Bjork makes absolutely no sense as an artist. Quite frankly, I've never heard something by her that was listenable. If you want arhythmic spoken word "sung" over a drum track with synth thrown in randomly, this is where to get it.

Kind of boring. Like if Ian Curtis was still around and decided to join an early 2010's folkish band. Something like a further toned down Lumineers.

I've rated four stars, but I'd say closer to three and a half. This album is alright. It's not as boring and average as three stars, but no particularly song is a highlight I will go back to like a four star. Just some nice moments that were fleetingly ear catching.

It's ok. It does meander quite a bit, but there are times where things really come in to focus. People compare it to a conversation, but I'd liken it to getting high (seems apt for the dead). For a large portion, you're just wandering around, feeling a bit strange, experiencing new sensations. But then, briefly, your soul is lifted up from the body. A transcendental experience. Of course, the focused moments never reach a height like that, but I believe that's what they were going for. The noodling really accentuates the good bits. Also, feedback is really cool, but I'm a fan of noise. Much cooler than the first track. Maybe the album would've been better if they started there.

I think the reviews are pretty overblown. AC/DC has songs that all sound the same as much as any other band that fits solidly within a genre. Sure, they aren't Led Zeppelin, but what they do is incredibly solid and driving. Great album.

Thoroughly enjoyable. Wayne Coyne objectively cannot sing, but that simply makes the songs more intimate. The album feels better for it, a more genuine musical expression. I have no idea about the actual history of the band, but this feels like a natural progression of the punk ethos of the grunge era. The songs are experimental, but poppy, with distinct elements of 1999 to them, while being less harsh and noisy.

It's pretty good. Solid album. If you haven't listened to much 60s rock, probably much better, but this music inspired so much after it, it kind of suffers from the "Seinfeld Is Unfunny" effect for me.

Meh. It's ok

Very nostalgic feel and incredibly melodic. I find the harmonies incredibly interesting. They are very well done harmonies, but Simon and Garfunkel aren't as polished and perfect at holding pitches as modern day singers, so it feels much more authentic and intimate. It's like a little glimpse into life in 1966. Perhaps a bit too optimistic, like a lot of hippie music was, but that makes it all the more interesting. A nice look at the times, one that feels very different from modern day, staring down a kind of bleak future. The exact kind of thing a gen Z person like myself finds very comforting.

It's really an incredibly underwhelming album. And I'm not even against the country pop, Nashville type of sound (except the garbage of today). But this wasn't innovative while also not being all that fun. Still, it'd had just a bit of fun to it to not rate a 1.

I listened to it, and forgot to write any notes while listening. Now, a day later, I basically don't remember any of the album, other than it wasn't particularly offensive. I feel like that speaks of the quality, all on its own.

I like to take a look at the history of an album while I listen to it, especially to find out why it was included on this list. For this album, I saw a lot of references to the "cinematic quality" of this album. Apparently, David Holmes has gone on to compose a lot of music for movies, hence why it's important in retrospect to look at these reviews. The problem is, that's kind of like saying "this music belongs in the background". Calling music cinematic is like saying, there's no purpose to this music outside of what it could provide to a visual scene. Imagine all the famous pieces of movie music you know. Some absolutely wonderful, amazing pieces. The star wars theme for example. Now, take them out of that context. Would they be good? For sure. But would they be as famous, or would they be AS good without the context of the movie? No. Because music made for cinema is made to not be actively consumed, so to speak. It is not the focus, it is there to enhance. Two parts combine to make a greater whole. Without it, without any vision, the music is rendered meaningless. It honestly makes the album somewhat, for lack of a better term, offensive to the sensibilities. I'm sure this would work really well if someone made a super cheesy and very late for the cultural moment version of Do The Right Thing, or a really lame and unfunny version of Friday (since, due to the samples, it sounds a lot like white people hip hop, where we remove all the swing and interesting rhythmic qualities). There is nothing stand out about it, and it really makes me wonder why it was included on the list, since it doesn't seem to have been inspirational or really culturally relevant. Furthermore, imagine you took someone who was a complete blank slate to any form of digital/electronic music. They've purely been listening to bands with instruments for 20 years and had no idea you could even use computers to put together music, or sample, or anything like that. This would instantly turn them off of said music, and probably give them a, in their eyes, completely justified strong anti-sampling view. Every song takes one or two main samples, poorly removes anything interesting from them, loops 2-5 seconds of it, and that is put over the WHOLE ENTIRE SONG, basically the foundation. Then some even shorter samples are thrown in to create the sense of progression, even though it's not there. Even I have made similar sounding songs, except I would never think to release them because they sound amateurish and terrible, because I'm an amateur beginner. Honestly, I am not one to generally hate music. I welcome all types that aren't modern pop country. I didn't even give one star to Bjork, and I hate Bjork's music with a dying passion. I was going to give this three stars when first listening to the first three songs. Then it dropped to a two throughout the album. Then I went back and listened again, and it just became even more offensive. That's why this album is getting a 1. Further listens just really drives home that there's is basically absolutely nothing here. It's filler commercial music, put to an album. It's basic copyright free youtube music, that creators never pick because it's just too obviously copyright free music, due to its lack of musicianship, interesting ideas, general melody, and the complete monotony and reptiveness of it all.

As a guitarist, I'm really, incredibly biased towards this album. Jimi Hendrix was a visionary, an innovator, truly a master of the craft of guitar. Plus, this album has some massive hits on it. I'm going to give it a 5, but it's really a 4.5 for me, and here's why. This album has beautiful chord progressions on it, wonderful guitar playing, great composing. But not back to back. Not every single song was memorable. None of them were actually BAD, but some are just forgettable, more filler than killer. Still, it's Jimi. I can't bring myself to round down.

It's really hard for me to be objective, this kind of music is incredibly nostalgic, due to my mom being from the south. With that said, this Willie Nelson album is like a warm blanket wrapped around your shoulders on a silent Texas Prairie night, smoking on the porch, looking at the stars. Oddly lonely, but still comforting. Nice break from the over produced nashville sounds I've heard on my list recently, too.

I've heard this album a billion and one times. This is one of THE top jazz albums, and DEFINITELY one of the top bossa nova albums. Great all the way, front to back. Corcovado is one of the greatest songs ever written. For me, it has this sound that is like... walking alone along a busy, snowy, city street around Christmas time. It's not exactly lonely but more solitary. Something nice looms ahead, but for now you think about times past. Now if only I could remember all these Portuguese song names...

I really liked this album, but doubt I will be coming back to it. It's really interesting, and very different, but just didn't hit me. But I am VERY certain it has an audience that loves it. That's why it will be getting a four.

It's INCREDIBLY "of its time", so to speak. So, if that's appealing to you, you should love this album. It really is a quite fun album, though. But then again, I like the sound of this specific time and place. To me it sounded like if you mashed up The Replacements and The Clash (but I don't know enough similar sounding bands to make a more accurate description). I'd really put it 3.5, because it's not enough my thing that I'll be revisiting much, if at all, but it's overall really fun so I'll round up to 4.

Everyone knows Space Song. Other than that, I'd only ever listened to the Bloom album. So Teen Dream really fell flat of that and is a disappointment in comparison. It's not awful or anything, but it's a solid 2.5 at best. But, since Beach House has been pretty good on another albums, I'm going to round up instead of down in this case.

It's fun enough, but it felt more novelty to me in 2024. Nothing particularly stood out, personally. It's definitely not bad, quite the opposite. But I'm just not going to personally play it again on purpose, unless I want to show a friend some whacky 50s jazz (kind of jazz). But you know, good enough to get a three. Nothing was offensively bad, or even bland.

I'll be honest, I absolutely cannot be partial on this album. I love rock and metal, I love 70s rock specifically, and I absolutely love Led Zeppelin. I love and play the guitar, too, so Jimmy Page is a bit of an idol (for guitar only, save yourself and never look into him as a person). Robert Plant has an amazing voice, John Paul Jones was doing cool stuff with the bass and taking a way more active role than his contemporary bassists, and John Bonham was just a stupidly talented and innovative drummer that has influenced drummers for generations now. I've listened to this album front to back dozens of times, and certain songs on it, I've heard a billion and one times. Getting a 5, perfect album

It's a fun enough album. Not the best in the world. But it DOES have Our House, and then there's a few more fun songs. Just a tad above average, I think

Idk, maybe it was cool for its time, but it was pretty boring to me. Felt like it suffered the same thing as the Dead do for me. It's fairly devoid of catchy melodies. Nothing very ear catching. But, eh, it's not Bjork so it can't be a one. Maybe like a 2.5

I won't lie, an electric piano basically just always draws me right in. That smooth, round, cool sound and its lulling, subtle phaser just gets me. The Rhodes piano was just great, honestly. I'm very biased right off the bat to give it a great rating because of that. I'm not really sure why it's labeled as jazz, though. That would be like calling city pop jazz. I'm not exactly sure what you call this, though. It's very much like western city pop, though. It's certainly jazz *influenced*, but that doesn't make it jazz. Probably part of the reason some people don't like it. Mismatch between expectations and reality. The title track, Street Life, is just too damn fun. It's the sound of walking home at night, alone, on the street, after a fun night out. I, personally, don't really care about lyrics and others seem to say the lyrics are mismatched, but it's just all about the melody and feel for me. The other songs are good, too. Not nearly as memorable for me as Street Life, though. But I did like one or two on Spotify

I didn't even get through the whole album before deciding this was 5 stars. Nina Simone's voice literally gives me goosebumps, true ASMR. It's amazing that these are essentially throw away B sides. I need to explore everything she's ever done now.

This album is just pretty damn boring. Enough said.

Aerosmith sucks and Steven Tyler is a pedophile, enough said.

Oh my god The Doors are so painfully BORING. Why did so many 60s groups feel the need to bang directionless on an organ for 4 minutes in a 7 minute song? And Jim Morrison just sat there tunelessly "singing" for the whole fucking album. I was almost tempted to give this a 1 just because of how highly rated this utter dog shit was, but it's still not as bad as bjork

This day's album was a very pleasant surprise. I was listening to the album and quickly realized that Bjork was the singer. Now, I literally use Bjork as my measurement for whether an album deserves 1 star or not. If they're better than Bjork, they get 2 stars. But in this album, she is reigned in by the music of the band. Bjork can sing, and has a very unique voice and makes interesting choices, and with more straight forward music in the background, those choice really shine. It's not exactly the most profound amazing music, probably really just a 3.5, but because it made me like Bjork and even consider giving her another chance, I'm going to give it a 4.

It was a pretty good album. Everyone is right on the money, very artsy Duran Duran. It honestly also reminded me a bit of Type O Negative

I really tried. I tried so hard to not let other's reviews of this album influence my own. But I just can't ignore Taylor Swift's own remarks, and the rabid musical ignorance of fans of this album. Saying that this music is 80s inspired could be technically true, but anyone who has given an even cursory listen to 80s pop, especially synth pop, would know that comparing this album to it is frankly offensive. Just using synths doesn't suddenly make this 80s music. This is the most safe pop garbage I've had the misfortune of listening to. Without looking at the history at all, I guessed this album's release year within a year because it has such a hyper specific, dated sound that really only existed from 2011 to 2014. This doesn't sound like 80s pop, anyone saying so is frankly extremely ignorant and confidently incorrect. And that sound of 2011-2014 is so extremely fucking irritating, it's ridiculous. Only Blank Space saves this album from a 1. At least it's not Bjork.