
I seem to remember buying this for my sister, back in the day, as a birthday present, on Amazon. So I have had this album longer than I realized. I should have listened to it before now. Wow, what a good album. I think the star here is definitely Butch Vig. The production really makes every song hit with a punch. I don't think there was a single song that I disliked, maybe the last song was a little obvious (reminded me of STP's Kitchenware & Candybars). But otherwise, really good stuff!
This sounds like Neil Diamond wanted to make a folk group for "A Mighty Wind 2." I can't get over the singer and his overzealousness. They were supposedly compared with the Beatles, but it felt a bit more like Buffalo Springfield or other Stephen Stills stuff (or the Smothers Brothers). I might have enjoyed it better, but I did not really enjoy the singer. So a kind of meh from me. Next.
One of the albums that does not get a lot of love from the band or its fan, Queen ventures more into an era that many fans didn't expect: prog. There's a lot of nods to progressive rock tropes: fantasy, fast / complex riffs, bombast (ok, Queen always did THAT well anyway). There's always that one album by a band that just doesn't go over well, and the next album goes over huge. For Queen, it was this one which then made them go to "Sheer Heart Attack." Rush had it with "Caress of Steel" which then made them go to "2112." But this one has a lot of songs I always enjoyed: "Ogre Battle" and "Father To Son" are two pretty solid tracks. "See What A Fool I've Been" (a b-side) is a throwaway blues-y track, but they still make it fun. "As It Began" shows that they can do a nice gentle song, which they perfect in later pieces. In fact, a lot of other pieces seem to be staging pieces for what is to come. "Ogre Battle" is a precursor to "Brighton Rock," "The Loser In The End" a precursor to some of Roger Taylor's vocal work. So yeah, I dig this album a lot. It's an underappreciated album of theirs. I
You can feel the energy coming from just about every song. But after the first three or four songs, it did feel kind of monotonous. Having "Firestarter" (the big hit?) later in the album was kind of interesting. Drum 'n bass can only get you so far, really. There has to be some variety here. The album was high energy, but an hour of it? Kind of exhausting.
This is probably the first album I (and a number of other people, I'm sure) had gotten of Cash's material. I then went back and picked up a number of the American Recordings and a lot of this other stuff. Although this is a great recording and I like it a lot, I can't give it 5 stars. In my mind, a 5-star recording is a classic album, a truly great album. All the songs have to be at least likeable. There is at least one song on this album that is really really unlistenable. "Sam Hall" is debatable. It's mediocre at best. It makes me think of "A Boy Named Sue, " but not as witty. A lot of the other covers are really effective: "I Hung My Head," "Personal Jesus," "Hurt..." Man, he just owns "Hurt," doesn't he? "Bridge Over Troubled Water" is okay, I guess. I don't think there's anything he really adds to the song's original gravitas. Then... there's "Desperado." I mean, the original song is not a real toe-tapper to begin with. But... MAN. That version is SO depressing and somber I am almost ready to KILL myself every time it comes on. Cash sings that first line and zip, I have to skip that track. WAY, WAY too somber and morose. So yeah, the one song is just so depressing it makes the album miss its mark. Sorry, Johnny.
I've always liked George Michael's voice, even back in Wham (although I did not care for Wham). The songs here are not as much of a range as "Listen Without Prejudice, Vol. 1," but you can tell he was trying different things. And I don't blame him for that. Did not realize that "I Want Your Sex" had 2 parts to it. Shows you what I know. So this is definitely where you see the progression to "Listen..." and it's really quite good. Enjoyed it a lot.
I went back and forth about this album. There were a number of songs I liked, and a number of songs that I kind of scratched my head about. They were short, and didn't seem to go anywhere. It's like they were underdeveloped ideas that could have used someone to bounce ideas off of. I can hear the obvious influence that Black and the Pixies had on a lot of later American music. They did stuff that a lot of bands used to make that grunge and alternative sound. Truly ahead of their time. On the strength of songs like "Two Reelers" and "Ole Mulholland," I am going to give this a 4, but it's a pretty weak 4. A lot of this was relistenable and enjoyable, but some of the shorter songs were very undercooked IMO.
Ah, good quality jazz-funk. It's nice to hear an album of like four songs, reminds me a bit of Miles Davis in that regard. Not a big fan of this version of "Watermelon Man" with all the blowing through the glass bottles. Hindewhu is not my thing, I guess. I like "Sly" being a tribute to Sly of Sly and the Family Stone. Vein Melter wow! Definitely one I will come back to, although I may just get 3 of the four songs if I go buy it online....
I am not sure why this album was chosen. Of the first few albums, "Number Of The Beast" is vastly superior. I see it's on the list too, so that's good. The vocals... they're not bad, but I just kept thinking of how Bruce Dickinson took the pieces to a higher level. And some of the lyrics... "Charlotte the Harlot?" Really? (To be fair, I heard the 1988 version and it was a loooong eyeroll from me then, too. The vocals were clearer here, though.) You can hear all of the components to come in the later albums hear, but I just keep coming back to the vocals. The second album "Killers" actually is better, they really matured and evolved with his vocal stylings. But we're talking about the first album, aren't we? SO just going off of this one, I'm going to give this a bit lower, just because of the later albums (even the second album shows more of a progression).
The first four songs are probably the most well-known of u2’s career. But let’s talk about the others. They… don’t really go anywhere. I was not impressed and found myself wandering. But then, I was never a big fan of U2 so there you go.
For some reason I liken this album to Crosby Stills Nash albums. It has that same kind of feel to it. But the songs seem a lot more varied in style, which is always a good thing. Clark's vocals even reminded me of Stephen Stills by a good deal. I appreciated them more and more as the album progressed. I really enjoyed this, and when I started really get into CSN (and sometimes Y) if I had found this then I think I would have REALLY gotten into him. Thumbs up for me.
It felt like they were trying too hard to be "The Bends"-era Radiohead. I mean... pick a lane, man. I like that they kept the whole hidden track thing on Spotify and did not break it up. Hearing the slide projector on "Slide Show" took me back to my childhood a bit. I guess copying Radiohead... there are worse bands to mimic, right? So yeah, I just... didn't feel anything from these guys. Didn't hate them, but... forgettable. Next.
I did like the music a good deal, but the lyrics were... sophomoric, at best. I can imagine liking them more when I was younger. But I just kept thinking of Mr. RANDY WATSON from "Coming To America." Bobby Womack at least had talent. But calling the album "The Poet..." has a BIT of overconfidence to it, you know? But I mean I guess that how you were back then. Good, but the lack of depth at the lyrics kinda nags at me.
There's an old joke that was on "Wayne's World 2" about this album: WAYNE: Have I seen this one before? Frampton Comes Alive? Everybody in the world has Frampton Comes Alive. If you lived in the suburbs you were issued it. It came in the mail with samples of "Tide". It's weird how such a big seller in the 70s is so...unknown today. Lots of albums are like that now. But Peter Frampton is one of those guitarists I really never heard of until much later. The album really has that 70s feel to it, which isn't bad except it just makes it feel a bit... dated. Did not like the slow version of Jumping Jack Flash. Frampton's soloing worked, but it was a little too plodding. The other three songs that I knew I am sure I have heard on the radio at some time or other. Although "Do You Feel Like I Do" makes me think of his appearance on The Simpsons: "Do You Feel? Come On, DO YOU FEEL??" So I liked the guitar work Frampton did here on most of the pieces, but it did give you that 70s feel, but not in the best way. Not sure I'm going to come back to it.
Lennon or McCartney really needed a foil, someone to bounce ideas off of. Otherwise we get albums where they sing about their wife. A LOT. Imagine does have a few great songs, and some songs that could definitely have used some McCartney-esque touches, or a foil of someone else to say "Why not try this instead?" Songs like "I Don't Want To Be A Soldier" could have used a rewrite. "How?" kinda just peters out. A chorus or a bridge would have been useful there, I think. I don't know, maybe I just am wistful for what could have been. Hoping that in some alternate universe they had patched up things and recorded new music. And Mark David Chapman never existed. So yeah, the non-hits of this album needed some work, but they aren't bad. Definitely an album I come back to every so often.
The two songs I knew on the album are always enjoyable, even though the title "Mother & Child Reunion" is a weird one, named after a chicken and egg dish. The other songs show the acoustic, songwriter side that he had so perfected with Garfunkel. And for the most part, it works. The contrast comes in with "Me & Julio" "Mother & Child" as they are both more upbeat kinds of songs. But the others do start to become a bit of downers after a while. Still, Simon always turns a good phrase and the album was enjoyable.
I'm torn about this album. Not as a whole. I found it pompous and full of itself. But... why? Was it because the singer seemed to not really be singing with the music, but OVER the music? Or was it because he was singing in French? If I read the lyrics in English, will it make the songs sound less pompous? Or will is seem more pompous because it will be one of those beat poet kind of songs? I listened to the expanded version on Spotify, which was probably a bad idea. They had three or four versions of the same song back to back, which got real tiresome. So yeah, I ultimately found this overbearing. And this from a guy who listens to prog rock on a fairly regular basis. Just wish I knew exactly why. Next.
Acoustic fare. Very straightforward. I felt a few songs were a little too ... sophomoric (I'm looking at you, "The Queen & The Soldier). The songs that were with a band I actually liked more than just the plain acoustic guitar. It is a bit of a preface for her second album, which I think is a better choice for the 1001 albums. But they didn't ask me, did they?
I don't know why, but the keyboards bothered me the first time I listened to this. It shouldn't really, it's not like they went out of their way to have them be intrusive. I think it's really more on "Radio Radio" than anything else, and that being the final statement, the last song, that's where it digs in. I never really liked that organ sound for that song, and I'm not sure why. But besides that minor quibble (and it's really minor; it doesn't make it unlistenable. I just think it's a little overpowering on the song.), Elvis always gives interesting songs. Such a raw, young EC compared to what we know now. Really enjoyed it, only knew the one song from before. Going back and forth between a strong 4 and a 5. Right now, I'm sitting on a 4. Multiple listens may make it a 5.
When I was younger, I had gotten a number of Springsteen albums. When you grow up in suburban New Jersey (read: white), you are required to be a fan of either Frank Sinatra, Bruce Springsteen, or Bon Jovi. I chose Springsteen. I had gotten four or five albums by Springsteen. The only one I remember clearly. The ONLY album I will listen from beginning to end, and not reach for the skip button, is "Born To Run." Every song on this album is craftfully made. Hell, the title track took six months. That tells you something, right? As I got older, I got tired of Springsteen. The way he suddenly sounded like he was from Texas. The way he lost touch with the common folk when it came to prices on concerts. But this one album? I will always come back to. Masterpiece, from start to finish.
The original US edition of this album did not have "Help!" on it. It's probably a good thing, because that was a pretty bad version of it. That notwithstanding, this was pretty good, 80s production styles and all. The songs really leaned into Tina's singing capabilities. I didn't realize how many of her "big" songs were on this album. "Private Dancer" is a little bit embarrassing and dated now, but most of the others work still. I've always liked "Better Be Good To Me", I thought it was a better song than most of the other singles on this album (except for "What's Love..." of course). "Steel Claw" reminds of an Ike & Tina song, but updated for the 80s. The cover of "Let's Stay Together" is... adequate. I mean, it's such an iconic song it's hard to cover it and do it justice. It's like trying to cover "Layla". No matter how you do on it, people are still going to say "yeah, but the original is better." "1984" is an interesting choice to cover. I love Bowie, and covering one of his songs is always difficult. But she does it justice I think, taking a song in the 70s and bringing it into... the 80s. On the strength of the hits I would put this right on the edge of the 3/4 line. Really the only real misstep for me was "Help." That did not work for me at all. So I guess I would give it a 4 out of 5.
I like the music as a whole. The guitar is really cool and obviously very innovative. It's just.... Corgan's vocals are too whiny. It's why I never got into the Smashing Pumpkins in the first place. I will grant Corgan for the line in "Bullet With Butterfly Wings" : "Despite all my rage, I am still just a rat in cage." That is a great lyric. The kid listens to "Zero" all the time. So I dug it as long as I could get past the vocals, but that's kinda difficult. It's weird because whiny vocalists like Neil Young I get in to, but Corgan? Just... he sounds like one of those angsty emo teens who needs STFU and stop whining about EVERYTHING.
Never heard of it. OK, seriously. This was one of those albums of the 90s that blew my mind. I do not consider Radiohead "prog rock" like I do not consider Pink Floyd "prog rock". Sure, they will use odd time signatures and whatever else they want to "progress", but they are a band unto its own. Every song on this seems like it's on a completely different album, and yet it all fits together like a jigsaw puzzle. "Exit Music (For A Film)".... god, what an amazing piece. And the thing is that this is not even my favorite album of theirs, but it is definitely the one that made me a fan. I played it for my son once he started listening heavily into Pink Floyd, because I felt that it was the next step. He said it was "good" but I don't think he quite gets it. Yet. Highly recommended.
This was a pleasant surprise. I really was not sure what to expect from this album and I went in totally blind. It wasn't until it started playing that I started to look up the artist and found out the style and such. I really liked the guitar, and how the blues and the other music blended together. Definitely a style all to its own, and definitely something I will be looking in to some more.
The songs were very much stylistically the same. But with the instrumentation they had, I guess that was all they were willing to pull off? Just a basic groove, and that was it. Putting "Green Onions" at the front, pretty much tells you all you need to know. That was the best and most memorable track on the album. The rest was... ok. More of the same.
They have to keep sending out these albums I have never heard of before. It's getting ridiculous. Seriously, can't tell you how many times I have listened to this album when it came out. Forget "Sabotage," every track on this album and "Paul's Boutique" pretty much solidifies for me Beastie Boys as their two best albums. I now go to their lesser played tracks, like "Get It Together" as one that I play numerous times. Q-Tip's contributions to this track work so well. The instrumentals... some of them are my favorites of all time. "Ricky's Theme" is such a chill tune. I get very reflective hearing it every time. I think the only song that is a little too goofy is "B-Boy Making With The P Freak", but it still has good spots in it. This album is probably one of my top 10 of all time, so there's no way I'm giving it anything lower than a 5. Am I biased? The guy who has their book, the Sabotage action figures and every album of theirs? Probably. But you can't deny how good this album is. You just can't.
Hendrix is always a go to for me, but I always felt that this as a double album was a bit too much, with a few tracks that are definite... filler. The album really takes advantage of stereo, having the sound moving from the one speaker to the other. That seems to happen a LOT on this album, maybe even a bit too much. It teeters on the 4 to 5 star edge. What does it have going for it? Let's see, such iconic songs: "Crosstown Traffic," "All Along The Watchtower" (I don't think I can even remember how the original goes), "Voodoo Chile"(Slight Return), "Burning Of The Midnight Lamp". One of my favorite underappreciated gems is "1983 (A Merman I Should Turn To Be...)". Such a great song and melody there. What pulls it back? "Little Miss Strange". Look, I get that Hendrix sometimes wants to just play and have someone else sing. But Noel Redding is not a great lead singer. "House Burning Down" is clunky to me. It never sells as a hit like the other songs. "Gypsy Eyes" feels like a demo to me. I always felt that that one should have been reworked. And that first interpretation of "Voodoo Chile" always seems too long to me. It could have been pared down some. SO this I think could have been pared down to one single album instead of a double. It is good, and a lot people can make the argument about it being a classic. Are You Experienced and Axis: Bold As Love are more coherent. This album could have been trimmed down easily to a 45-46 minute album. Sorry, it's just how I feel about it
If you like beat poetry, then this album is up your alley. If you are not a fan of beat poetry, this is definitely not your thing. I had heard the iconic "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" so I knew more what to expect. The music part takes more of a backseat to a lot of the lyrics. Gil-Scott Heron is a pretty good singer, I'd like him to be more expressive and emotive. I would also have liked to have heard more of the band. But the lyrics and the poetry was obviously more important, so... I liked it for what it was, but since I am not a beatnik or a hippie I do not think I will be coming back to this one any time soon.
The Beatles? Nah, this guy has never heard of them. I truly thought this guy was british until I looked him up on wikipedia. I would also recommend listening to the deluxe edition, it has a nice cover of "Because" and the Schoolhouse Rock "Figure 8". A couple of the songs I liked were "Son of Sam," "Colorbars," "Can't Make A Sound." But ultimately it just sounded like he was trying too hard to be the Beatles.
I can't believe I didn't know any Isley Brothers until now. The first track was on makeup commercials, of course. The covers that they did are VERY funk-ified. (I mean, did we need a funky version of "Listen To The Music?" It would appear so.) The weird thing with the "Listen To The Music" cover is they took the bridge out, which I was expecting and then never heard. "Summer Breeze" had to be covered, because the original is so... whitebread. The guitar throughout, man that fuzztone is lazer-sharp. It will cut through steel, that's how precise it is. I feel silly that I hadn't these guys before. Going to have to find more of their stuff now!
The singer feels like he is trying to be a cross between Tom Petty and Bob Dylan. Not sure which one he really wants to be. The lyrics sound like he's trying to be profound, so even though he sounds more like Petty, he wants to be Dylan. I like the soundscapes in the background of a number of the songs, which make the songs a bit... more. And The Haunting Idle was pretty good too. But ultimately I just didn't find anything here that stood out, made me go "wow!" It was still average-sounding rock. They were trying to be more than that, but I couldn't pick out anything... unique. So a big "meh" from me.
I think the biggest thing that impressed me about this act is the variety of the songs. For a band from 1967, the songs really varied a lot more than I was expecting. They felt free to experiment and try different ideas it seemed. <And hey, they're from Jersey, so I guess they can't be all THAT bad?> But seriously, a number of the songs I was familiar with, even though at first I did not realize they were from this band. And no covers, which a lot of acts from this time period were doing more and more. In fact I know a number of bands have covered their songs (whether on their own albums or live, so it's great to finally hear the original version). Yes, it did seem a little dated, but how much they changed their style from song still impressed me more than I was expecting. Very pleasant surprise.
I enjoyed this more than I thought I was going to. Aside from "Common People," which I knew already, the other songs were very well-crafted. Very catchy. (I do keep coming back to "Common People," only because I knew it from the William Shatner cover (don't laugh, but it's really good.).) The other songs have a sardonic wit about them, which you just don't hear in a lot of pop songs in the 90s, and I kind of appreciated that. So yeah, big thumbs up from me.
Faith No More's "Angel Dust" is an ugly album. But in it I find a number of songs I do keep coming back to because in the harshness of the songs there is something there. The songs are challenging, but I find a reward to the songs. I mention this because I feel the harshness here too, but there's not the sense there's something deeper in these songs. It's just a lot of mindless, directionless anger. I know the two songs that were big from this album. I liked the duet with Ice Cube, I felt that worked. But there needed to be some kind of calm somewhere in this album, and I didn't feel it. All I felt was exhausted. And that's never good. Next.
It's nice to hear an album every so often that really impresses and blows your mind. Great voice, the backing music really punches too. I had heard of Badu before, but had not listened to any of her stuff before. My loss. This really kicks. "Booty" is really great with the stop / starts. "A.D. 2000" was really powerful. Probably the weakest song was "In Love With You" and that was just because Stephen Marley I felt as not of equal vocal capability. Definitely an album I am going to come back to. I give it four stars right now, but I imagine it will become five the more I listen to it.
This is probably one of the stronger efforts by the Doors. Jim Morrison's poetry is not all over the place ("I am the Lizard King, I can do anything." "Um.... ok, Jim. Whatever...."), the band is fine form, the organ is really complimenting the guitar. I'm embarrassed to say, this is my first time hearing the uncut versions of both "The End" and "Break On Through". I had heard them on a Best Of , but they took out the word "high" in "Break On Through" so Morrison sings "She gets..." and that's all I ever heard. And they edited out Jim chanting "f**k" as well. So the song felt... slightly different this time. Even the non-single songs sounded better. They're not so... ramble-y. "Soul Kitchen" and "Twentieth Century Fox" I had heard before, and I always liked the wordplay of the latter's title. The other songs work well, and their brevity does help with that, they don't overstay their welcome. So all in all, a pretty solid effort.
Back in the 60s and 70s, people thought they could be either a Beatles or Stones fan. I leaned more into the Beatles camp. I didn't HATE the Stones, but I didn't know them as well as I probably should. A number of the tracks I recognize, but did not realize the titles ("Bitch," for example). Three songs I was not a big fan of: "Wild Horses" (had heard it before, it seemed like a forced country song) "I Got The Blues" - the lyrics felt a little forced, and the conclusion was kind of clunky "Moonlight Mile" - the ending kinda trailed off. But most of that is quibbling the strengths of this album: "Can't You Hear Me Knocking?" "Bitch" "Sway" "Sister Morphine" It's weird to hear "Brown Sugar"now, since the Stones have retired that track since they felt it's so... problematic. But it's still a great track. The minor quibbles I have with the album aside, this would be one of the albums I would have people start with for the Stones. Solid effort by them.
Repetitive and annoying, after a while. Most of the songs overstayed their welcome. And things like "Jazzalude..." wth was THAT about? Electronica really has to grab me, there has to be some intensity, and I felt my mind wandering in the first or second song. I was not impressed by this stuff at all. Next.
I had this album, and listening to it now, I don't know why I got rid of it. Obviously "Criminal" is the song everyone knows and remembers. But every song is solid. The vocals are so... sultry. And the musicianship behind it really gives the vocals and oomph. Really digging it. Her other albums have been highly regarded, I should look into those as well.
The first thing I noticed about this album is its brevity: only a half hour. From there we see that almost every song is under 4 minutes long. A few of the songs could have benefitted from being longer: "Hometown Blues," for example, could have used more exploration, I thought. The other thing that struck me about this album is the drum part. It's so... rudimentary. I think I noticed how little thought goes into the drum part for Petty's songs when you listen to "Runnin' Down A Dream." The drums on his songs are there as a timekeeper. And I like songs where the drums do more than that. It makes me feel bad for the drummer, because he really doesn't get a chance to do MORE. I'm not expecting a 5 minute drum solo every song, but be more integrated with the band, you know? The songs I knew from previously are so... infectious. "American Girl" is such a damn good song. You can't help but bop your head to that song. Even with the drum part being what it is. So the album, for what it is I would give it a high 3, even with the drum simplicity. Just for the songs being as infectious as they are so I guess that rounds up to a 4.
I've always liked "Mother's Milk" by RHCP. The band is really locked in, the vocals and everything else really grooves. The over of "Higher Ground," holy crap this kicks serious butt. Then this album comes out, and I listen to it and it just... yawn. I have two major gripes about this album: 1) It's too long. It was too long when I first heard it back in the 90s. I was like, "Geez how many songs is this thing?" 2) Anthony Kiedis is really not a good singer. I listen to songs like "Breaking The Girl" and even "Under The Bridge" and I think "man, the band sounds great. Imagine what this song would sound like if there was a better singer doing the vocals." He sounds like he has a cold. Or he's high. Probably both. Really detracts from the song. "Sheeeeee was a guuuuuuuhhhhhrrrrrrllllllll....." Yikes. And his scatting. Dude. Stop. Just, stop. Anyway, then there's songs like "Sir Psycho Sexy" and "Apache Rose Peacock". They just sound dumb and sophomoric today. "Under The Bridge" is still a good song, but "Take me to the place I luuuuuuuuuuuve." Gah. Sorry the vocals detract from it too much for me. He gets better on other ones. "One Hot Minute" is awesome. But this one I never got why it was so great.
I felt that there was some kind of inside joke to this band that I was not in on. I mean, I had heard "Stereo" a few times, which made me think they didn't take themselves too seriously. I just don't what to make of this. It reminds me of NIrvana, but at the same time with someone who had a bit more refined vocals. I want to say the music seems more varied, but by doing so it lost its focus. It became like it was all over the place and I didn't get the point (or was it that I didn't get the joke?). There weren't really any songs with hummable melodies, which would make it tough to go to one of their concerts, I would think. Not really a lot of singalong moments. So yeah, a bit of a head-scratcher for me. Maybe I need to listen to it again. At least it's under 40 minutes, so it's not plausible to do a relisten. Maybe.
Definite appreciation of soul is needed here. I enjoyed it a great deal. It's interesting how the album is probably as short as one of those soul albums: around 35 minutes. The bonus tracks featured are also really good, including her version of Cupid. I like her vocals, particularly. The low range really hits hard. Great stuff.
Wow, this was boring. If they were shooting for a dream-like state, it worked, because a lot of it was putting me to sleep. There was no variety here, it was too ethereal. Nothing stood out from one song to the next. Moving on.