1001 Albums Summary

Damn, I always the guitar on Funkadelic albums was great because of how much I've heard "Maggot Brain" praised, but actually hearing a whole album's worth of it is... Woo boy!

Y'know, I don't dislike this album, or even Springsteen (I think I like BORN TO RUN more, actually), but, gawd, he really does sound like he's singing in some kind of made-up gibberish language sometimes.

aw man i love gorillaz :) and british people too ig

I can't listen to "Your Move" without singing "Semi-Charmed Life" over the end part.

[NOTE: The following is a redux review written on October 25th, 2025 – I always thought I could've done a better job talking about this album, and thus I've tried to. The original review, written January 5th, 2024, is preserved below.] It's honestly kind of fitting to me that this song starts with a song for a funeral. And not for any morbid reasons, I should say; more just for the idea that this album represents the absolute apex of Elton John's career, and that I don't think he ever truly reached it again. Now, of course, Elton John would never stop making good music. After this album came out, he'd have songs like "Philadelphia Freedom", "The Bitch Is Back", "I'm Still Standing", "Song For Guy", "Don't Let The Sun Go Down On Me", "I Want Love", his cover of "Pinball Wizard" . . . I could go on. And it's not just songs; 'Captain Fantastic And The Dirt Brown Cowboy' is another incredible album; it's 100% worth your time. But whatever heights and peaks he achieved after 'Goodbye Yellow Brick Road', they could just never match up to how high he peaked with this album. And why is this album such a peak? Simple: it's the one with the biggest scope. Which of course comes with the territory, being a double album and all . . . but honestly, I can't think of a single other album in Elton John's discography that aims to be as big as this one is. There might be some individual songs that get there ("Burn Down The Mission", "Have Mercy On The Criminal", "Rocket Man", "Tiny Dancer"), but never a full album. Like, goodness me, the run of songs that kick this album off? "Funeral For A Friend/Love Lies Bleeding" is absolutely massive, and the energy you get off of its size carries **hard** over into "Candle In The Wind" and "Bennie And The Jets". (And can we take a second to acknowledge how weird "Bennie And The Jets" is? It's all herky-jerk n' shit, with lyrics about electric boots and mohair suits . . . I love it so much.) It keeps going from there. I don't wanna just list off every song on this album, but I damn well could. Even "Jamaica Jerk-Off", for the sort-of out-of-place piece of cod reggae it is. I have a soft spot for it, what can I say? You're talkin' to someone who enjoys "Informer" by Snow and "Rude" by MAGIC!. But look down this track listing: the title track is an eternal classic with its wistful yet determined lyrics. "Grey Seal" is a fuckin' jam and a half. Of course "Saturday Night's Alright For Fighting" rips, but let's not leave out "All The Girls Love Alice", as tragic as its lyric is. "Social Disease" is a fun song, paired together with the pretty-sounding nostalgia of "Roy Rogers". And they contrast well against the beautiful sadness and anger of "I've Seen That Movie Too". All capping off with a hell of a closer in "Harmony", goodness. The line on the song that goes "Am I the only friend you ever had, or am I just the last surviving friend that you know?" has always stuck with me for some reason. Maybe it's the way it's sung, I'unno. At this time, I should tell you that not every song on here is an absolute winner. I think it's very rare that any double album has a 100% perfect track record, and I don't wanna overhype this thing and tell you that it does. I mean, I do enjoy "Jamaica Jerk-Off", but I won't tell you that it's all **that** good. "Dirty Little Girl" is fun, but I've never considered it **that** strong . . . and I've just never been all the way there on "Your Sister Can't Twist (But She Can Rock 'N' Roll)". It just seems a little too silly and dinky for its own good. I mean, I get what it's going for, but eeeeehhhhh. But here's the thing about that. Y'remember that "energy" I mentioned earlier? The stuff I said "Funeral For A Friend/Love Lies Bleeding" lent "Candle In The Wind" and "Bennie And The Jets"? That energy, collected from song to song, is the secret sauce of the album. And what I mean is, when you look at a song like "Your Sister Can't Twist (But She Can Rock 'N' Roll)" all by itself, you could very well wonder what the hype about this album is supposed to be. But taken as one small part of a whole, riding off of the energy collected from every previous song . . . for one, it's a feat to have any double album hold song-to-song energy that consistently, but the variety between tracks sure helps. And when you're cruising on that energy, it can raise even the lesser songs to feel like "Dang, what would this album even **be** if you got rid of 'em? Honestly." It's a testament to both Bernie Taupin's lyrics and Elton John's vocals and arrangements. I've expressed many times in reviews of albums I've gotten after this one that double albums can very easily run the risk of being ego trips if you're not **very** careful and **absolutely** on your "A" game. It's just the gamble you hafta take for releasing a two disc set. And there is never a moment on this album where I feel even a hint of ego. There's no self-indulgence here; it's just nearly 17 of the finest songs you'll ever hear from the 1970's. You can see why this album is a hard act to follow up on or compare to. And I haven't heard every Elton John album, I'll admit that, but seriously — what even could compete? In my mind the only album that gets close is 'Honky Château', and even then . . . I mean, it's like Stevie Wonder's 70's discography? Albums like 'Talking Book' and 'Innervisions' are all-time classics, and maybe arguably stronger than the double album that's so often claimed to be his best. But 'Songs In The Key Of Life' still wins. And so does 'Goodbye Yellow Brick Road'. It's just that big and that strong for anything else to knock it off the peak. And for the record, I don't think it's a bad thing he never reached this peak again. I don't think he's ever tried to — and why would you? Any active, conscious attempt is gonna end up falling short, no matter how hard you try. So it's probably best to just say goodbye and keep on your way, doin' what you do. Keep this album in your memory, keep it in your heart — but just know it could never truly be replaced. It's one of a kind. And it's without a doubt Elton John and Bernie Taupin's greatest accomplishment. [The original review:] I mean, complete bias about this being my favorite Elton John album must be the only reason why I give a pass to "Jamica Jerk-Off".

I thought side one was pretty good, but when it comes to me being as interested in side two... Well, let's just say that it's tricky. Well, not as much as rocking a rhyme that's right on time, true, but still.

Well, I hope I'm more into any of the other six Neil Young albums that're on this list.

I vibe with it. Eight or so albums in, this one is so far the most "I'd never listened to this one before, but I'll be sure to do so again after today" one I've come across yet.

I enjoyed what I heard during my first listen, but, honestly, I don't really see myself coming back to this beyond one or two tracks. Still, though: motherfucking pizza.

"OK Computer?" More like... "Pretty Darn Good Computer."

I love me a good rush of side one.

I kind of consider this a "chill n' vibe to" album in my head, and under that light... I mean, I have other albums I'd go to before this, but, y'know, still. Ich denke, dieses Album ist gut. Ich nehme an.

I'll just say: if it weren't for those 30 seconds on "The Kids", this 3 would be more of a "leaning towards a 4" than the "straight 3" it is. I get those 30 seconds, I get why they're there, and I can appreciate what Reed was doing there, but they were seriously one of the most unpleasant times I've had with music in recent memory. No thank you, Lou.

Boy, now don't **this** make me kick my own ass for not listening to more R.E.M.? Gawddamn. Document used to be my favorite, but now it's this, and I'm gonna look back at this four I'm giving it and I'm really gonna wish I gave it a five, dang it.

Of the first fifteen albums I've listened to from this generaor, this is the first one where I've had to spend all day reconciling how I feel about it. It's not like the others, where I give 'em, two, one-and-a-half, or even just one runthrough and I know. This one, though... I ended up interogating a lot of different topics to try and get to how I felt. "Did I listen to it wrong? Should I have listened to it in bursts and out of order, like how it was originally released?" "Was I just in the right head space, in this weird moment between accidentally falling asleep for an hour, waking up feeling off, and knowing I was gonna go to bed in another two hours? Did I not pay enough attention, even then?" "What about all of the praise critics have given it? Why's there such a divide between the 100% approval rating from them and low 2 from the people here on this website?" "Is it just because I'm not into post-punk?" "What's even the point of lists like this or the Rolling Stone 500? Does rating these albums even matter?" "How does my rating system even work?" I went on like this until I reached two conclusions: firstly, in general I'm just bad at quantifying my opinion down to a single number. Like, all of those questions, and more I didn't list, were just to figure out if I was gonna give this thing a 2 or a 3. I had no idea which number better represented how I felt. And even if decimals were allowed and I could split the difference at 2.5, would that even still accurately reflect how I feel about it? Then there's the second point, which is, simply, "What's the point in putting in overthinking your rating so much when by 00:15 the next day you'll be on to the next album?" It doesn't matter, ultimately. Just pick one and move on. So let's just finally move onto my opinion, huh? Enough blabbering. On the one hand, I feel like I get METAL BOX, or SECOND EDITION, whatever you wanna call it. I actually kind of click with what it's going for, musically. I mean, for one, the dub bass is fantastic. Absolutely the best part of the album, and all of the praise in the world to Jah Wobble for it. And, I mean, you combine that with the guitar, and... I'unno. It kind of reminds me a pre-evolved Primus? Switch out the dub bass for virtuosic slap funk and have more conventional song structures, and sure. Hell, I even really enjoyed "Socialist", "Careering", and the turn to relaxing synths for the closer "Radio 4". I can find a lot of good moments scattered throughout. But, note: scattered throughout. There's pieces and songs here and there I like. But on the whole? On the whole, I feel like it's too long. Which, yeah, relates back to the earlier question about if I listened to this wrong: this was supposed to be listened to in bursts, ten minutes at a time. Sitting down with it for the full hour was never how it was intended to be listened to. But even accepting that and disregarding its total length as a criticism, to put it simply, a lot of it just doesn't interest me. Whatever anti-rock experiments they were going for... Just didn't do it for me. I can tell why most folks here checked out after "Albatross". I mean, of course if I sat with it longer and truly let it sink in I'd maybe grow to like it more. But with only one chance to rate this album before I have another one I hafta spend the day considering... I jus' gotta go with my gut. It's a 2. Part of me doesn't like that, since I feel like experimental in particular gets a bad rap from this website's users, but whatever. "Wha'cha gonna do," eh? All I can hope for is that I like the next album better.

I put on the first disc. Nearly fell asleep. Took notice of the FERRIS BUELLER sample. Nearly fell asleep again. The first disc ended. I'm good.

I'm pretty sure I transcended listening to "Stonemilking" for the first time.

"Vibes and stuff?" Oh, you better believe it. To reference a song from a different album—I can kick it.

I'unno if I have any thoughts about the vocal tracks, but the ambient ones? Aw yeah, **that's** the good stuff. Nice to hear what Eno can do outside of "produce U2 albums."

There's other soul I'd reach to first, and maybe I missed out on something by not banging someone else at the same time, but, hey, it's still pretty good tunes.

Listening to this album today, I spent a bit of time thinking about something I'd read on Wikipedia that Steven Hyden had written about this album. He put forth back in 2018 that there's, quoth, a "reflexive bias against it from both fans and critics," exemplified in two unwritten rules. First, you hafta claim a song from the second side as your favorite—'cuz that's the side has, quoth again, the "deep cuts with credibility"; and second, you can't ever claim that this is your favorite Led Zeppelin album. Now, I bring this up because when I sat down to write this review a few hours before the website would allow me that I decided would discuss where I fall on these two rules. Y'know, it's a way—a way, certainly—to get my thoughts down and out there. Better than just rambling off the top of my head and expecting gold to fly out, I figure. Though, what's funny is that the short answer to "where I fall on these rules" is that I actually follow both. That's particularly funny in the case of the first rule, because side two isn't even my favorite side. Sure, my favorite song on the record is there, "When The Levee Breaks", but otherwise it just doesn't do much for me. I much prefer the first side, since that's where the big hits are, and, well, at heart I'm a sucker for the hits. "Rock And Roll" and the ol' standby "Stairway To Heaven"... That's the good stuff! And the other two are fine as well. I mean, "Black Dog" is a really good opener, with that awesome riff, although I'm sure a lot of my affection for it comes from the fact that Weird Al was allowed to record a chunk of it for one of his parodies. And "The Battle Of Evermore" has guitar parts that I like, though I've never really cared to learn or dive into its high fantasy lyrics; it's kind of the weakest part of side one for me. When it comes to the second rule, my favorite Zeppelin album varies between II and III, and sometimes HOUSES. On those, I truly love and have affection for every song there. Yes, even "The Crunge"; I love how stupid it is. IV, meanwhile, has songs I really like—I just stated them in the last paragraphs—but more that... Are just fine to me? "Misty Mountain Hop" is good all around; "Four Sticks", even if I don't think it's bad, is the one I always pick whenever I hafta choose a "bad song" to make fun of; and "Going To California" is pretty, though it mostly glides by me until those "AAAHHH"s during the fade-out. It's just not a strong all-the-way-through package for me. Still a four star album for me, though. Even if my tastes skew slightly off enough that I can't join the endless streak of five-star ratings I've seen... Bah, there's nothing bad or even weak enough to justify me goin' down any further. I still enjoy thing every time I put it. Ol' wedding song does a lot for me, I tell you what. And speaking of "Stairway", if you ain't heard Frank Zappa's live cover of it, do y'self a favor. The horn section plays Jimmy Page's guitar solo note-for-note, which even got a shout out in the booklet for the MOTHERSHIP compilation. It's neat stuff.

Looking at from this album from the outside, it didn't look like one I'd enjoy terribly much. To begin with, the thing's a double album. Nearly 80 minutes of music! These days I'm not really that much into albums over an hour unless it's already something I love dearly, so right away this was fighting an uphill battle. And that battle only got steeper once I discovered that the album is only four songs long, one per side. That's four twenty minute songs! An album having one song that long is usually bad enough... And that's not even mentioning that this is a progressive jazz rock album! In my mind this was really shaping up quickly to be an interminably boring slog, like that drum n' bass compilation my group got a few days ago. Just endless jazz-y canoodling that I wouldn't be able to latch on. "Oh, a higher power have mercy. This is what I get for listening to every album that pops up." However, once I actually got into it and past the first minute—which really wasn't as bad as the top-rated review warned me it'd be, honestly... It kind of clicked with me? And I very quickly realized why, which ended up being my secret to getting through it: this album sounds a LOT like Frank Zappa's jazz work. Now, that isn't an original observation; I've seen a ton of other reviews, from here and on AllMusic, that point that out. It keeps getting made, though, because it's just true. It's a lot looser than a lot Zappa's jazz works could be, true, but tonally it's very close. Hell, there's even a part somewhere on one of these songs that sounds a lot like the electric violin used on "Willie The Pimp". (Forgive me for not knowing exactly which one; these are long and dense songs and I'm going off of only one listen.) With that framework in mind, anyway, my favorite and least favorite tracks don't exactly fall into it, 100%? I've seen a lot of people single out "Moon In June" as their favorite, but on initial listen, I'm not exactly feeling the hype myself. It's the one that sounds the least like Zappa jazz, and at this point that's what I'm listening to this album for. As a result, it ends up being a bit of a disappoint for me. Meanwhile, my favorite cut, "Out-Blood-Rageous", opens with these electronic tape loops and they're actually really pretty. It sounds nothing like Zappa would compose, albiet in the best way possible. If all that could've been in its own song, absolutely it would've been the one I'd come back to. And as a brief note before I conclude, part of me hates that I keep bringing up Zappa here instuead of considering the bang's music on its own. Part of me feels like it's disrespectful. But I don't mean it as disrespect, like I've seen at least one person use the compairson. I really like Zappa's jazz work. It's not my favorite section of his discography, but it's still an important one with a lot of great tunes. Anything that sounds like it gets positive points in my book. Although, with that in mind, I'm not sure if I'll give it another listen. For a one time listen, it was a pleasant surprise, and it was nice music to have on and not fully pay attention to while I played the Nintendo 64 DR. MARIO for the billionth time. The songs are still all twenty minutes, however, and I don't really usually have much room in my regular song rotations for it. So, with all that, it's a three for me, but if I do come back to again I could see it growing into a four over time. FInally, two spare thoughts that don't have anything to do with anything: ~ For the longest time I'd assumed that Soft Machine was a band that made music like The Flaming Lips did on THE SOFT BULLETIN or YOSHIMI BATTLES THE PINK ROBOTS. Just sounds like the perfect band name for that? ~ I totally mistook this band's THIRD for Big Star's THIRD.

Doesn't 100% bring the "wow" out of me, but damn if it ain't some good-ass funk n' soul.

Y'know, I was gonna start this review with a whole diatriabe on an unavoidable topic when it comes to Led Zeppelin's music: the stealing. The undeniable fact that the band snatched a lot of stuff from other artists, black ones in particular. And I actually did initially write it all down, althoughh once I was done, well... It ran on pretty long, for one. Fourwhole paragraphs of clarifying my poisition on the whole matter. But once I stepped back and saw the breadth of it, I thought: does it even really matter here in 2024? Like, yes, the fact that they stole so much is bad, but like that's a new concept in blues music. The real problem, I always figured, was the lack of proper credit, and while I think it was pretty damn shitty that it wasn't there to begin with and that they had to be sued into giving a lot of it, most all of it's there now. So, how much does it really matter today if Zeppelin stole a few lyrics and riffs? It's not like anything can be done about what happened nearly 60 years ago. Of course I understandable completely if that's a hurdle you can't get over, but for my own money... Truth is, I've just never been bothered by it enough to not listen to them. And what a listen this is. While, as I said in my IV review, I ultimately prefer its sequels II and III, this is still a damn fine album. Good-ass proto-metal blues riffs and solos, outstanding drumming, a killer vocal performance... And just some rippin' tunes to bit. "Good TImes Bad Times" is an absolute door kicker of an opener; "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" is a great bit of hard folk rock (with a part that sounds a lot like the riff from Chicago's "25 Or 6 To 4" in there, actually); "Dazed And Confused" has some all-time licks and violin bow noodling; I actually really like "Your Time Is Gonna Come"; "Black Mountain Side" is a neat instrumental; "Communication Breakdown" is damn proto-punk... The remaining tracks I don't really care so much for, and for me that's what mainly keeps it back from being on the all killer level of II, III and even HOUSES, but they're still jammin'. There's parts of how Plant sings "You Shook Me" that I'm pretty into. And just the fact that they recorded this all in 36 hours, too. Not that they're the first, or even last band, even in the heavy metal scene, to knock out an all-time debut in such a short period of time, but that doesn't make it any less impressive. Overall, yeah, it's a pretty four from me. Frankly, I don't think there's any Led Zeppelin album on this list I'd given less than a four. It just hits that good "dad rock" spot for me, y'know? I mean, maybe if IN THROUGH THE OUT DOOR was here... Although, that DOES have "Hot Dog", to... Anyway, I'm getting off topic. I can't ever forget all the stealing they've done, and I don't wanna underplay it (even as much as I kind of worry that "it's 2024" bit might come across that way), but I can acknowledge thing bad and love it just the same, y'know? Besides, like the stealing is even the WORST thing Led Zeppelin's done, though let's not get into THAT and drag this review out any longer, eh?

The culmination of Prince's 80's work, as far as I'm concerned. And if not that, then an impressive and sprawling sample platter of a lot of what he'd been doing that decade, with some small glimpses into the future. Just one good-ass track after another. Some cuts are a little lesser than the others, true—mostly on side two, honestly—but that's more often than not inevitable on double albums, and there's nothing I don't enjoy here regardless. The whole second disc especially is just gold. I mean, you got bangers like "U Got The Look"? Fun-ass oddities like "Strange Relationship" and "If I Was Your Girlfriend"? The epic live jam that is "It's Gonna Be A Beautiful Night"? And such absolutely and amazingly perfect tunes like "I Could Never Take The Place Of Your Man" and "Adore"? Absolutelt superb. Worth the price of admission. And let's shout out the first side as well: the stark and chilling minimalism of the title track, the absolute joy of "Play In The Sunshine", the absolutely danceable "Housequake", the quiet beauty of "Starfish And Coffee", those... Like, orchestral hits or whatever on "It" that've always sounded to me like that one instrument in TURTLES IN TIME that I've always thought of as a "turtle synth." And the part on "The Ballad Of Dorothy Parker" where he asks to get a fruit cocktail 'cuz he's not really that hungry... Inititally I wanted this review to have some kind of through line like my past couple have had. Y'know, an essay-like framework I can look at the album through. But, man, y'know, forget all that. This is just a good-ass album; one of many that've firmly wormed their way into my heart and/or soul and have gawddamn EARNED that 5 rating. And I don't need no fancy "creative writing" whatever to know or say that. 'Cuz lemme tell you, when this thing's on, that by itself is enough of a sign that there's a great time bein' had.

Damn, the guy who featured on Gorillaz' "Cracker Island" made his own music? And it's **this good**? Well, damn! And if the Genesis Sonic samples ain't the cherry on top.

I really like the rockabilly and early rock n' roll riffs that're on here (which it took me a hot moment to notice for some reason), but otherwise, eh, it's just above-fine to me. The idea of a punk album that covers domesticity and relationship issues is interesting to me, but it turns out it's more in theory than in practice.

Because I'd read that this album was inspired by PJ Harvey's affection for New York City, I decided it'd only be fitting that I spend my first listen to the album staring at video of someone driving around Manhatten. And somewhere during that, I just had to imagine the women—of course the badass kind in my mind—who relaxed by driving the long stretches of road under the bridges, just outside the jungle of buildings... It's sunny but coming on sunset, the top's down, and this album playing as the soundtrack... Yeah. It just hits right. Frankly, if I ended up getting bored at any point during the album, it was only because the footage ended up going into the city itself and, lordy me, you can't go for five seconds without havin' to stop at another light. Goodness me.

When it comes to a lot of foreign language music, as someone who's only ever known a spare few words and phrases outside of English, it ends up being essentially instrumental music to me. Which isn't to undermine or undervalue the words that're there and what they mean, of course; just because I can't understand them doesn't mean they don't mean something to a lot of people. But even if I do take the time to look up a translation, it's not like I'm gonna remember it every time I listen to a foreign language song, y'know? For me, the vocals, way more often than not, end up becoming just another instrument; another melody line. And in that light... Gawddamn, these are such great melodies, and the Brazilian Portugese is so pleasing to my ear. As a showcase for what MPB had to offer at the time, this is way more effective for me than, say, LOGICAL PROGESSION was as one for jungle. Like, for one, I'm able to tell songs apart, and that by itself is a huge advantage. This album's getting a 4 from me, but believe me, I feel it's so far the closest any album I haven't listened to before on this list has come to getting a 5.

As I'm writing this review, I'm only about midway through this album. Normally, for albums I haven't heard before I'd wait 'til after my second listen, or even halfway through my second at least, to get a jump on this, but... See, before I started listening to this album I did what I've done for a whilw now and checked out the already published reviews to find the most negative ones I could. Y'know, I guess I'm just interested in seeing the problems people have with these albums and then finding out if I disagree or not. Most of the ones I come across end up big negative "BAGHLE I DON'T LIKE THIS" dealies, but the one under this album that struck me so much is probably the most fair and balanced I've seen so far. In essence, it puts forth the following, which I hafta cop to: sure, it's good music, but is it important to music history or even notable enough on its own to be on this list of 1,001 albums? And at where I am in the album... Yeah, it sure is traditional country. Which is fine by me; I like traditional country. I know it's not the most much example, but I've listened to Johnny Cash's debut album a number of times. But—and maybe I'm just missing the larger context, I acknowledge that, but I can't hear what exactly's so special about this. Cub Koda on AllMusic claims this album is a number of things: "the last gasp of true honky tonk, the first stab at mainstreaming it into the Nashville sound of the 1960s, or country music's first country album," and, like, whichever one of those it is... I'm not getting it. Really, I'm having the same reaction to this that I did to X's WILD GIFT, where I'm not fully understanding why it's in this book. Although, I can at least acknowledge that WILD GIFT was notable to X as an in-between transitional point in their sound. Not to diss country, but what is NIGHT LIFE, this album, that a lot of other successful country albums from around the same time didn't also do? Now, my rating system is based purely on how much I personally enjoy the album and nothing else. That's why I'm giving it a 3; putting aside all of the gripes regarding its inclusion on this list, again, I like traditional country. As an album to, as Ray suggests, kick off your shoes and relax to, it does the job. Probably even better if I had a beer and a front porch to sit on. But if I was evaluating this album on whether or not it should be in this book; if I agreed or not that it SHOULD be something you listen to before you do... I'd hafta agree with that other review and smack it with a 2. Just how it is.

I didn't know much about Dennis Wilson before today. Especially if you compare it next to how much I knew about, say, Brian Wilson or even stupid Mike Love, it's pretty much nothing. Hell, the only thing I really DID know about Dennis is that he was the only true surfer in The Beach Boys and that, ironically, he'd drown in 1983. That's always been the framework I've viewed this album through, then: that it was the only solo project he released while he was alive. And going in, I felt that was kind of unfair to Dennis. Like, come on, this album should mean more to me than what its relation to the fact that he passed tragically young. I mean, hell, in my mind it always feels to me like they happened closer together than six years apart like they really did. I should be trying to see what this album provides on its own, seperated from all that. However, that turned out to be a lot more difficult than I'd thought. There's just so many moments in there that remind me of it. "Moonlight", in how it sounds to me, evokes that kind of "lost someone you love" melancholy, even if the lyrics probably have nothing to do with that. Though, speaking of lyrics, "Thoughts Of You" hit me especially hard with the part that goes "All things that live one day must die, you know." On my first liste that was the only lyric I picked up, and, gawd, I felt like it could have destroyed me if I were in a worse place. That's not even to mention "Farewell My Friend", which I found out was played at Dennis's funeral. And I tell you, learning more about Dennis and his life surrounding this album's recording certainly didn't make anything better. Knowing all that context just makes this a very sad album to me. It was never meant to be that, but looking back on it nearly 50 years later and considering all of that context... Hell, even Brian Wilson has said at point that he hasn't listened to it because there's too many sad memories for him relating to it. But then, that's still one reason why this album touched me so much. As much as I hate to admit it, it's because the album ends up being so sad that pushes it over for me from just being really good late 70's rock n' soul. It can even make me look past that one farty instrument on "Dreamer", though that break it has in there probably could've done it, too. Don't get me wrong here. If you're a big, BIG fan of The Beach Boys, and post-SMiLE Beach Boys especially, this might not do it for you. Luckily for me, I dig that stuff a lot, even if I don't necessairly think this album comes as close to SMiLE as that comparison implies. I just wish he'd had the chance to do more; see BAMBU through to completion, at least. But for what he's done here, as "End Of Show" fades surrounded by applause, for the people who know, he's really made something that'll last forever. And besides, it's better to view this album like I just did than through his relation to Charles Mansion. Wouldn't even make sense; Charley there didn't even have anything to do with this album!

I'll admit, there's probably something about the performance I'm missing—a review of the album on this website mentioned how good the interplay is between the three is if you listen hard enough. Of course, like a lot of other albums I've covered, I don't really have the time to listen to it closely enough to hear that? Like I normally notice stuff like that to begin with, anyway. And besides, even the review mentions it's not the reviewer's favorite album by this album, so... For my money, it's good jazz trio jazz (I like that sort of atmosphere), but I think I'll stick more with the A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS soundtrack.

I'll put it like this: this album reminded me of how much I like ska so much that I spent five hours at my work shift that night listening to ska. Wish I had more words or deeper thoughts, but that's really all I gotta say: I like ska.

First of all, I'll grant you—I think this is better overall than the last thing I heard Jah Wobble on, METAL BOX. Maybe attribute it to this album's pop sheen, I'unno. Although, with that said, I still find METAL BOX to be, like... More interesting? Now, yeah, the world music stuff is interesting; I'm not gonna deny that. But otherwise, it just kind of washes over me. At least METAL BOX had some parts where I perked up and went "Ah, damn that's cool!" Meanwhile, here, aside from a Sinéad O'Conner feature on the first track, I really didn't get much of anything out of it.

For some reason this has been the hardest review I've written yet. I just can't seem to find the right words to describe how I feel about this album. So maybe I shouldn't say anything. Just listen to the album, all the way through. Right to the scream at the very end of "Where Did You Sleep Last Night?", where the whole band drops out like they're shocked to hear it, leaving him to sing the last few words completely unaccompanied. Chills. Every time. And I'll probably look back at what I wrote just now and wished I'd said something else, but, honestly, that moment says more than I ever could.

I don't say this to undermine the contributions of Linda Ronstadt and Emmylou Harris, because of course theirs are just as important—but gawd, it's always such a joy to hear Dolly Parton.

All my life I've always been a Beatles fan more than I've been a Stones fan. Blame it on exposure: when I was young I had a full-frontal blast of THE BEATLES: ROCK BAND, which inspired me to collect every one of their stupid albums and buy into the mythology the old guards had given them (which, to some extent, I still believe to this day). Contrast that with the Stones, where at most there was one song in GUITAR HERO III, a Weird Al polka, maybe some needle drops, and the knowledge that Lennon and McCartney wrote "I Wanna Be Your Man" for them. There wasn't really as much there to get me to dig through their stuff. Even as the years drew on and I became more aware of the praise given to them, a lot of their stuff has remained in a pile that I've come to label "Albums I'll Listen To One Of These Days–Honest!" Hell, it was only a couple of years ago I finally listened to the US versions of AFTERMATH and BETWEEN THE BUTTONS. So here I am, finally, with the first album in their golden period. How does it hold up to me? What have I been missing all of these years? To begin, let's pull this framework all the way through and get it over with: I prefer what The Beatles were doing in '68, which was their legendary WHITE ALBUM. Now, it's no doubt probably not fair to compare them. I mean, the WHITE ALBUM is an eclectic monstrosity of a double album born out of the turbulence the band was going through at the time. BEGGARS BANQUET, meanwhile, is a single album made under lighter circumstances except for what Brian Jones was going through, and at its core it's a return to the roots rock and blues they were doing earlier in their career. And don't get me wrong, I get that that's why this is here on this list: the return to roots. Well, the partial return, anyway, because while they were coming out of a heavy dive into psychedelic music on THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST they weren't leaving behind the worldly and more exotic influences. You wouldn't listen to "Sympathy For The Devil" or "Factory Girl" and say they're just roots and blues. Not to mention, I figure it's expanding on how they incorporated those influences into their regular sound that would lead them to later make LET IT BLEED and EXILE ON MAIN ST. and so on. It's just there here, at its earliest "stripped-down return to roots" form... Even with the external influences, it's still mostly just roots and blues music. Of course it's GOOD roots and blues music; it hasn't gotten all of this praise as the first album in their golden period for nothing after all. But I feel like even if I had listened to this at that young age, in the period of time between "Paint It Black" and THE BEATLES: ROCK BAND... I don't think it would've really swayed me to be a Stones fan more. Maybe another one, but not this one. To put it another way: I also find that "Hey Jude" kind of upstages this album. Sorry 'bout the birthday, Mick.

Another one where I don't have too terribly much to say. I think I like a bit more the stuff I've heard on their future albums, but this is still a fun, funky debut. And that's something I don't need to say again.

And here I am kicking myself for taking, like, thirteen years to finally get around to this. Good-ass stuff from the lady who'd go on to sing the "Skyfall" theme.

I wasn't able to give this album a second listen before I had to rate it like I'd wanted to, but, frankly, I don't think any amount of listens would make this album any less boring to me.

Between this and the LTJ Burkem compilation I got a few days ago, I've come to the realization that I just don't like jungle or drum n' bass. Sure, I can recognize merits in the genres and figure why people would like them, but for me... Nah. Not me. I mean, it just says something to me that the only track I really liked and devoted a good portion of my attention to was the third track from the first disc, which was the only one to me that didn't sound like drum n' bass. (It's for that reason, in fact, why I'm not recycling the review I gave for LOGICAL PROGRESSION like I'd honestly planned to. Believe me, though, with that **TWENTY MINUTE** nothing of a title track and opener I very easily could have.) End of the day, I just hope there aren't too many of these left on the list, if there are even anymore at all.

Of course in any context I'd probably give this album a four. It's the Beastie Boys doin' more of what they do best. Unless you were expecting more samples, I don't know what more you could want. Sure, the runtime could be a problem (peak "CD era" issue), but the way I listen to things it was hardly an issue. It's just, I feel like I was enjoying it more than I normally would this time because after the last two albums this randomizer gave me were so ass boring it was just a relief to hear the Beasties rap and yell over some good-shit beats. I'll take this over drum n' bass any day.

During the day I had to listen to this album, there was only one thing I wanted to figure out about how I felt about it: which side would I enjoy more? The acoustic half, or the electric half that prompted cries of "Judas?" That question puts aside how I feel about the album as a whole, by the way. To speak on that briefly, generally I think it's pretty good. This isn't my first Bob Dylan album (that would be BLOOD ON THE TRACKS), but it's been so long since I've heard any of his stuff that I might as well treat it as such. Under that light, and given that this record ends up being a transitional period for Dylan, I think it's a good introduction to his two most iconic styles: his acoustic protest songs and his electric folk. Of course, you could debate on how much protest there really IS in this album's acoustic songs, but that's besides the point. Though that actually does end up tying into which side I enjoyed more. 'Cuz y'gotta understand one thing about me, and that's that I'm ultimately more a fan of melodies than meaning. Not a bad thing, of course; you don't need to be a poetry scholar to enjoy music "correctly"–as if a "correct method" could exist. But you gotta look at how Dylan's lyrics are backed up on both sides. On the first side, the electric one, Dylan's words are scored by an electric band. As a result, I don't feel like I need to focus AS HARD on them. Naturally, I still do; they're not any less important here just because there's a drum kit. But if I find myself spacing out of the words and focusing on the music, then it's not as much of an issue. Compare with the second side, where the sole instrument a lot of the time is an acoustic guitar. With such sparse backing, the lyrics are the main focal point. That's all you have to focus on, aside from a harmonica line every now and then. If you're into dissecting all of Dylan's weird metaphors and obscure references, this side's way more of a treat, I imagine. And, yeah, the words are interesting as hell; please continue to not get me wrong here. It's just as a result of the presentation, it's not the first side I would reach for casually. This might be an esoteric comparison, but I like to think about it like this: Weird Al and the film WALK HARD: THE DEWEY COX STORY have both done Bob Dylan parodies. Hell, WALK HARD did two. Between them, I've listened to Weird Al's "Bob" way more than I have WALK HARD's "Royal Jelly". Or, to put it another way: consider me a Judas, too, I guess. So yeah. Now I've heard this Robert Zimmerman. And although I don't suppose I've taken in enough to fully agree with the hype, taking this as a cross-section... Yeah, I can begin to see it. I just hope I can get a little more out of his earlier, fully acoustic records whenever they show up.

It's a fine album, I guess. My main issue with it just has to do with the 90's CD-era trend of albums being TOO DAMN LONG. But this isn't a platform for me to rant about that, so I'll just say that I don't think this album needed to do over an hour.

So that's why it's in Kurt Cobain's top 50. I'll be.

It's a pretty fine album overall that's **really** elevated (by a whole star, even) by the presence of "California Dreamin'". Like, imagine how this album would play without it; imagine if Barry McGuire **did** end up recording it—and y'get it, right? I mean, if all the hype sticker covering the toilet had to bring up was their cover of "I Call Your Name"...

Y'know, I can completely hear why someone wouldn't like this album. Hell, in a lot of spots it reminds me of that needless DARK SIDE OF THE MOON REDUX thing Roger Waters did last year. But in a similar case to Dennis Wilson's PACIFIC OCEAN BLUE, when this album's in the context of Cohen's passing just a few weeks after its release... Oof. It's hauntingly melancholic. Not something I'd return to very often, but gawddamn was it powerful during my time with it.

I wish I'd caught this album on a better day; one where I wasn't operating on only three hours of sleep and could give fuller attention, 'cuz from what I caught on my two listens it sounds damn good to my ears. It's not the Madchester I expected to hear, but of course it's for the better it doesn't sound like EMF.

I like to think about this album in essentially the same way Ryan Marr does, as he wrote in his flash essay about the album for The RS 500: "as OK COMPUTER LITE: 'Subterranean Homesick Alien' with all the 'Fitter Happier' bullshit stripped away." Which, presented in that context, all by itself, sounds like an insult. Certainly it sounded that way to one member of the group I'm a part of. But it's not to say that OK COMPUTER is worse than IN RAINBOWS. Honestly, on whatever level you wanna define "objective" as, I'd say I still think OK COMPUTER is a better album overall. As for which one I'd return to first, though... OK COMPUTER is great. I just said as much. But it can also be a lot. Y'know, what with it being about the decline of Western civlization and all. IN RAINBOWS, on the other hand, is a lot simpler—and I don't mean that as an insult. It sounds like a much easier record to just throw on and enjoy without having to deal with any pigs in cages on antibiotics. That's true even if I can't really pick any one track as a stand-out like I could with OK COMPUTER ("Paranoid Android" and "No Surprises" for me). I guess to put it some way to close this out, if I'd been around for this album's original release, I wouldn't've paid nothing. Some pretty fine clothes the emperor's got there, I tell you what.

My group's 50th album. I think it's good, but I wish I could've found more things to say about it than "this is the first one to have a song Weird Al parodied," "I think I prefer when The Police have more reggae" and "I get 'Mother', but that doesn't mean I hafta like 'Mother' all too much."

Hours before I had to write this, I read another review on this website saying that the instrumentation on this album was very 70's. 70's singer-songwriter, I assume, since they'd also brought up references to Paul Simon and the like. And, yeah, that's exactly why I like this album. The 70's **are** my favorite decade, after all—or so all of the data I've collected over the last five years says. Because of that, anyway, even though I would've preferred something more around 40 minutes, I can absolutely overlook it's 50+ minute runtime.

Ah, primordial new wave! Back when it was weird, post punk-y and art rock-y! And much more palatable post-punk, too, than ‘Metal Box’! I'd probably be more into their other albums (the ones that lean more into synth pop and sound more like Weird Al's pastiche "Dare To Be Stupid"), but I really do appreciate this one for how odd it is without being a mess.

I can really appreciate how much work they put into the instrumentation and production (months worth, even—and it really paid off as far as I'm concerned), but otherwise I think it's just fine. I'm pretty sure I'll be into one of their other releases more.

While I was listening to the second track on the album, I came across multiple reviews on this website that mentioned nostalgia. Now, they were probably referring to the nostalgia they felt about when this album first came out, but I still wanted to see if it could evoke that sense in me; someone who only yesterday found out this album existed. So I leaned back as far as I could in my chair, closed my eyes, let me mind wander to earlier times... And it unlocked the rest of the album for me. Now, that doesn't let this escape the fact that this album is still too damn long (CD era bloat!), but, y'know, otherwise...

Before going into this album, I was only familiar with the Jon Spencer Blues Explosion through the song of theirs that was in BABY DRIVER, "Bellbottoms". I've always loved it, largely for its association with the film, but in general I think it's great. And it did not prepare me for this album. I can hear some elements here and there, but this is some raw, loud, live show-ass punk blues. On some Jack White shit here. And I love it so much. It's so damn fun. I can understand that its energy might be too much, 'cuz it never tones down the whole album, even on the slower songs; and even if it isn't as long as some other 90's albums I've heard it could **maybe** stand to be a little shorter... Aw, but heck. I don't even care. It's fabulous. It's groovy. It dun' make me wanna dance.

Y'know, on the one hand I don't feel like I 100% get what all of the hullabloo is about this album. Maybe I just haven't listened to enough that's been influenced by it; maybe I've heard **too much**... I can't tell. But of course what I **can** say is that this album is good. Damn good. I wouldn't say it's my favorite 70's rock album, buit it's gotta be way up there. I wasn't able to get in a second listen to "Torn Curtain" before the day ended, but from the little bit I sampled of it while I was writing this... Goodness me. So, like, in one sense at least I get this album's praise.

Before my group had ever even gotten this album—hell, from the moment I found out this album was on this list at all, I'd already given it a 1. It was one of only two 1 I knew for a fact I was going to give, along with the Limp Bizkit album that's on here. And that's unfair, I get that. As I'm writing this, I haven't even heard the album yet. At most, I've heard the inclusion of the album's opener in Weird Al's "Angry White Boy Polka", Cledus T. Judd's parody of "Cowboy" "Plowboy", and the REGRETTING THE PAST video Rocked did on the album as a whole. And of course that last one especially would lead to me having a biased view-point going in. I'm fully aware of all this. But you gotta realize, even if I wasn't aware of the stuff I just mentioned, everything else Kid Rock's done recently would sure leave me feeling that way as well. This is the guy who would go on to release "AIN'T NOBODY GONNA TELL ME HOW TO LIVE" or whatever it's called and fully pander to the MAGA audience because those are the only people who sort of like him anymore. You give me an album by him, ANY album by him, and you expect me to go in with an unbiased mind? There's nothing listening to it could do to convince me otherwise; that I shouldn't just rate this album based on what I think of Kid Rock as a person and not what it actually contains. Because I know exactly what it is: it's shit-stupid country rap rock from a rich poser white boy selling a fantasy of being a suburban cowboy to other poser white boys. That's all this is, and the fact that it sold so much frankly kind of offends me. The hell was going on in the 90's that people just lapped this shit up? Hell, what is it even doing HERE, on THIS LIST? Normally I'm not one to ask why an album's here because I figure it has to be for SOMETHING, but in this case, I can't figure it out beyond MAYBE that it was important to rap rock? But was it really? Why is this something I HAVE to listen to before I die? Unless you wanna say it's because you can't appreciate the good without hearing what trash sounds like. I could possibly make an argument for Limp Bizkit, but not here. This IS a waste of a spot, completely. You can only imagine what else could have been included if not for this. Hell, I'm just left thinking about all of the albums my group could have gotten instead of this; from the proven timeless classics to shit I just love on a personal level. But no. We gotta waste our time with "FUCK ALL YOU HOES. DETROIT 'TIL I DIE, MOTHERFUCKER." And it's only because I wanna remain consistent in my intent to listen to every album here that I'm even bothering to taint my Spotify history with this sack of shit. So I hope you're happy, Mr. Rock. You've triggered me, at least. ---------------*****--------------- This part was written after I listened to the album, and... See, hours before I figured I may as well get it over with, I had this joke in mind. Imagine: all that preamble, 500 words worth, of me ranting on and on about Kid Rock and this album and the fact that it's on this list, all written before I even heard a second of the album. Then, when I get to the post-conceptions part of the review, I only have four words: "Well... That fucking sucked." You see the humor there, right? Oh, it would have been amusing—at least it would've been to me. Because right from the top, I didn't figure I had anything else to say about it. After everything I said beforehand, what else could listening to the album inspire me to say? Honestly, I WAS kind of considering just not listening to the album and posting that anyway. But I wanted to do my due diligence. I put YouTube in Incognito mode, started up the album, and... After a while, I got so bored of the album I just started watching Rocked's video on it and didn't even pause it. So it's entirely possible I missed some of the grosser lyrics, and, yeah, no doubt I didn't treat this album fairly. But the big singles and the occasional REALLY bad lyric aside, there's just nothing to it. Like every album that was released in the 90's, it's too damn long. There's so much stuff that could've been left out and no one would've missed it. Though unlike with other records I doubt cutting it down would help much. I mean, you'd still be left with Kid Rock's posing about being a "pimp cowboy," which only gets more infuriating every time he brings it up. All I can see is his stupid millionaire mansion. Seriously, Snow had more street cred than him—yeah, the guy who recorded "Informer". And at least Vanilla Ice was a goof so it was fun to laugh at his posing. I'm not even sure if Kid Rock's from Detroit! Lemme put time aside now to mention one thing I liked about this album, before I get into the worst thing. The instrumental for "Wasting Time"? I kinda liked it. Or at least how it sounded coming out of my iPhone's speaker. I thought it was some kinda monk chant that he'd recorded for the album, but I found out later on in the day that, yeah, it's actually a sample of "Second Hand News". I like the version I had in my head better. Speaking of the sampling, by the way, before my writing this I never 100% vibed with how Rocked talked about it on this album because I always got the feeling he thought sampling was cheap. Y'know, that sampling isn't an art form, as has been demonstrated on albums like PAUL'S BOUTIQUE and FEAR OF A BLACK PLANET. But that's just the thing—it's an art form, but the way Kid Rock uses samples is artless. I believe that's more Rocked's point; that every Kid Rock uses a sample, it's something where he could've recorded something original himself, but didn't because he's lazy and wanted to bank on recognizability. But let's get to the worst thing. Simply put, the last track on the album, "Black Chick, White Guy", is disgusting. Even if I understand that it's a true story he's rapping about here—supposedly, anyway—never in my life did I want to hear Kid Rock rap about ninth graders having sex. That's not ALL it's about; it goes from there to be about the consequences, but still. You're damn right I don't know the half of it—and I don't WANT to! So this ending up running on way longer than I thought: over 1,000 words. As I'm writing this, I have no idea if this website will even accept reviews that long; I might end up having to make a Pastebin for it. And of course it's an album as terrible as this that inspires so much writing from me. It's the frustration, and the fact that it's easier to dump about stuff you hate than stuff you love. I mean, I wish I had said nearly as much about MTV UNPLUGGED IN NEW YORK or GOODBYE YELLOW BRICK ROAD or SIGN "O" THE TIMES" or PACIFIC OCEAN BLUE or 21 instead of wasting my time on Kid Rock. Lemme, then, just summarize this whole thing the way I should have to begin with: this fucking sucks.

So, hey, it turns out the songs on here that aren't "Everyone Wants To Rule The World" or "Shout" are pretty dang good, too. And unless something else comes along, this might be the most 80's album I'll hear, so all around it's a real solid package.

Going into this album, the most important factor in me loving it is the fact that I also love—and a LOT more, I should add—The Flaming Lips' album THE SOFT BULLETIN. I'll save my exact opinions on it for when that actually shows up, but to put it in short, as a piece of music it's a very good contender for my top 20, if I ever wanted to make one. Anything that sounds like it would naturally appeal heavily to me. Although, with that said, while there are a rather large number of spots here that remind me of THE SOFT BULLETIN, I don't wanna act like DESERTER'S SONGS isn't its own thing. It's not a dream pop record, for one; and it's not nearly as grand as THE SOFT BULLETIN can be. DESERTER'S SONGS is way more of a rock record, with its saxophone lines and guitar parts. And while DESERTER'S SONGS is more restrained, it's still a very cinematic listen—I mean, they wouldn't master this thing to 35mm film print if it wasn't. Plus it's got a few more musically odd moments than THE SOFT BULLETIN did—just check that untitled instrumental appended to the last track. But I don't wanna act like my love for THE SOFT BULLETIN isn't a factor here. It absolutely is; I wasn't excited to listen to this thing until I saw that there was a whole section on its Wikipedia page about how they shared the same producer. Not to mention, to quote Wayne Coyne, "I think without DESERTER'S SONGS being so significant, THE SOFT BULLETIN would probably have not been followed too much." In that sense, at least, I owe a lot to DESERTER'S SONGS. Without it, it's likely I wouldn't have "Waitin' For A Superman" or "Feeling Yourself Disintegrate", or even "Fight Test", "Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots (Part 1)" or "Do You Realize??". In that sense, even if I didn't like it, I'd have to give it SOME respect. And luckily, I do like it, a lot. Not as much as THE SOFT BULLETIN, but it's up there. And me relating it so much in my mind to THE SOFT BULLETIN, by the way, is a HIGH compliment, believe me. I had such a large smile on my face during the first track when I realized how similar they sound. I can't really give anything that evokes that kind of reaction from me anything less than a 5.

Y'know, I think it's fine. Like, I don't think Bowie did soul music badly, but I know there's better out there—better soul music **and** better Bowie.

Kinda wish I had more thoughts on this album, but I'unno. The jingle-jangly guitar just really appealed to me. And reminded me a lot of the first song off of The Monkees' HEADQUARTERS, which, hey, that's a good thing.

Honestly, this album is fun as hell. It reminds me a lot of That Handsome Devil, actually; just less weird and a lot more chill. And with more raps about Gotti.

I imagine if I were goth I'd be INCREDIBLY into this. But since I'm only someone who appreciates the style and am not so much a participant, it's some pretty fine juju.

Of course I the more idealistic music Sly and company have made, but somehow I dig this stuff a lot more; the stuff inspired by drug use, paranoia, and the death of the 60's idealism that influenced their earlier music. It's some hard-ass funk music about riots that are, unfortunately, still going on.

The most liked review for this album on this website compares it negatively to Coldplay (minus Chris Martin) apeing Radiohead. Well, joke's on them; I happen to **like** Coldplay! And Radiohead, too, of course. And I mean, like either of them would write that guitar line at the front of "Assassin", anyway. Or, for that matter, monsters of album openers and closers like "Take A Bow" and "Knight Of Cydonia". Or the... **Everything** of "Supermassive Black Hole". Maybe they could've done something like "Starlight" or "Invincible", but I'll take how they sound here. I mean, frankly, the one positive "they wouldn't write" I'll grant in favor of the other two is that I don't think Radiohead or Coldplay would write "We Are Fucking Fucked", but that's not even on this album. Does really make me appreciate how good the music is here, though, considering all I've heard about Muse's decline after this—and I'm saying that as someone who likes DRONES a lot.

This review is a Missy Elliott exclusive. Y'know, I'd be lying if I said a lot of the thoughts I had while I was listening to this album didn't have anything to do with the top-voted review on this website. Well, "review" in quotes, because it's not really one. It's a track-by-track stream-of-consciousness where they list off every complaint they have, presumably in real time. That sort of method just feels unfair to me. Like, sure, it's not as bad here as the "review" of THE FRAGILE that's over on Pitchfork, but if you're gonna try and formulate and structure your thoughts, then what's the point? What does anyone gain from this? I don't wanna make this whole review about that one, but lemme at least address the point where I stopped reading: right at the top, where they say "Shut and sing ffs." Before I heard the album, I thought they meant "Stop rapping; I just want to hear you sing." However, it turns out they were referring to a minute-long spoken introduction before the first song. Which I'm fine with, myself. This is a rap album, so they're allowed to have something like that. The words and what they mean matter more in this genre than any other (except maybe folk), and I liked being given some context directly from the artist themself. If this was a rock album, I think I'd have more of a problem with it. I mean, heck, I enjoy that one she has in the middle of the album, with the bit about Prince. Although, that said, it's not like Missy Elliott is a master lyricist. I don't think she's aiming to be one, but there's a lot of weird lines sometimes. Sometimes they hit, like on "Work It" (buh-dunk-a-dunk-dunk), but then you have that weird bit in "Pussycat" where she asks if she can put her ass on your spaghetti. And it's not like the featured MCs aren't any better a lot of the time, either; you hear that "solid water" bar from JAY-Z on "Back In The Day"? If that don't remind me of Nicki's whole "duct tape" bit on "Only". Plus, I can imagine how revolutionary Timbaland's production was back in the day, but here in 2024 it can sound pretty damn wacky at times. Of course, when it hits, it hits hard. It's just, when you take it together with some of the aforementioned lyrics... It's got weak spots, to say the least. As a sit-down-and-listen-to-it experience, anyway. I'm sure if you throw these on at a party people would indeed get on the floor. The album ends with another monologue from Missy (if you don't count the remix of "Work It", anyway), where she says, among other things, that she doesn't give a shit if anyone doesn't like her album. The "review" (and I checked, just to make sure I wasn't putting anything in their mouth) I read shrugs it off with an "OK." I can just hear their eyes rolling. And it's not like I can't see why someone, especially someone who doesn't like hip hop as that person admits, wouldn't dig this. I'm not giving this a 3 for nothing, after all. My problem isn't the negativity in and of itself. It's just that I feel like it doesn't add anything to the conversation. Complaining by itself, without much substance beyond it, is pretty useless. But then again, despite all I've said, I probably shouldn't care. I mean, if Missy doesn't care what they'd say, even as hard as I know it'd be for me to ignore it, I shouldn't either.rehtie t'ndluohs I ,ti erongi ot em rof eb d'ti wonk I sa drah sa neve ,yas d'yeht tahw erac t'nseod yssiM fi ,naem I

This is the second time now my group's gotten an album with Tricky on it—and unlike the time we got a second album with Jah Wobble, I can actually give this one a pretty solid thumbs up. Like every album I've gotten from this generator, I've only given it two complete listens at most, so I can't tell you exactly what makes this so much better than MAXINQUAYE. At the very least, I can say it's more interesting. The beats and production are interesting, the samples are interesting, the lyrics are interesting—and I'm not just talking about the strings of Beatles lyrics on that one song. It's not the bloated snooze-fest that MAXINQUAYE was. Maybe it's because this doesn't lean into dub as much as that one does, but I'unno. I was only going to give this album my typical "it's fine" 3, but as I'm writing this I'm listening to the second side of the album and "Hymn Of The Big Wheel" came on, and that alone is enough for me to bump it up another star. I also wanna say—my group all seem to agree that Massive Attack's later album, MEZZANINE, is better than this one. I haven't heard it aside from from hearing "Teardrop" hear and there, but looking it up on Wikipedia, I can't help but notice a curious lack of Tricky on it. Maybe that's relevant, I'unno.

I feel like I'm giving this album a 4 largely because that's what I gave the last Bob Dylan album my group covered (BRINGING IT ALL BACK HOME). I mean, to me there's nothing really better or that much worse than the previous album that would give cause to a different rating. I think I ultimately prefer BRINGING IT ALL BACK HOME, at least the electric side, for how much more it leans into Americana melodies—I **do** tend more towards melodies than meaning, after all. And believe me, this album has a **lot** of meaning. It was way more with this album than with the previous one that I got some people's problems with Dylan. I mean, most people, especially those who're recently born, don't go to music to analyze Balzac poetry, I get it. I don't, either, and I had to go to Genius.com to help me parse a lot of it. But if I'm the mood for it, it can be pretty interesting. Heck, I was having a time figuring out what "Ballad Of A Thin Man" meant to me. If I'm not, combined with the instrumentals, it woulda felt like an absolute slog, but thankfully... And I don't know how to close this review, since I'm kind of just stream-of-consciousness-ing out thoughts I had about this album while I was at work, so, uhm... I guess I liked the "It Takes A Train To Cry" song the best? Ironically the track with the least words. And given my group got BLACK HOLES AND REVELATIONS the other day, that's two non-consecutive albums we've gotten in such a short period of time with ties to the WATCHMEN movie. Weird.

Y'know, I think I like this album a better than the previous gothic rock outing my group got, JUJU, because this one's way more New Wave-y. And it's an early example of the sound, too, given that this came out in 1980. If you didn't tell me what year this was released in, I coulda sworn it was later in the decade. And, yeah, it's not enough to raise this album up a star, but,y'know, still. I can dig it.

I haven't listened to this as much as I have TO PIMP A BUTTERFLY or even DAMM., but it's what kicked the door open for K.Dot, so... I wish I had more to say about this album, but I really don't. It's just good-ass raps around a story where a young Kendrick realizes maybe this hood life ain't so good after all. And note: a **YOUNG** Kendrick. To the guy whose response to the Eiffel tower line in "Backseat Freestyle" was "FFS grow up": did you even understand the plot? Seriously. Anyway, uhm, I'unno. "m.A.A.d city" goes hard as hell and that's the last thing I wanna say. Well, aside fro—YAWK YAWK YAWK YAWK.

Before yesterday, Dire Straits was a band I knew for only two songs: "Money For Nothing" and "Walk Of Life", which I'd been exposed to via Weird Al and ROCK BAND respectively. I really love both of those songs (a number of lyrics on the former aside), but I never really felt the need to dive deeper into their catalog beyond that. Sure, I think I listened to BROTHERS IN ARMS once a few years ago, but I know it was only once and I can't recall anything about it. So here we have the band's first album from a few years earlier, and... It's not really as complex. I mean, of course; there's no organs or synths, and there's no female backing singers and no song runs seven minutes. One runs six, sure, but still. It's just a whole lot rootsier and less pop. And I like it; it's good guitar music without all the extra frills. I mean, you hear all of those riffs Knopfler's playing on "Sultans Of Swing"? Goodness me. That being said, I did find it a little easy to have my attention swayed from it. Maybe it has more to do with things about me unrelated to the album, but it's still a fact that not a whole lot on the first album 100% pulled me in except for "Sultans Of Swing" and maybe "Wild West End". It's not entirely fair to compare this album to "Money For Nothing" and "Walk Of Life", since that's comparing two days to songs that've been in my life for years, but they got the pop hooks, y'know? And hooks, I gotta admit, are what keep me locked in a lot of the time. Good guitar playing can only do so much before I start to phase out. I'm happy I've heard this album, of course, and I wouldn't put it past me to give it another listen—and maybe BROTHERS IN ARMS, too—but I'd gone this long without doing it, so...

Before taking part in this generator, a lot of my experience with 60's music didn't go much outside The Beatles. Sure, I also have had dips into Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Pink Floyd and The Monkees and so on, but never a true step into **the** stereotypical sound of the decade—hippie psychedelia. The closest I'd gotten before now was Frank Zappa's satire of the sub-culture on WE'RE ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY. So as a first dip into the sound of San Fransico's Haight Street... Hey, I dig it. Outside of "Somebody To Love" and "White Rabbit", this is pretty much exactly what I'd imagine hippie psychedlia would sound like, and it turns out I like it a lot. The singles, of course, are just the little extra pinch of sugar on the LSD. Y'know, that's already on top of the sugar cube. Or something—I'unno, 60's drugs. Should I even be mentioning that stuff in the presence of "White Rabbit"? Big shout outs to THE MATRIX RESURRECTIONS for first tipping me off to that song, by the way. Amazing shit.

I remember this was the first Beatles album I ever got on CD, for my birthday in... I wanna say 2011? And ever since, it's never stopped being my favorite. It's just non-stop masterpieces, front to back. Yes, even "Maxwell's Silver Hammer"; I **love** all of the Moog shit on it. But especially "Something", "I Want You (She's So Heavy)", "Here Comes The Sun" and the entire medley. I get the arguments for REVOLVER as the more important Beatles album, but on a purely musical level, there's no other album that inspires as much joy in me as this one does. And I'm not even talking about just Beatles albums, or albums on this list. In general, it might be my favorite album ever made of all-time, and I cannot praise its ass enough. It's absolutely the one 6 I know I would give if I could. Now I jus' gotta hope the album I get after this can carry on this high.

There's so much things I could say about what this album makes me think about, from the fact that Marley was nearly assassinated before a concert against political violence, to my feelings about Marley's popular image is these days... But la-la-la-la, lemme just stick to the review: this is my favorite Wailers album. From all the hits on the back end to stuff I feel isn't paid much attention popularly up front. It's good to chill to, it's good to think about your spirit to... It's both sides of Bob, right here. And seriously, I'm doin' y'all a favor not writing a whole damn essay about...

I feel like the top-rated review of this album gave me the wrong impression going in. If you haven't read it—maybe you're sorting by date and not top-rated, I'unno—in short, it's not a review of the album but instead a critique of the 1001 Albums list for including the 29th album by an artist instead of, like, albums from people who're newer and more recent. Like, are the boomers really taking up that much air that a past-their-prime album can get on here instead of, like, I'unno, DEMON DAYS? That thought really set me up for the worst, and... Honestly, I really liked it. I mean, for one, I like Emmylou's voice a lot. This is the second album my group's gotten from her, after TRIO with Dolly Parton and Linda Ronstadt, and her voice reminded me a lot of Dolly's, actually. Which isn't a bad thing by me; I **love** hearing Dolly sing, so this is just a treat. And beyond that, I just really appreciate that there's more going on here than it just being a country album. With that genre label, I was expecting some shit that's like "Of course the critics would lap this the hell up, but I find it **boring as toast**," though it turns out it's kind of not even accurate. Sure, the country-ness of it is all over the place, especially, I found, in how a lot of the lyrics are structured, but there's so many more influences that've gone into it. Honestly, I'm more wont to use Wikipedia's second genre label for it, "Americana," than country—and even then I don't feel like that really taps into everything Emmylou did here. Y'know? And, I mean, despite what I just said, I actually **like** country, but I'm jus' kinda glad it doesn't sound anything like the other country from around this time that I've heard (via Cledus T. Judd's parodies). So I dug the album. That's neat. As for whether or not I think this belongs on the 1001 Albums list... No? Maybe? It's not a knock against the album, of course, and I think it **is** worth hearing if you're into country, but... Do I feel like it's omething you **absolutely** need to hear before you die? I'm not 100% sure. It's more worthy than Kid Rock at least, although it's not like **that's** a high bar to clear.

Y'know, if I'm kinder towards Morrissey than I am Kid Rock, it's not because I actually like the guy. More, it's just about exposure in relation to the quality of their music they've made. Kid Rock makes shitty rap rock that's very easy to dunk on, so of course more people have talked about him and his beliefs. Morrissey, meanwhile, was a member of The Smiths, and a lot of that stuff is generally accepted as "good" and not as fun to dunk on. Hell, the two biggest pieces of criticism of him I've seen are a recent SIMPSONS episode and a JPEGMAFIA song. And wha'd'y'know, this is pretty good, too. Musically a very chill record that brings to mind the words "atmospheric new wave" in a lot of spots. It's a sound I gel quite a bit. If this is anything like what The Smiths sounded like, then, honestly, it makes me feel a little sorry I haven't checked them out sooner beyond Richard Cheese's cover of "How Soon Is Now?". It's a bit of a wash-over, but like I don't like one of those every once in a while, eh? I was only able to give this thing one listen today, and that's largely why I'm giving it a 3, but I could totally see myself bumping it up to a 4 on repeat. Honestly, it's kind of a shame that just on principle I'm never gonna listen to this again. Like, if it weren't for the man behind it, I'd probably definietely play it a few more times. But that's what he gets for bein' a piece of shit. Boy, bet he feels bad now that I've said that. And, hey, I mean, if I want good music from people who hate Maragret Thatcher, I'll stick with Chumbawamba, thank you very much.

I'll admit, when I was listening to this album today I wasn't exactly feeling it. Sure, I recognized enough quality in it to give it an "It's fine" 3 at least, but compared to the other British 60's music I like, and even to blur's PARKLIFE, I wasn't exactly all there. But then I watched Parlogram Auction's video covering this and two other albums by The Kinks, where he pointed out a way it's relevant today: nostalgia. The album was always about nostalgia, of course, but specifically in regards to how people these tends tend to have artificial nostalgia for times they never lived in. After the video I went back and listened to the album's single, "Starstruck", and I started to feel it a lot more. 'Cuz, like, I've always kind of considered myself an older soul despite being in my mid-20's. I choose to blame it on how I spent a lot of time when I was younger and more easily influenced watching, like, James Rolfe and Doug Walker, and I ended up getting turned onto a lot of the nostalgia they expressed in their videos. I think it's largely where my love for physical media comes from, honestly. And as for music, well, I've always been a bit more fascinated by what's come before my birth than after. It might not be reflected stastically, but for as many modern albums as I love, I do tend to return to older stuff more often than not. Big surprise, when I take the lyrics into consideration I get more out of it; who'd'a thought? Anyway, it's not enough for me to bump this album up a 4, but it's certainly closer than it was before. Absolutely it's one from this band that should be checked one. And all the shout outs in the world to HOT FUZZ for turning me onto "VIllage Green", too. Love that movie!

The biggest thing I've had on my mind listening to this album has been context and its importance to the listening experience–or lack thereof. I've made it no secret in my past reviews that I find context pretty important: PACIFIC OCEAN BLUE, IF YOU WANT IT DARKER, EXODUS, even DEVIL WITHOUT A CAUSE. Nothing exists in a vacuum; what happens before and after a piece can be just as important as the piece itself. But I suppose the question is "To what point is it really necessary?" The review of this album on this website that stuck out the most to me has been one that claimed that Pitchfork's retrospective review of the album is 80% relaying the surrounding context. I skimmed the review before I read this, and that does seem to be the case. The reviewer does spend a lot of time going over the personal and professional trouble Raitt was going through beforehand and the success she found with this album afterwards. There's only a paragraph or two in there that actually touches on the music itself. And, y'know, on the one hand I get: the story is the appeal. Y'know, listening to it and knowing that Raitt was able to pull herself up from such a dark place and produce such a commercially and critically successful album. It won her Album Of The Year for goodness sake. But on the other hand, you wonder: is that it? Is that all this album has going for it: its surrounding story? What does it offer beyond that? I'll say to begin with that I had no idea who Bonnie Raitt was seeing this album pop up. Which felt weird to me. Sure, I recognized her name, the album title, and even the cover, but I didn't have a clue what it'd sound like. How do I recognize an artist so much and not know how they sound? It took me nigh on five minutes to remember she won the 2023 GRAMMY for Song Of The Year, and in the interim I legit confused this album for the Stevie Nicks one with "Edge Of Seventeen". Then, when I actually listened to the album... Despite clearly reading on Wikipedia that this is an Americana album, for some reason I kept comparing it to the country albums I've heard? From her debut she was blues and folk, but I kept thinking about, like, the Johnny Cash and Dolly Parton songs I liked, and the more modern songs I was introduced to through Cledus T. Judd. 'Cuz at least in the title track I can hear that style of writing. Musically, **Lord** no. It's not the most 80's thing I've ever heard, but it's up there. I mean, maybe that's why I thought it was country. I guess I expect Americana to be rootsier, like that Emmylou album I heard before. And with way less synthesizers. Certainly I can't hear it as **blues** like Wikipedia also claims it is. Honestly, listening to this album in 2024, I can't help but wonder why it was such a big hit. What was really so different in 1989 that this hit hard enough to win Album Of The Year? Even removing it from its context, like I often do with Axl Rose's CHINESE DEMOCRACY, doesn't make anything here terribly better. I guess her voice is nice, and I didn't think there was a song on here that was terrible, but... Beh. This is a 3 from me, but a lower end 3. It doesn't spill into the realm of 2's by virtue of not being an ass-boring drum n' bass album, and that's not entirely an impressive feat. At the end of the day, though, I don't wanna begrudge Bonnie Raitt anything. This album helped her out of a bad place, I'm happy for that. And clearly, this album and the story surrounding it holds a lot for people who resonate with it. Just a shame it doesn't do anything for me.

Ah. Good ol' Captain Beefheart. The absolute mad man who somehow got TROUT MASK REPLICA to exisit. And this is two albums before that. Y'know, only knowing Beefheart from TROUT MASK REPLICA, it really surprised me how... Compartively normal this album is. Sure, a bit of that weirdness is still there, particularly in the lyrics, but you compare, say, "Abba Zaba" to "Frownland", it's damn night and day here. And I actually like this lot. Like, yeah, this is pretty standard Delta blues compared to what Beefheart would later be known for, but he's got a great voice for it, and, I'unno, I jus' like me some good blues music sometimes. I mean, I only had to listen to this thing one time to understand it, so that's gotta be worth something, eh?

This ended up being a really evocative album for me. Not one I love, no, but one where, with just a guitar and his voice, I can just see the open London highway Bert's rambling down. And the way I figure it, how much you enjoy this album really plays into how much you buy the vocation. Either you're traveling right along with him down the road... Or you quickly fade back into reality, wherever you are. As for me, I'm firmly more in the camp where I can smell the early morning breeze.

Y'know, don't get me wrong—I love all of the single disc albums in Stevie's golden period. This period isn't so highly regarded for no reason. But... I'unno. As much as I like them, at a point the start to mesh together a little outside of the REALLY big songs. Like, TALKING BOOK is amazing, and I've actually heard it more than INNERVISIONS, but there are songs where I can't really remember how they go. Not with INNERVISIONS, though. Each song, they're all distinct from one another; I can remember exactly how they all go. Even the two songs I find the weakest, "All In Love Is Fair" and "Jesus Children Of America", they stick out so well in my mind. And, I mean, look, this album's got "Higher Ground" **and** "Living For The City". Even if this album was a 1, the presence of those two alone would raise this thing to, like, a 3 at least; they're just that good. Of course that's not to underplay the other songs; "Golden Lady" and "Don't You Worry 'Bout A Thing" both come to mind immediately. It's just, those are such masterpieces on a masterpiece in a catlog of masterpieces. Absolutely incredible, all around. Another one I could give a 6 if I could for how much it's entrenched in my soul.

Listening to this album, in a lot of spots I was reminded of Owl City. And The Beach Boys. And Barenaked Ladies. And Ben Folds. And The Flaming Lips. And "You're So True" from SHREK 2. And, like, in another person's eyes that'd be harsh criticism, but me, I'm just like, "Heck, I like all those bands; I'm down for this 100%."

Y'know, I'm sure if I heard this album in a 70's dance club—and I mean a legit dance club, too; not something that was built into a strip mall—this woulda gone off for me so much more than it did.

(Due to my strong personal convictions, I wish to stress that neither this review or how I rate this album in any way endorses a belief in Kanye West. Additionally, I listened to this album using files I'd downloaded years ago; no streaming revenue went towards West.) I don't think I'll dread writing any review more than I did this one. Even the other two Kanye albums on this list won't be as bad as this, because it's with this I have to grapple with how I'm even going to talk about or rate his music in the first place. I mean, for all intents and purposes, I should just give this a 1 and move on. A 0, if I could. I shouldn't even have listened to the album. As of late, he's done nothing to deserve praise or fair analysis for anything he's done or will do. No matter how many "bagners" he has, at the end of the day he's a raging, far-right anti-semite, and I know it's not just me, but I find it hard to enjoy music from someone like that. I mean, he's not like Morrissey, where I'm VERY aware of his views, but because I haven't had much experience with them I'm more able to fairly judge his work. It's been way more... Y'know, Kid Rock. Kanye's decline has been in my face for the longest time now, and I've made efforts not to listen to him since at least 2019 and JESUS IS KING. Once he started pushing that "prosperity gospel" nonsense, even before he started praising Hitler, it was all over for me. Aside from some degrees-of-separation stuff like toasty digital and a Weezer mashup album, that, frankly, I should cut out as well, I just couldn't put up with him anymore. So, imagine my surprise when I come out of this, his debut, and the main feeling I have is... Sadness. Maybe a little mournful, even, for what we've lost. I mean, hearing "Jesus Walks" again, all I can think of is how he later betrayed the song's message (that Jesus walks with the downtrodden; not the rich who'd set up shops in the temples if they could) with JESUS IS KING. With "Through The Wire", I just think about how he'd later reframe one of the most important moments in his life, the car crash that resulted in his jaw getting wired shut, to be some petulant "divorced dad" shit about Pete Davidson. And listening to the extended outro of "Last Call", where Kanye explains how he even got to make this album... Gawd, it just felt tragic, knowing where he'd end up. And where he'd end up is VULTURES 1. I refuse to hear it, just on principle, but even the little I've heard about lets me know I'd hate it. Just knowing that on "Carnival"—which was a **NUMBER ONE HIT**, for some reason—that for shock value he compares himself to Bill Cosby, R. Kelly and Chris Brown... I'm tired. Writing this review has stressed me and made me feel not great and I'm tired. I'm giving this album a 3 only because in the brief moments I could look past what I felt about him as a person, it's fine. Good, but not mind blowing. I mean, I'll admit openly, there's parts I like. Even as much as new context has tainted "Jesus Walks", it's still amazing. The outro to "Family Business" is prtty damn good as well. Plus, jus', in general the beatwork is immaculate. But from what I caught of the verses... Big "Eh," y'know? And, like, did it **need** to be 76 minutes long? This isn't as bad as premo 90's CD bloat, but still. Some of this possibly could have been trimmed. He'll make better stuff later on that more justifies its length—in the brief period of time when he still made good stuff, anyway. And I hope it's a long time 'fore I ever hear him again. Fuck you, Kanye, for making me do this shit.

I enjoy this album in a lot of spots, but, honestly, I feel like I'd enjoy this band more as a subject on One Hit Wonderland, y'know?

Y'know, I wanna try something different here. I'm gonna comment on each song on the album. And this decision, by the way, has nothing really to do with the album itself; I just feel like it, mostly. So, to get down to it: "Changes": The song from the album I recognize the best thanks to the cover in SHREK 2 that Bowie features on. And in fact, I like that cover a bit better? A lot better, actually. I credit it mostly to how much older Bowie sounds there. I mean, of course after 30 years he would sound older, but seriously. Maybe it's the nostalgia talking, too, I'll fully admit that, but I really think I'm being genuine here. Even with that, that's not to knock the original here. "Oh! You Pretty Things": During all of the listening I did today, this is the one I came back to the most. I kept getting the title line stuck in my head. Although, of the album's first three main songs, I think I'd put it third of three. I mean, come on, it's just hard to compare when you're standing next to two giants. "Eight Line Poem": Oh, yeah, this. This is one of those "flow over" tracks I have, where I'm pretty likely to zone out during it when I'm doing full album listens. It can be a nice listen; I just don't think it's really worth listening to outside of the full album context or as a coda to "Oh! You Pretty Things". "Life On Mars?": Best song on the album, full stop. I remember the first couple of times I heard it. I probably had the wrong expectations because I kept hearing it described as a parody of "My Way", and I was disappointed when it didn't really sound anything like it, even in a broad "pastiche" sense. I've since gotten over that, and it's just **so good**. I've naturally memorized more lyrics from it outside of its chorus than I thought I would, which means a lot, believe. And for the record: yes, I **do** believe there's life on Mars—in the metaphorical sense this song means it in, anyway. "Kooks": It surprised me to read reviews here and keep seeing people say "Oh, I don't hate 'Kooks'; it's not **that bad**." Like, I'm not sure what I'd consider the "worst song" on the album, but I never thought it'd be this one. I've always liked it, at least because it's fun to sing with the "hung up on romancin'" line. Like, I'unno. It's just a nice, cute song. And a nice little break before what comes directly next, too. "Quicksand": OK, I know I just said I don't know what I'd call the worst song on the album, but if I were hard pressed... I mean, I don't even wanna say this one, 'cuz I know I'd just be saying it only because I find it the hardest song on the album to understand. Taking a guess, I thought it was about that feeling you get when you're lacking inspiration, but it might actually be about not knowing what happens after you die? Something about the "great beyond?" I really don't know, and I'm not terribly equipped to analyze poetic lyrics like this. I like the "Don't believe in yourself" refrain, anyway. "Fill Your Heart": If there's anything I wanna comment on here, it's the same thing Abigail Devoe pointed out when she talked about this song: how Bowie jumps into his falsetto during that last "free-EEEEE." Such a joy. "Andy Warhol": Most of the time I think about this song, it's about how Metallica later quoted it during "Master Of Puppets". And about how I can't **really** hear it? I'm sure it is, but sometimes I'm bad at picking up melodic references like that. Also just the fact that, eh, I'unno. It's fine. I like the "Andy walking, Andy tired" bit, but otherwise... Oh, and of course the chorus, too. I love me my chourses. At any rate, if I were Andy Warhol, I'd like it more than he actually didn't. "Song For Bob Dylan": One time I read on Wikipedia that this was considered the weakest song on the album, and that's how I've always thought of it. Is it really? Probably not, but of every song on this side of the record, I think I'd think about it the least. Even though I did reference/quote the opening lyrics back when I talked about HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED. I mean, you name me another song about Bob Dylan to quote, huh? "Queen Bitch": The best song on side two, hands down. "Bippity-boppity hat," I love it. One time while I was listening to this song, I imagined myself back in mid-1970's New York, dancing in a silk dress around some kind of Bohemian apartment with a glass of wine in hand. I was actually in my family's townhouse wearing a housecoat and holding a cup of water with red Kool-Aid flavoring that'd been squirted in, but, y'know, still. The spirit was there. Real lucky, that Lou Reed, to get this song made about him. "The Bewlay Brothers": The song that actually has the densest lyrics on the album, but I don't mind it as much as "Quicksand" because even Bowie himself said before recording a take not to pay attention to the lyrics. And most of the time, honestly, I don't. Before now, it's been another "flow over" track for me, where I zone out right before the final bit snaps me back in. Just like on "Eight Line Poem", I mostly blame it on the instrumental not being as attention grabbing as some of the other songs. But... Y'know, when I was relistening to this album at, like, 5AM, and I was staring into some of the dark corners of my family's townhouse... With this song filling my ears at the same time, it was actually a little unsettling, imagining what could be hiding in there. Jeez. Overall, let me say first I haven't sampled the entire Bowie ouvre. Heck, I only heard YOUNG AMERICANS just this month thanks to the generator. But I'm fairly certain that once I do, this'll still remain probably my favorite Bowie album. This or ZIGGY STARDUST. It dips a little for me on side two, but come on, it's got "Life On Mars?". Like INNERVISIONS having "Living For The City", that's worth enough points by itself.

Listening to this album really makes it hard to believe that it's the only System Of A Down album here. Like, no way this is the only notable thing they've ever done. You listen to Serj's vocals and how weird their instrumentals can get in places and tell me TOXICITY doesn't also deserve to be here at least. Come on, book. They've made some fun-ass angry music, and they deserve to get a double instead of a single.

Do I like this album? Yeah, a fair bit. I don't think I like it as much as the last indie rock album my group got, SO MUCH FOR THE CITY by The Thrills; and I don't think enough to give it a 4, but I can hear why so many people were goin' nuts for it back in 2010. Do I think it's the best album of 2010, though? I mean, I think I've listened to PLASTIC BEACH a bit too much to agree.

It's albums like these I'm glad I make an effort to listen to every album twice—or one-and-a-half times, at least. Because on a first go around, I was gonna give this a 3 that was leaning more towards a 2. Y'know, I didn't really understand it, but I didn't here anything I obviously disliked: it's fine. It was only within the last four tracks that this album finally clicked for me, and relistening to the first half of the album with those in mind (plus the knowledge that this is a concept album about relationships), I enjoyed it a whole lot more. Between Kelela's vocals and the R&B futurism beats... It's a lot of neat stuff. I'm still not giving this more than a 3 'cuz it's nothing I'd really return to beyond the day it was generated for me, but I had a good time with it while it lasted. Y'know, it's a 3 closer to a 4. (Also, another thing helped me understand this album, honestly: fanmade Epic Rap Battles. Jus', keeping those beats and flows in mind really did help me, honest to goodness.)

I've been tryna think of some kind of big through-line; some essay-style framework to write this review around, but nah, man. This is just some good-ass chill music. **Really** good-ass chill music. Like, within the first 30 seconds, I dug it so hard. Absolutely something I'm gonna put on in the future to kick back to. Hell, if my sleep schedule still meant I'd get up in the morning, I'd put it alongside FRIENDS by The Beach Boys and MOTHER EARTH'S PLANTASIA as a great "wake up, start the day" album. I mean, I don't even know what to say about the album specifically; it's just vibes too hard for that, and I'm all for it. And big shout-out, too, for the fact that The Moog Cookbook, a group I **really** like, remixed one of the songs on here. That's a damn cherry on top, and I don't even like cherries.

I wanted to write a longer review or whatever for this album, but some stuff happened in real life just before I got down to it that's stressing me the hell out as I write this, so I'm gonna make this a little briefer than I was planning. This is a fun album. I mean, **I** certainly enjoyed it. I can't hear **exactly** how it influenced Nirvana's NEVERMIND, but like I wouldn't take Kurdt at his word about it. It's clearly not for everyone—see the fact that the top-rated review of the album on this website, which gives it a 1, calls the it "just noise"—but if you click with it, it's a pretty enjoyable listen. And, hey, I'm just happy the superhero Tony finally got his own song.

I'll put it like this: the band was described itself as "avant-garage," and I dig the "garage" half more than I do the "avant-" half.

The top-rated review of this album complains about the abundance of Britpop on this list—"shitty Britpop," as they put it—and, I mean... I'unno. I'm OK with it. More than OK with it, really. Turns out I'm real down for Britpop, even outside of the big two of blur and Oasis. I'd put this below blur, though. Just considering the albums my group has gotten, anyway. But I'd still put it above The Verve, so...

Y'know, I've seen some talk this is the best album of the 90's, from the best band on the 90's. Like, that's a damn claim coming from the same decade that gave us Nirvana's NEVERMIND, Oasis's WHAT'S THE STORY (MORNING GLORY?), Radiohead's OK COMPUTER, Weird Al's BAD HAIR DAY and so many more. What makes this road material so great? And I didn't go into this album with the predisposed derision that question would imply, but it was still on my mind. What **did** make so many critics claim this thing's greatness? I can't claim a defnitive answer. Frankly, no one can, but that's besides the point. All I can speak on is the moment I got the closest glimpse to what they were talking about—without reading what they actually said, anyway. I was listening to "Range Life" for the third time 'cuz I kept missing the verse where the band disses The Smashing Pumpkins, and during an instrumentral break, I closed my eyes and asked myself: "What decade does this come from?" Does this **actually** sound like a 90's album? Or is it more 70's? 60's? 2000's? I couldn't exactly pin down what decade it sounded like. Stark constrast to a lot of the other albums I've heard so far, even the ones I love more, with all my soul. INNERVISIONS and ABBEY ROAD are masterpieces of their time, but in a lot of spots they kinda sound like their time. Not in a bad way, of course; but there's just moments where I can point to and be like "That's the 60's/70's." Meanwhile, y'look at "Range Life", and the mentions of The Smashing Pumpkins and Stone Temple Pilots aside, I'd be hard pressed. I didn't relisten to any of the rest of the album after that, so I can't say how much the rest of it holds up to that, but at least from what I remember about side two (that's the one I listened to twice)... "Fillmore Jive" especially, I tell you. Wuuf. So, do I agree with the critics? No, I don't think so. But can I at least understand where they're coming from? Eh, enough, I'd say.

I've yet to sample the entire RHCP ouvere, but for the time being, hot damn, this is my favorite album of theirs. Even when I do get around to sampling the rest of them, I doubt any of them will have just that right mix for me of their typical funk jams, alt rock doodlings and Kledis's weird-ass lyrics about sex, California or both. And they **are** weird lyrics, believe you me—let's not even touch those lines at the front of "Purple Stain". Big ol' bonus for me, too, that I can't hear any of the loudness war stuff I hear people talk about, so I don't got any points for that. I'm still docking for it's **length** of course, and that's the closest reason I can articulate why this is a 4 instead of a 5 (and even then that's not really an issue for me here), but at least I've never heard what clipping sounds like. Oh, and those lines at the top of "Purple Stain". Those dock points, too.

Well, it's 70's reggae by a Wailers-adjacent. You can't really go wrong with that stuff. Like, besides relaying my own relationship to legalized weed—that my mom smokes it for medicinal reasons and I think it smells kind of bad—I really can't think of much else to say. Granted, sure, it doesn't have that same spark for me that full-on Bob Marley material has—which is maybe why I liked the song he had a writing credit on the best—but don't take that to minimize Peter Tosh, no. He was a member of The Wailers, too, after all. But then, he doesn't get his name tossed up front, so... I'unno. Reggae is good reggae is the point. Unless it's cod. And even then I have my soft spots for "Jamaica Jerk-Off" and, damn, "Rude" of all things.

Y'know, I'm just not sure if I really get what makes this one of the top 100 albums of all time accoridng to Rolling Stone (as in, it's 100 exactly as of 2020). Like, I can guess at elements—the harmonies, the communial songwriting, how it sounds like it actually sounds like guys playing in a basement... And just the fact that they were able to step out of Bob Dylan's shadow the way they did. I mean, I think of these guys, I hardly ever think that they were Dylan's backing band. Even on this album, where I'm actively aware Dylan wrote two songs. It's just, I'm not seeing the sauce. Worth a listen, sure, but I'm not sure why music from the Big Pink is good compared to music from anywhere else. Also, for some reason it really made me wanna listen to "The Chain"? I have no idea.

I don't have much to say; I'm just an absolute sucker for when symphonies get added to songs that Ilike that originally didn't have them, and S&M is one of my absolute favorites. Sure, it runs a little long... A **lot** long, yeah, but I really don't care, honestly. Not when it has "No Leaf Clover" and among my favorite versions of "Master Of Puppets", "Fuel", "Hero Of The Day", and especially "One". The way James screams "NO" before the final guitar solo is just too perfect. It's stuff like that, and the transition from "The Thing That Should Not Be" to "fuel", that makes this one of those "deep in my soul" 5's for me. Plus, it's nice to give a metal album a 5 to balance out the 1 I gave to Kid gawddamn Rock.

Gawd, the keys and synths on this thing, man. The KEYS AND SYNTHS. That was my favorite part of this whole album, with a doubt. In fact, honestly, I kinda feel like this album could've been an instrumental and I would've enjoyed it just as much. I mean, certainly, whatever barbs it has against Thatcherism don't apply to me here and now, not being in the 1980's or the UK. But, jus', play me "Hit Music" or "It's A Sin" and I'm down **good**. If I gotta pick any one reason why I'm giving this thing a 4 and not a 5, I'll say it's "I Want To Wake Up". More like, "I Want To Fall Asleep. 'Cuz It's Kind Of Boring Compared To Everything Else On Here". Yeah, take **that**.

CLOUD NINE is an album carried **heavily** by two songs: the title track and "Runaway Child, Running Away". The rest of the album, meanwhile... I mean, to tackle those first, the songs from the fourth onward are just fine Temptations fare. Good, but nothing spectacular. Kind of underwhelming, honestly, in the face of its stand-outs. And, boy, that "I Heard It Through The Grapevine" cover sure does exist, dunnit? But "Cloud Nine" is a great piece of Sly inspired music, and "Runaway Child, Running Away" is a damn sprawling epic work of psychdelic soul that helped pave the way for their daminger sprawlinger epicer "Papa Was A Rollin' Stone". It's a trip and a half, I tell you what. The album's absolutely worth hearing alone jusr for those two. And, y'know, based on those songs merits I wanted to say that elevated this album as a whole to a 4. But, like everything else that aren't those songs are so "it's fine" that I'm really feeling it's more a 3. This isn't an INNERVISIONS and "Living In The City" or HUNKY DORY and "Life On Mars?" case here, y'know? So anyway, that was my group's 100th album. A bit of a squib for the only 100th album we're ever gonna get, but there's always hope our next milestones are better bangs.

Writing a review for an album like this is hard for someone like me. Because, sure, I enjoyed the beats and the samples that made them up, and I really dug the flows. Me tending so naturally towards melody, of course I do. But ILLMATIC is an album that's all about its lyrics; complexly-formed street poetry about inner-city life in Queens, New York. And it's just, unless I force myself to spend a whole day listening to nothing but this album and focusing on the lyrics, I can't grasp them. Sure, I can appreciate how the lines their constructed and all their internal rhymes, but I don't think I've absorbed enough of the actual meanings to really be able to comment on them. And with albums like this, I feel like if I'm not able to comment on the meanings, then why bother? Not that they'd mean much to me personally—me, a Canadian living in 2024. At the very least, do I think the lyrics expressed his stories well? With how well each line is made, it's hard to say they don't. I mean, I'unno. If I can appreciate MF DOOM's technicality without really understanding a lot of what he means, I can like this album, too. Besides, my favorite Nas song is "Hip Hop Is Dead", so how much is my opinion worth, really?

Seeing this album labelled as avant-garde jazz on Wikipedia made me expect worse. I mean, I see that descriptor and I'm expecting... Like, noise, honestly. Atonal and with everyone playing in a different weird time signature, but I'm supposed to appreciate it because, I'unno, it's hard to play a trumpet in 30/31. However, it turns out I really can't hear what's so avant-garde about it. At most it sounds like the jazz Frank Zappa would have The Mothers play—and that's a big compliment in my book. The same one I gave THIRD by Soft Machine, actually. (Though give this album the benefit, only one song approaches 20 minutes, and even then it's because it's comprised of three smaller movements). I'unno, I just really dug it. It's one I'd throw on whenever I'm in the mood for something like it, sure. Sometimes I need a little THE GRAND WAZOO, y'know? And this isn't even the album by this guy that got on the Rolling Stone 500? Gosh, you can only imagine how good **that one** is.

I'unno. I get what it's doing—some kinda Roy Orbison-style nostalgia throwback—and normally I'd eat that sort of thing up, but for whatever reason it just didn't click with me the day I had it. Maybe I just didn't catch it at the right time, maybe blame it on the fact that I was too lazy to move from the room where my mom was blasting "It's Gonna Be Me"... For what it's doing, it's very good, but just for my own personal enjoyment, I'm givin' it a 3 right now. And the building on the cover isn't even Coles Corner. I'd remove a star for that alone~!

Before I listened to this album, I told my group that I wasn't gonna be listening to this album. Which is to say, I wasn't going to afford it the same level of attention I've given every other album on this list. It's ambient music, after all; it's not meant to be listened to in the same way you would other genres. And that's not a knock against the stuff, of course. That's just, bluntly, how it is by design. And I understand, for that reason, the frustration some have about the inclusion of an album like this on a list like this. Ambient music, to most ears, is essentially wallpaper. You put that next to ABBEY ROAD and THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON and TO PIMP A BUTTERFLY, and how does it even stack up? How does it even compare? For me, yeah, I kept my word. I didn't really listen to the album; it just kind of floated in and out of my attention as I did other things. But whenever I did catch it... Damn, it's some transcendental shit. Just, these vast, open, beautiful soundscapes. Heaven stretches before your ears. There's not much there melodically, true. If you're looking for it, I get the disappointment. But just for how it evokes for me a sense of safety and calm... Damn. A++ tape loops.

(NOTE: I did not stream this album. I listened to it via a CD I've owned for around a decade now. No money was given to Kanye West in the making of this review. Thank you.) Every now and then I think back to the review I wrote for THE COLLEGE DROPOUT and wince a little. Y'know, as much as I stand by a lot of what I said, there I hafta wonder, "Did I spend too much time calling out Kanye?" Like, "We get it. He's big divorced dad energy and loves Nazis. Do you **need** to keep saying you don't like him and 'Fuck him' and all that? You've talked about how much you don't like him as a person more than you have the damn music. You already gave an 'I don't condone him' disclaimer. What moral brownie points are you aiming for here, exactly?" On the one hand, I blame this on that album being my first Kanye review. I felt like I had to take the time to air out my opinions on the man. With how much he ends up talking about himself on these albums, it's not exactly an unimportant piece of context. Plus, it's better to get it all out in one burst at the start than to keep repeating myself over the course of the next two–even if I doubt most people outside of my group are gonna read my reviews, let alone in order. But on the other hand–and this is the bigger hand, I figure–I don't have much of an attachment to THE COLLEGE DROUPOUT. Preparing for that review was probably only the second time I've heard it in full over the course of a decade. Of course, then, it was really easy for me to get distracted from talking about the music to going on about something where I had more to say. Don't get me wrong, I recognize THE COLLEGE DROPOUT for its beatwork and "Jesus Walks" (even if Kanye's gone on to betray its message). But I just don't have that link that inspires me to write much about it. Unlike this album. MY BEAUTIFUL DARK TWISTED FANTASY is home to my favorite song Kanye ever made, "Runaway". I love the extended "single note" piano intro. I love the beat it turns into. I love singing along to it. I even love the "I sent this bitch a picture of my dick" line for how memorably bad it is. And every other song on the album has its great share of beats, moments and memorable lines, too. "CAN WE GET MUCH HIGHER?" "Choke a SOUTH PARK writer with a fish stick." The whole ending to "POWER". Elton John's piano playing. "MJ GONE–A [n] DEAD." Nicki's verse on "Monster". "That'll be the same day MTV plays videos. That was a little joke–voila." That guitar line before Rick Ross's verse on "Devil In A New Dress". The "Iron Man" interpolation on "Hell Of A Life". "Avril 14th". The intro to "Lost In The World". None of them, though, compare to the second half of "Runaway". The entire vocal solo. That feeling when you want to express yourself, explain yourself ("I'mma be honest")... But you can't. And it can only come out as a long, pained, anguished wail that says more than any words ever could. It's beautiful, honestly. I get close to tearing up over it. And it's damn depressing with the context of 2024. I mean, let's be clear: it needs to be acknowledged that bad people can make good art. Just because Kanye turned out to be a piece of shit doesn't mean his old music is suddenly bad. Hell, he was a piece of shit back when he made this album. Remember the whole "I'MMA LET YOU FINISH" incident? This album was made following that controversy. And he's no stranger to controversy, of course–"GEORGE BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE," after all. But when even the president was vocally calling him a jackass... You can view the vocal solo on "Runaway" as a reaction to all that. That he wanted to say so much in response, but ultimately couldn't. That he'd never be understood anyway. And in that light, this whole album is such an underdog triumph. That he was the world's public scumbag #1 and still came out with a critically acclaimed, world conquering smash. That success just feels non-existent these days knowing there'd be controversy following this album, and much worse controversy than stealing a microphone from Taylor Swift. MY BEAUTIFUL DARK TWISTED FANTASY is a masterpiece. Kanye's absolute peak before he slid off, in my opinion. True, it's entirely self-indulgent in how damn long it is (see: Rick Ross's verse on "Devil In A New Dress", the "Blame Game" skit, etc.), and just because a lyric is memorably bad doesn't stop it from being... Y'know, bad. It's just all trumped by the fact that it's my Kanye album. The first one of his I've discovered. Where, more than once, I'd imagined one of my own characters screaming out the vocal solo in "Runaway". That aria of sadness and anger at how painfully aware they are that they're a huge fuckin' asshole. And Kanye is an asshole. A jackass, even. He was one back then, and he's an even bigger one now. But I'll always have this. Even if I don't listen to this album anymore because of how inseparable Kanye is from his music, he'll never truly take "Runaway" away from me.

Just a very nice, fun burst of early pop punk (I didn't even think it existed before the 90's!) that reminded me a lot of the Buzzcocks and The Clash. And Jello Biafara in some spots, weirdly.

The first time I saw this album's cover, there was just this vibe about it. Like it was going to become the new album I bring up whenever I make some of the inclusions on this list. "CALENTURE got on this list, but not something or other?" That sort of deal. Listening to the album certainly didn't dispel that feeling. And the thing is, actually, that I don't even really think this album is... **Entirely** bad. It's got moments here and there—check those Irish-sounding instruments on "Jerdacuttup Man", not to mention how its opening sounds like Pink Floyd's "Echoes". I think that stuff's neat. It's just all so few and far between is all, which really highlights how oppressively, suffocatingly "FI-I-I-I-INE" the rest of the album is. I just can't hear what makes this thing so special, and as a result it's so hard to give a shit about it. While I was writing this review, even, I got so bored re-listening to the first side that I didn't even let it finish. What would I even gain? It's not like letting "Open For You" play out a second time would change my mind. In conclusion, to be fair, this album's got more going for it than others I've found to be slogs—TIMELESS, MAXINQUAYE—but, yeah, it's definitely going to be one of my new punching bags. Sorry, Australia. Maybe give me some AC/DC or INXS or whatever next time.

I kinda wish we got more albums like this and CLUBE DE ESQUINA more often. Not that I don't enjoy a good 60's folk album or... Random whatever from the 70's or 80's whose only legacy is being on this list, but I'd love to have more dives in foreign reigional music. I mean, it's just really interesting to get an earful of Hindustandi classical music—the really real stuff, too; not just what George Harrison was doing with The Beatles. And even if it turns out it's not your thing, I still think you're enriched by having heard this stuff. So, y'know, regardless of my feelings on it, I think it's worth your time.

I remember Todd In The Shadows's best list for 2017 was the first time I didn't recognize a single song he included, nor did I feel particularly inspired to listen to any of them. That was up to and including the song he picked for the top spot: "Green Light" by Lorde. Finally listenjng to it, and the album, seven years later... Man, I'm just reminded of how much I don't really care for modern, current popular releases. Like, sure, I can't hear anything I dislike about it, and I can probably point out a few specific moments I like, but in general nothing really speaks to or clicks with me, y'know? Even "Green Light". I mean, the only 2017 album I listened to in 2017 was HUMANZ by Gorillaz. **That's** what I'm into. This... Eh. Not as much, sadly.

The album that made James Brown a star. I mean, really; this right here is "star time." Front-to-back, it's nonstop excitement. And if you think the music's energetic, you gotta imagine what moves James is pullin' on stage. I mean, that's probably the only thing I'd really ding this album for—that, and the album ends a bit too abruptly after "Night Train"—but of course that's just a general fault of audio recordings; not just this album. Otherwise, more than just his hit songs or the sample clips, this is absolutely the album to understand why Brown was, indeed, the Hardest Working Man In Show Business.

When this album first popped up for my group, my initial reaction, like with a lot of albums from musicians and/or bands I don't recognize, was "Who the hell is this?" I mean, I hate to judge a book by its cover, but something about its cover just seemed... Off to me. Like this would be another random forgettable whatever where I hafta wonder why it's even on this list. Imagine my surprise, then, when after I listen to the album a friend in the group tells me that this group has **Peter Wellers**. The guy from The Jam! and whose solo album WILD WOOD I'd previously rated highly! That guy! I wish his presence did more for me than shift my question to "**What** the hell is this?", but still! Y'know, it actually took me a moment to figure out what a specific problem I had with this album was, and I think it's this: The Jam album I listened to back when, SOUND AFFECTS, is Mod revival and power pop, and it's very good at that. WILD WOODS is very much a 70's singer-songwriter dealie in the 90's, and it's very good at that. CAFÉ BLEU is called a sophisti-pop album, but it jumps all over the damn place, and it doesn't do anything it tries well. Aside from the album's opener, most of the album is just "bleh" dives into various styles. It's very lounge-y, and not even the fun, swinging kind of lounge. And when it's not just "whatever," it's "A Gospel", and the last thing I needed to hear on this album was any attempts at rapping. It's the most memorable thing here, and for all the wrong reasons. So that's a miss in my book, Wellers. I liked WILD WOODS, and my group hasn't gotten SOUND AFFECTS but I know I'm gonna rate it highly, and I know two-out-of-three ain't bad, but... Gawd, why the hell is this here?

The thing that surprised me the most about this album, honestly, is something another review for this album pointed out: if it were released today, or at least a few years ago, no one would bat an eye at it. In a world with Billie Eillish, it (Apple's voice here especially) doesn't sound out of place. And that's crazy, because not only was this album released back in the 90's, but by a 19 year old. How the hell did this woman at that age have such foresight to make this thing? I have to marvel at it. That being said, because it sounds so modern, it's not really for me. Like I said in my MELODRAMA review entry whatever, a lot of current popular just doesn't do it for me. Even Billie Eillish; I listen to new.wav's blink-182-style'd cover of "bad guy" way more than the original. The specific vibes this album gives off just aren't for me, y'know? I'unno. And I'unno how to end this, so I'll just say that when it comes to me and chamber pop, I way prefer LIL' BEETHOVEN and PET SOUNDS to what this is layin' down.

Eh, I'unno. As New Wave, it's not as weird as Q: ARE WE NOT MEN? A: WE ARE DEVO!, and it's not polished as, say, RIO. It sits kind of in the middle, and as a result, it's fine, but not terribly interesting my ears. I 100% dug "She Is Mine", though, so you can have that at least.

Damn exciting album y'ask me. Exciting riffs, exciting drums, exciting vocals... Darn gets me in the mood to check out some more riot grrrl, I tell you what. Or maybe I'll end up just listening to "Rebel Girl" again, I'unno.

This is an album that's walking a very fine line between being annoying and... Being annoying. Between all the various influences and sources that make up the instrumentals and M.I.A.'s voice itself, it's one hell of a balancing act where, like, it never fell into obnoxiousness for me, but I can absolutely hear how it would for others. All that said, if I'm giving this album a 3 and not a 4 for any reason, it's an apples and oranges comparison kind of deal. Like, if I want music with revolutionary lyrics, I've already got Chumbawamba and Rage Against The Machine for that. Their respective brands of anarcho-punk/dance/world/folk and rap metal are way more up my M.I.A.'s dancehall material. And none of them were anti-vaxxers far as I can remember, so...

Before now, the only Lauryn Hill album I've really had any experience with was the one for her MTV UNPLUGGED 2.0 show. Defend that album all you want, I don't care, but to me it's for damn sure the worst introduction you could have to her music. I get that it's an unplugged show and that it's not supposed to be representative of her normal sound, but seriously, it's two straight hours of amateur plink-plonking on an acoustic guitar, ramble-y as hell lyrics, and babbling from Lauryn that to me sounds like the hook to Kendrick Lamar's "Real" on loop. When you take her mental condition into account, too, whatever exactly it is, the fact it was released at all just gets all the ickier and you gotta wonder, "**This** is the follow-up to MISEDUCATION?" I mean, be fair to Lauryn—if **I** put out an album as good as MISEDUCATION, I wouldn't be able to follow it up, either. On her first solo attempt, she put out a greatest hits record. I'm someone who's melody first, so I probably missed a lot of great lyrics, but just taking it as a vibe, it's pretty damn immaculate. The beats are probably some of the best from the hip hop albums my group has gotten so far. Lauryn's got a really good voice, too; it's fun to hear her rap, and it's pretty to hear her sing. I don't even mind this thing's length. I'm sure it could be cut down in a few spots, but it's still more than carried by what's here. Just on those merits alone I can hear why this was the highest charting hip hop album on the 2020 ROLLING STONE 500. I mean, do I agree 100% with it? At this stage, maybe not. It's the cliché music nerd answer, but I might still think something like TO PIMP A BUTTERFLY is better. Although, it's not just about quality, is it? It's about impact, too, The legacy. And I'm not aware of what exactly this album's done for the culture, though this just feels like an album that's changed everything. Mostly for women in hip hop, but in general, too. So, like, even if Lauryn never comes out with another album as long as she lives, she's got this under her belt. For anyone, that's damn more than enough. (And this all reads like a 5, I'm aware, but I'm giving it a 4 just because I don't think I've spent enough time with it yet for that. Once I actually do pay attention to and learn the lyrics, though, believe me, I'm gonna be wishing I gave this thing a 5.)

Aw yeah, more female-vocal punk stuff. I dug the hell out of this—maybe even a little bit more than DIG ME OUT, honestly. And for that, I think I hafta credit the Britpop sheen that's over this album. The riffs, the vocals... I jus' think it's fun stuff, y'know? I've loved every Britpop album my group has gotten so far, and this is no exception. And thus, I've paid the whole "WIRE copying" thing exactly as much attention as I think it deserves.

Coming into this review, I had a lot of thoughts about Amy Winehouse, but they weren't about this music. They weren't even really about her as a person, honestly. They were more about how the media in her time, specifically tabloids, treated her—as nothing more than a junkie barrelling to an early grave. Or how I assumed her biopic this year would treat her—I hear it's as "nothing more than a junkie barrelling to an early grave." Hell, I was thinking a lot about how the woman who co-presented Winehouse her GRAMMY for song of the year claimed that people like her "shouldn't be rewarded for bad behaviour." But going in with this mindset isn't fair to Winehouse. The treatment she got wasn't fair, either, and it's absolutely worth condeming, but that's not how I should be thinking about her. I should focus just on her art and what she gave the world. And what she gave the world was... Truly immaculate. A tight 35-some minutes of throwbacks to the early Motown sound and early rock n' roll. I love this kinda shit. Take it from someone who spun AN EVENING ON SILK SONIC back when it dropped, I love throwbacks so much. But not **just** throwbacks. Ones that, like the Silk Sonic mention implies, brings it into the current days. Give it up for Ronson and Salaam. They nailed the sound, but I'd never think this came out any earlier than the 2000s. Even when all I knew about this album was "Rehab" thanks to ROCK BAND 3, it still sounded so fresh to my ears. It's a groovy-ass track, but when this album needs to get soulful and back to black, such as it is, you bet your ass it will. And Winehouse's voice. Amy herself, so I've read, didn't regard her abilities as anything more than a party trick. But what a trick this is. If it didn't evoke "Motown diva" as well as it does while still being recognizably her own thing, it'd all fall apart. And, yeah, me being me, a lot of the lyrics didn't register in my mind. But just the tone of her voice was enough to get enough of the meaning across to me. That sounds like something most people can achieve, but to do it truly well—that takes a little something extra. Y'know, normally I reserve 5's for albums that've already wedged their way into my soul, or albums that manage to edge their way in there. I'm not sure if BACK TO BLACK is truly there yet, but regardless, it deserves a 5. Not as an "Oh, so tragic she died so young" deal. Not as a clapback against the people who treated her so poorly. But just because she made a damn good album. It was a damn good album back then, it's a damn good album now, and I wouldn't be happy if it wasn't a damn good album on the future. Gawd, I needa find the time to put on FRANK!

Oh, this one's just a blast. There's really nothing else to it—it aims to be swingin' fun and it sure as hell is. It's downright infectuous how clear it is how much everyone recording this is enjoying themselves. It makes me look forward to when/if my group gets more swing music like this. And in the meantime, I guess I'll spin this album again.

Going into this album I didn't expect to like it terribly much. After all, there was a line on its Wikipedia page about how much it influenced post-punk bands. I haven't disliked every post-punk album I've heard, but I sure as well haven't had a clean track record with it either, so I didn't have exactly high hopes. But then at the beginning of side two, there was this moment where I had to just... Stop what I was doing. Stop, close my eyes, inhale deeply through my nostrils... I have to give all the credit in the world to Brian Eno and the influence he had. Even on an album this gloomy and dark, there are moments in the soundscape I found kind of beautiful, actually. Really, it's a similar reaction I had to the two Eno album my group's gotten before, and it proves I really shoulda paid more attention to the "electronica" genre credit on Wikipedia. HUNKY DORY, largely because I've spent so much time with it, is still my favorite Bowie album, so that's why I'm not giving this a five. However, just the fact alone that it made such a strong case for that spot is incredibly noteworthy.

It's just kick-ass NWOBHM, simply put. Killer riffs, solos and vocals, front to back. It's no wonder this is the album they truly broke through with. I don't even know what else I wanna say, really. Just listen to "Hallowed Be Thy Name"—you'll get it.

I think this is the least interested in a Britpop album I've been so far. Like, I'm not gonna say it's bad, but it's not particularly exciting. For the most part, it's radio music—incredibly safe, even acknowledging some weird lines I've read about. And I don't even mean "radio music" as an insult; it can really hit the spot sometimes. I'm just not sure what makes this so special compared to any other Britpop I've heard—blur, Oasis, Manic Street Preachers, Elastica... Honestly, I'm not even sure how much I even hear this as a Britpop album; it feels way more like a straight-up pop album 90% of the time. My one big exception is "Let Me Entertain You"—not a Queen cover like I always thought it was, but still. With its very obvious Who influence, it's driving as hell and the biggest burst of excitement and energu on the whole damn album. I can shake my head to that one, seriously. And, y'know, maybe if the rest of the album matched up to that... As it stands, the album's fine, but I can do without it. Like, maybe, JUST MAYBE, this list could do with one less Britpop album, y'know? Maybe?

This album's largely carried by "Son Of A Preacher Man", yeah, but that's not to put down the rest of it. It's very nicely orchestrated blue-eyed soul and there's not really much to complain about. Or say in general. So... Yeah. Good job, Dusty.

Of all of the British invasion regularly brought up and celebrated by Big Important Music Critics™, I've always had the hardest times with The Kinks. Up until now I've never exactly had a grasp on why, but I think I've finally managed to come to a answer—simply, they're the most British. No other big British invasion group (The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who) are as British as The Kinks. It's in the tone, the riffs, the melodies, the lyrics... It's **British**. Not a lick of American skiffle, blues or hard rock in there. It's partly why, I'm sure, they're as regarded as they are. For my money, though... Mm, I'unno. Here, on The Kinks albums we've heard so far, it just really hasn't clicked with me. Hell, I'm not sure I click with extremely British music in general until Britpop in the 90's. Y'know, there there's bombast, bigness. On something like this album, meanwhile, it's a lot smaller, restrained... And I don't wanna say it's "simpler" given that this is some premo psychedelic music hall stuff, but it just feels that way to me. Of course every now and then there's something I can fully get behind. "Waterloo Sunset" is regularly highlighted as the best song on the album and for damn good reason. That's the one where the riffs and all work for me. But for the majority, it's good stuff, but not anything I'm really clamoring to get back to. And I don't think they should've had more American influence like the Beatles, Stones and Who just to appeal to my dumb ass, but... I mean, since they don't, I'll tend more towards who does.

See, I'm giving the same numerical rating as SOMETHING ELSE BY THE KINKS by The Kinks, but believe me that this a much more positive 3.'Cuz... Man, I'unno. As much as I wanna pretend that I have good, approvable taste in music—even if I don't sway much outside the mainstream—in my heart of hearts, I can't help but be a bit of a dad rock girlie. It's nothing terribly special or memorable, but in the moment it's fun times. Plus, it's just fun that this group has a self-titled song on a self-titled album. That's the first and maybe only reason you'd put 'em next to Iron Maiden, Motörhead, Black Sabbath and Living In A Box.

Oh, sure, it's corny, it's cliché, it's... Another thing I had on the tip of my tounge that starts with "C" that I forgot. But darn it, that's what I wanted this album to be and that's what makes it so good. It's just such a delight, between Sinatra's voice and the arrangements. Man, neat my group got the Sinatra album that **isn't** depressing first, anyway.

Back-to-back-to-back loud, dirty n' heavy-ass rock n' roll that absolutely deserves to be played in a sleazy biker bar n' strip joint in the middle of nowhere off a desert highway. And I mean all that as the highest of compliments, by the way. It both kicks **and** bads asses. Next to AC/DC, you ain't gonna find a group that does one kind of rock n' roll as well as they do. Gawd**damn**!

Back when my group got MURMUR, I declared it my new favorite R.E.M. album. I was just so taken back by how much rawer that album is that I guess I got some kind "walking out of the movie theater" receny hype. Which I don't bring up to say that I suddenly think MURMUR's a bad album; just that, yeah, DOCUMENT is still my favorite R.E.M. album. It's the polish from producer Scott Litt, really. Applying it to the band's unique sound, which going too overboard with it... Gawd**damn**. The riffs and vocal melodies were always amazing, but they stand out so much more here. Some songs in the back half don't do it for me 100%, but throw on either of its two killer singles, and, woof, boy, I sure feel fine.

On the album's Wikipedia page, it says that this album is meant to be a return of sorts to their earlier sound, after all the dance and alternative they tried out for the entire 90's. So, as part of my listening today I also took in their album WAR, and... Man, I'unno. Even without having WAR in mind, this album just sounds kind of... Dull to my ears? Sure, it's not without its moments—"Elevate" is one of them—but on the whole it kind sounds like the stereotypical image people have of U2. Kind of a bummer to hear given how much I like THE JOSHUA TREE and enjoyed WAR, but eh. At least I've got those albums to go back to if I want the band's early sound.

Now this is peak Peppers. Smply put, it's the best and completest realization of their funk rock sound. It's true I haven't heard their entire discography, but I really kinda doubt anything else could match up to this. Just check "Give It Away"—besides my fondness for its Weird Al parody, if it mentioned California it'd be **the** Peppers song; the one to hear to see what they're all about. Although, all that said, I **do** kind of prefer CALIFORNICATION. Maybe I'm just a bit more fond its alt.-ier sound, I'unno. Plus, I'll acknowledge that it could be because I'm less familiar with this album, but there **is** a point where when it's not either of the songs parodied in "Bedrock Anthem", it **does** kind of blend a little for me? At least, I wouldn't be able to tell you what each song specifically sounds like aside from two or three. But I'll still maintain: this is the RHCP album to check out first. It's pure Peppers, and it doesn't get anymore red hot than this.

Lemme say off the bat, I don't think it's bad. It's a perfectly good mix of country rock, gospel... There's some R&B in there, too, I 'spose. I can hear how the melodies would do it for me. But the thing is, I gotta agree with the most-liked review of this album on this website. And even before I saw that review, there was just this vibe I got off the album that if I grew up listening to it I'd like it a **lot** more than I do. If it was there for me alongside THE WALL, ABBEY ROAD and Weird Al's complete discography, sure, maybe. But hearing it now, in 2024, in my mid-late 20's, sandwiched between all the other music I love and want to listen to more... I can only say it's just fine. I'unno, maybe you'll get more out of it than I did.

I actually first listened to this album three days ago, for comparison against another U2 album on this list, ALL THAT YOU CAN'T LEAVE BEHIND. Weird that this album shows up so soon after this one, but whatever. I don't wanna talk about ALL THAT YOU CAN'T LEAVE BEHIND too much, since I already reviewed it, except to say this: that album felt disingenious, which I can attribute largely to the "arena rock" sheen over everything. No matter how good it **can** sound in parts, it comes across as a little plastic, without even the irony of their 90's albums to justify it. On WAR, however, it's all post-punk. Raw, energetic, and **angry**. So damn angry. New Year's Day and Sunday ain't no beautiful day. And that's what makes WAR so engaging and relistenable. You can feel real easily how much they believed in these songs. It's not my favorite of U2's sounds—hello, THE JOSHUA TREE—but it's sure as hell worth your time regardless. Now hopefully this is the start of a trend and my grouo actually does get THE JOSHUA TREE three days later. Please, Randomizer? Pretty please?

Smooth, chill-ass bossa nova. There's a simple description of it, but that's all it is, really. It's an album to put on and mellow the hell out to. I really hear why it won Album Of The Year in 1965. Like either of the Barbara Streissand albums that were nom'd had a chance to beat it anyway.

Damn good agro dance music. Shit like "Breathe", "Firestarter" and, yes, "Smack My Bitch Up" just go off so hard. Really, the only reason I'm not giving it a 5 is that I prefer what the Fatboy slippin' does so much more. Still, absolutely worth your time to check. Just put it on and lose y'damn-self.

I spent quite a bit of today wondering why the Grateful Dead had the following they had—still have, even. What was their "secret sauce?" Turns out, even Deadheads don't know what it is. There's just this "intangiable 'X Factor'" about their live music, as I've read. "Vibee," in other words. It's just vibes. All vibes. The way I've heard "Dark Star" described in particular that's stuck with me is that it doesn't "start," per say—you "enter it." Conversly, it doesn't "end"; you "exit it." Like it's not a song but instead some field of energy you briefly entangle yourself in. Basically, you're supposed to lose yourself in the jams and improvisations, appreciating the near-psychic link the band members have between each other. And if you don't match up with those "vibes," then it's just a lot of pointless canoodling. Myself... I mean, I think I've listened to too much Phish to say I don't like jam bands or what they do. As "vibes" music, it's fine. Just not mind blowing like I imagine it still is to a lot of the OG Deadheads. Of course, if I wanted to hear what they do, I'd probably have needed to actually catch them live. Not 100s of times like some of these fans have, but at least once. Unfortunately, it's a bit too late for that now, so judging the music for its own sake... I get it. I just don't love it.

There's this line I remember hearing about sophmore albums. Essentially, they tend to be worse than first albums because it's on that first album where you have all of the ideas you've likely spent years and years toiling over. Meanwhile, your second probably has to be rushed out in a couple of months to capitalize on the first album—hence the "sophmore slump." It happens to even the best of 'em. Which makes it twice a miracle that LED ZEPPELIN is not only better than the first album, but in my eyes maybe the best album in their whole discography. I mean, not only did they release this album the same years as their debut, but they did it in-between tour stops. By all accounts, this should be a mess, but then they barge in here with "Whole Lotta Love", "Heartbreaker". "Thank You", "Ramble On", "Bring It On Home", "The Lemon Song", "Moby Dick", "What Is And What Should Never Be"... Even "Livin' Lovin' Maid"! From the moment you put the needle down on side one to the time it falls off side two, it's nothing but some of the best, stronger stuff they've ever done. And the most varied, too, until HOUSES OF THE HOLY. You just can't argue with riffs and melodies and a rhythm section like this. And seriously, "Thank You" might not be the first song most people think of when they think of favorite Zeppelin tunes, but it's **so high** up my list it might even be at the top, for serious. Like, if you can't tell, I don't even have anything insightful to say, really. It's just damn good stuff! Put it on! Jam out! I'unno, do **something** with it! Just don't listen to TRAIN DOES LED ZEPPELIN II. That's the worst thing you could do.

Y'know, I should be saying more about the album as a whole instead of talking about only one song, 'cuz as far as it's concerned it's probably the best rap album my group has gotten so far. The beats, the flows, the lyrics... It's all great and unique in that OutKast/ATL kind of way. But for my money, all I wanna do is gush about my favorite track, "B.O.B.". Simply, it's the hypest damn track I've ever damn heard. It's a rush, and hearing it in the context of the full album for the first time, I legit had to take a second to reorient myself. It's like I was skating along, and then this song burst in out of nowhere and I had to quickly scramble to get myself back on track. It's amazing, and so enjoyable to shout along to "BOMBS OVER BAGHDAAAAAAD" and "POW. ER. MU. SIC, E-LEC-TRIC RE-VI-VAL." Sure, maybe a couple of the lyrics are... Too unique that might be... Like, a little bad? Mostly I'm thinkin' of Big Boi's verse here when I say that, but I can hardly care. There's so much energy it carries me over all of that, and makes it just another lyric that I try to keep up with as I rap along with it. And the beat, THE BEAT. I've only heard this album one-and-a-half times, so maybe I could change my mind, but it's the best one. Kinda beat you get up and lose your damn mind to. Seriously, I can just imagine concerts where the moment it starts everyone's already turned the floor into a giant pit, y'know? It's just incredible. And I know from this review it might sound like I'm giving this album a 5 based just on one song, but, first of all, what a song it is. Secondly, I mean, a lot of this uniqueness, freshness and energy carries over to the rest of it, even if none of it's at the same tempo. It holds up insanely well even 20+ years later and the whole package is absolutely worth your time. STANKLOOOOOOOVE

Honestly, I'm kind of glad the original LIFEHOUSE pitch didn't happen. I mean, can you imagine? Instead of just nine of the greatest tracks The Who would ever make simply existing by themselves, they'd be surrounded by all of this weird whatever about people being fed entertainment through tubes or something? There's some explanation that the intro to "Baba O'Riley" is someone's DNA converted into song or whatever? I love a concept album, but nah. You don't need all that. It's a masterwork enough on its own. From the well-known songs down to even "My Wife"—funnily enough, the only song not written for LIFEHOUSE. Simply put, the album's the best The Who ever had. (THEY BEST THEY EVER HAAAAAAA....)

I wish I had more to say about this album. It's perfectly good metal, but it just didn't really grip me too hard. Maybe it's the overall length, maybe it's the specific style... I'unno. Part of me feels bad, 'cuz I'd love to have more to say about or higher marks to give non-American metal, and I do like how they incoporated an indigenous Brazilian tribe (the absurd length of the hidden track "Canyon Jam" aside), but that's just how it be.

Aahhh, it's just fun and energetic pop New Wave. "Bops," as the kids these days might put it. It's really not any more complicated than that. Sure, I can understand why people might find their voices annoying or grating, but if you don't crazy when "We Got The Beat" starts... Well, I don't even know what to tell yah.

For reasons unrelated to the album itself, I wasn't able to absorb the album as much as I would've wanted. Even with only 1.5 listens. Allow me, then, to keep this a bit short, so I didn't even up thinking of much to say. To begin with, I came into this album expecting it to be a lot... Y'know, angirer. Grungier. Punkier. Riot grrrl. That was always the impression I had of Hole, largely going by the cover to their album LIVE THROUGH THIS and maybe a sample I heard in a mashup somewhere. Color me very surprised, then, to put this on and hear California power pop and alternative. And more so to find out that I dug a lot. Hell, maybe even a little bit more than I would have LIVE THROUGH THIS. I don't have any specifics to bring up, 'cuz, y'know, as I mentioned, but the vibes are just there. And I like her voice a lot. I'unno. I just dug it a lot. Get off my back, eh?

I'unno if this is any better or worse than the last album of Hindustani classical musical my group listened to, honestly. But if I enjoyed my experience with this album any more than I did with THE SOUNDS OF INDIA—and I don't mean this in a negative sense—it had nothing to do with the music itself. Simply, because the only version of this album on Spotify is an apparently terrible re-recording, I had to listen to a vinyl rip on YouTube. And there was just something about all the vinyl crackle and pop underscoring the music that... Y'know, really, really did it for me. It makes me glad, actually that I didn't listen to this via streaming. Without the crackle, it wouldn't be the same. And I'm probably rating this album more for that than the actual music, 'cuz by itself I think it's good but the not mind-blowing "one album of Indian music you must own if you own one" I kept reading it is. But what an enhanced experience it is, eh? Kinda makes me wanna play more records, even if all I have are two portables Crossleys. So I guess I actually hafta thank Rahul Sharma. For him and his dumb re-recording being the only version available. That's something, I suppose.

I mean, come on. It's Aretha. She has such a powerful voice, she has such a pretty voice... She has such a **voice**. It's what makes her music, more than anything else. Sure, you can argue the instrumental or the lyrics or the backing vocals aren't up to snuff, but as long as she's on her game vocally, it's hard to call it bad. And, hey, this album has "Respect"—it's one of those songs that by itself gives this album a 4, so good on the rest of the album for earning that extra star.

Y'know, originally I planned to open this review with a short bit about how this album's always been referred to as and presented to me as a culturual moment, and how it's always so highly rated on "best of" lists, but let's cut straight to the point: it's a great album. An **amazing** album. On both ends, there's a reason it made grunge popular in the 90's and was ranked 9 on Apple Music's 100 in the 2020's. Lemme explain it thorugh my two favorite songs on the album. First, at the end of the album, there's "On A Plain". It's got hooks, man. "LOVE MYSELF, BETTER THAN YOU." "I'M ON A PLAIN—UHHHN, UHHHHN." Big singalong. Compared with that riff, I think it coulda been a hit. And I've always loved, too, how the lyrics end up being about the songwriting process, even referencing the fact that this is the penultimate song on the album (if you don't count "Endless, Nameless", anyway). Then there's "In Bloom". Contrasting heavy, loud choruses and interludes with a quieter chorus. Classic structure The album's big hit "Smells Like Teen Spirit" of course has it, too, and of course I love it as much as everyone else does, but I've always liked "In Bloom" a bit better for its slower pace. It's always made it and its riff feel heavier to me. Plus, the lyrics about the people in Nirvana's audience who enjoy their music without understanding what it's about... Funny my two favorite songs end up being about their own lyrics, but I guess that kind of thing just appeals to me. Point is, it's all great songwriting from Kurt Cobain, played wonderfully by himself and his bandmates Krist and Grohl. I know one of the reasons he went on to resent the album was for its polish, but darn if it ain't still heavy as hell even despite it, y'know? It's not like it was made weak by the polish; you listen to "In Bloom" and "Breed" and tell me it's not heavy. Especially "Breed", with its machine gun drum fills. It's a 5-star album from me. I kinda feel like I should've said more just now to justify that, but it's just one of those album that's worked its way into my soul and was always going to be a 5. Does there really need to be anymore explanation than that? Well, I'd prefer to hear it over not, but still, putting on the album and letting it play is just as good as an explanation as any. It's totally worth the hype, high list rankings and deeming as a "cultural moment" it's gotten.

Like the last couple of goth rock albums we've gotten, I imagine I'd be into it way more if I was a goth girl. Since I'm just a regular girl, though, it's... Fine, y'know. I'll admit, there's some stuff here that made me like this album a bit more than some of the other goth albums we've gotten—I mean, that one guitar lick that sounds like it came from a surf rock song? I dig that all the way! On the whole, though, it just had a hard time keeping my attention for too long.

Listening to this album, I couldn't help but compare Otis Redding's singing to Aretha Franklin's—for no other reason, really, than the fact that this album features three songs Aretha would go on to cover. In particular, there's "Resepect", which actually showed up on album my group got just days ago: I NEVER LOVED A MAN THE WAY I LOVED YOU. And it's not exactly a fair compairson. Like, of course Aretha's take on "Respect" knocks Otis's out of the park. Even he said she'd stolen his song. But it's also not one I wanted to do if I could help it. They both have great voices, and they're both going for their own things, so what's the use? I mean, it's probably just because Aretha's take on "Respect" looms so large over the original that it's hard to remember there even was an original. Thus, by its presence on this album, it kinda spills over into everything else—not even helped by the fact that Aretha would also cover two other songs from it, "A Change Is Gonna Come" and "I've Been Loving You Too Long". Let's take Aretha out of all this, though. Fully leave her aside like I should have done from the beginning and judge the album on its own merits. And going just by what it does, it's really great stuff. I mean, all the love in the world for how Redding sings, specifically when it gets **gruff**. That shit? Oh, I love that shit **too death**. I listened to "Otis" five times the same day just because I wanted to hear his scatting on the beat. And that samples a song from the album he released after this one, so—! He's just so much fun to listen to, and so unique. I can't think of anyone else who sounds exactly the way he does. So, hey, that alone gets this album pretty good marks. And thankfully, the tunes underneath it are good enough to carry this thing to **really good** marks. I can't really recall anything specific about any of them, but that doesn't really matter to me. As just a front-to-back listening experience, it's a rippin' time. So, I guess to close this out I may as well answer the question I proposed at the front that I didn't wanna ask. Ultimately—yeah, I prefer Aretha's singing. It's prettier when it's soulful, and I like her hollerin' better. Otis's is good, but if you had him sing, I'unno, "Border Song" it wouldn't hit the same. But again, it doesn't matter. Regardless of who I prefer, he's just as much a soul legend as Aretha, and his music (not just this album) is worth anyone's time. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go scat along to the "Otis" beat again.

Going into this album, I was ready to treat it the same way as I did PACIFIC OCEAN BLUE by Dennis Wilson or IF YOU WANT IT DARKER by Leonard Cohen, or how I'm sure I'll treat BLACKSTAR by David Bowie. In short: I tend to define albums like these, at least to one extent or another, by peoples' deaths. Even BACK TO BLACK, as much as I didn't want to, I partially defined by Amy Winehouse's death. So here we have Nick Drake's PINK MOON. Before today, I'd always thought of it as "that bleak, depressing album made all the sadder by its proximity to Nick's death." Hell, before today I thought this album was released **posthumously**—that's how much I'd had his passing looming over the album. Indeed, as I first listened to the side one and realized it wasn't as bleak as I thought it was, there was this air of melancholy I just couldn't shake. Even as I came to find out how beautiful it could be, the melancholy lingered. "How sad he died in proximity to this album's release." That's a thought I wasn't holding by the end of the day. In-between listening to side one and finally giving the whole thing I spin, I watched Abigail Devoe's Vinyl Monday video on the album. In it, she makes the following statement, which all but calls me out for my mindset: "I don't think it's intentional, but those who call PINK MOON one of the saddest albums ever made apply the end of Nick's life to his work, and that robs him of his legacy." I mean, let's consider—what even **is** a PINK MOON? I always thought it was a sad, poetic metaphor for something. However, a pink moon, from what I've put together, is actually the first moon of the spring season. The signal that winter—the hard times—is over, and that there are brighter times ahead. And with that framing in mind... Re-listening to the title track, when the piano line came—the only time on the album there's an instrument aside from acoustic guitar—I nearly cried. And Nick's guitar playing throughout, especially on "Horn"... What a talent. What an incredible talent. Although, I'll admit, if I'm not in love with this album, it's because runs a bit old on side two. It feels weird to say that kind of thing about a 28 minute album, and "Parasite" and "From The Morning" are exceptions, but that's just how it is. Maybe once I give it more time... Hell, maybe if I had given it the time it deserved today instead of realizing too late that it deserves it. As it stands, PINK MOON—and all the albums I mentioned above, for that matter, are more than just their artists' passing. And if I'm sad about anything in regards to it, it's that they didn't live long enough to see these albums succeed.

It's a pretty good album all around. I just don't have much to say about it. Like, I just can't think of a hook to base the review around. I'm pretty slow to pick up lyrics, even from albums I've listened to nearly 100 times, so there's not much I can say there. Besides, I doubt any of its content is really all that shocking today, in CURRENT YEAR 2024, compared to how it must've been in the 1970's. At most, I can say it's got a lot of good riffs, some pretty nice melody lines for the vocals, and of course "No Mr. Nice Guy" is a classic single. That statement alone might not be enough to sell anyone on this album, bult it's all I can give, so y'might as well take it.

This kinda stuff is jut really up my alley sometimes, y'know? This orchestral pop crooner thing. I'unno. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's more Bublé than Sinatra, and it wears out a quite bit during the last half of the album, but I found the first half just so much fun and the record (true to its word) is pretty short anyway at only half an hour, so I'm still able to come out of this saying I dig it. And the first track, melodically, really sounded to me like it could be sung by the guy from Sparks, and that's a non-zero factor.

Imagine being Arabian Prince, huh? You're on one of the most seminal, famous and influential rap albums of all time, and your only contribution to it is... "Something 2 Dance 2". A weak, wack-ass elecrtrodance track that sounds nothing like everything else on the album. Imagine: that's on the same album as the title track, with its driving, forecul production. It's on the same album as "Fuck Tha Police", so infamous for its calling out of the cops (even though it's really only Cube's verse) that it got an FBI letter. It's on the same album as "8 Ball (Remix)", with its amazing interweaving of samples. It's on the same album as "I Ain't The 1", which... OK, to address the lyrical content, a lot of the violence n' whatnot I've seen people ding it for can be easily excused, at least in my eyes, by the fact that they were just rapping about their reality at the time. And who am I, or anyone, to tell them how to represent their stories? But the misogyny, mm, that's a little less excusable. Hasn't aged all that well—not that it was any good at the time, but you know what I mean. That being said, though, I'unno why I'd spend in my time railing against nearly 40-years old lyrics when it'd probably be more worth everyone's time to address the misogyny still ongoing in modern rap. Although that's besides the point. Even despite that and it's weird, kinda corny beat, at least Ice Cube's delivery and flow are really good. Imagine all of that coming beforehand, nearly an hour of classic gangsta rap, and then you show up for dated production with barely any lyrics or flow with an alright sample usage at best. And as an album closer—don't get me started! If I were Arabian Prince, I'd be kind of embarased. Especially considering how hard he's been written out of the group's history. Goodness, he's on the damn album cover, but even a Wikipedia-style summary of their history like the STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON biopic can't make time for him. Although, to be fair, despite his appearance on the cover, he wasn't actually in the group at the time, so I don't know how they woulda fit him in anyway. And all that said, I can't actually say I dislike "Something 2 Dance 2". Frankly, I find it too goofy in how out-of-place it is to dislike it. And besides, I rag on Arabian Prince, but he was still on STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON. I wasn't, and you weren't either. He's got that legacy going for him. Oh, and, uh, album's a 5, by the way. Not gonna argue with the current group average. I mean, **damn**, that shit was dope.

Mm, I'unno. It's great music—all the experimentation here of course has to be comended—but I just don't dig it as much as I do the simpler pop hits and face melters on the first two Experience albums. Don't get me wrong, I do love my fair share of cuts here:there's "All Along The Watchtower" and "Voodoo Chile (Slight Return)", naturally, but I'm also all for "Crosstown Traffic" and the extended blues jam epic "Voodoo Child". But "House Burning Down", the entire second side excepting "Burning Of The Midnight Lamp"... Eh. Even "1983... (A Merman I Should Turn To Be)", as much as I recognize it as the centerpiece odyssey, isn't something I wanna listen to all the time. In short, I recognize it as Hendrix's most complete artistic statement, and I wish he'd lived longer to see what he could do next. My album preference doesn't make it any less of a 4, or even a 5. I just personally wouldn't return to this first over EXPERIENCED? or AXIS.

It was already pretty clear to me which genres I pay attention to their lyrics and which ones I don't, but it stands out more on this album than others because it has both cases. Like, when it's doing its soul jazz thing—and it's primarily it's soul jazz thing—the lyrics kind of pass by entirely in favor of the melodies and instrumentation. This is where I hafta give all the shout-outs in the world to Brian Jackson. Fantastic stuff; amazing stuff, all around. It's a sound I can really go for. But then when it's on its proto-rap thing on "H20gate Blues", and Gil Scott-Heron sounds like the guy who asked who will survive in America and stated that the revolution won't be televised—damn. The rhymes! The delivery! I don't wanna just say "Wow, it's enjoyable," 'cuz I feel like that kind of ignores what he has to say poltically, but seriously—it's really damn enjoyable to listen to. This guy, with this voice—I really like hearin' 'em go off. So, hey, that sounds like a pretty good 4 to me. If only I coulda listened to this album on Spotify, though. Thankfuly there's YouTube uploads, but I can't imagine why it's not on Spotify. Oh, and if my group could've gotten this album in winter, too, ans not the first day of June, that woulda been really appropriate. But then I'd still be in Canada, so y'know, ultimately, whatever.

It's pretty good collection of melancholic music. I'm sure if I felt the same way he did making it I'd be more engaged, but since I don't and didn't, it's a fine enough listen. Enough so that I didn't mind how it kept fading in and out of my attention. I'unno.

Until today, I've had this running joke with my group that only I've told that we weren't going to get an album longer than 69 LOVE SONGS. As far as I knew, that was the longest album in the book, standing at 172 minutes. It was gonna be the closest we ever got to three hours. After all, I knew the 1001 ALBUMS book didn't have mega-epic, 250-plus-minute box sets like AMERICAN ANTHOLOGY OF FOLK MUSIC or James Brown's STAR TIME, so once we got that we'd be in the clear. Then today happened. We got this album. And my jaw dropped a little. Look, let's make this clear: I don't have a problem with Ella Fitzgerald's voice. She's a lovely voice, beautiful. 100% deserved the shout out she got in Stevie Wonder's "Sir Duke". I don't have a problem with George and Ira Gershwin. Or the Great American Songbook for that matter, or jazz standards in general. I still occasionally spin Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga's CHEEK TO CHEEK album, and I really love "Anything Goes", the title track and "I Can't Give You Anything But Love". I don't even have a problem with the arrangements. I like myself a fair bit of vocal jazz and traditional pop every once in a while. Look at how much I liked the Frank Sinatra album my group got—and again, there's CHEEK TO CHEEK. My problem with this album, simply and solely, lies in its crushing length: **THREE HOURS AND FOURTEEN MINUTES**. That's longer than Prince's EMANCIPATION. I have no idea why they decided to record so many of these things except that they could. And truthfully, from the moment I saw its length, I knew I wasn't gonna bother listening to the whole thing. And I didn'! I heard from "Sam & Delilah" to "The Real American Folk Song (Is A Rag)", and then after that I just listened to a 40-some minute compilation from 2007. 'Cuz seriously, even listening to only the first hour of this got a bit excruciating. I don't hate this sound, but there **can** be too much of a good thing. Like, by the time I got to "Just Another Rhumba" and I heard "September" pronounced as "Septumba," I really wanted to just stop. I'd more than had my fill of Ella siiiiiiingiiiiing mooost of the sooooooongs like thiiiiiiiiiis. But there was still twenty minutes left, so—! One of the people actually did manage to sit through the whole thing. I can't begin to fathom how they did it. As I'm writing this, it's hours before we can share our reviews, so I don't know what they think of this, but I can imagine they're all too positive about the length either. Even beyond its length not every song on here is a winner. Like, some of them hafta be obscure for a reason, y'know? Again, I point to "Just Another Rhumba". Or the one that I read has the damn 20th Century fanfare. Or they're just plain indistinguishable from each other and blend together. Even on the 2007 "very best of" compilation they kind of do, but at least there there's only 12 songs and not **a billion**. And that's **still** the best way to listen to this material. Of course, by all means, if you wanna go digging through this set to find your own "very best of," be my guest. (Hell, I know I'm probably gonna do the same thing whenever I **do** get around to Prince's EMANCIPATION.) Or if you've already done it—good for you! I'm glad you were able to discover something in there that I didn't, seriously. For my money, however, I just don't have the time or patience. Ella's voice is generally too good to give this any less than a three, but believe me—I could. At least now I no longer fear 69 LOVE SONGS as much as I did before. Hell, I'll embrace it, even! The sweet, sweet feel of **SLIGHTLY UNDER** three hours. Oh, it'll be so nice.

Really fun hardcore punk with horns sometimes. Reminded me vocally of The Clash in a lot of places. I'unno, I just had a lot of fun with it. Shows what I know for giving it the ol' "Who the hell are you?" treatment.

I'unno. On my first listen, I just didn't care for it all too much. Very "boring late 2000's rock" vibes. Like, it honestly had my wondering why this album was a hit—if it even was a hit at all and wasn't just being carried by its two singles. Really, it was only on my re-listen to the first half where I began to enjoy it, and only because I saw someone compare this album to U2. Specifically, JOSHUA TREE-era U2, and, like, I'unno. I can hear it, certainly, but nothing here soars for me in the same way THE JOSHUA TREE could. Of course, that U2 comparison is the thing alone that's raising this to an "it's fine" 3, 'cuz otherwise I really could not care.

Don't ask me why I haven't heard this album before today. You'd think being the progressive rock fan I am (i.e. I love Pink Floyd and two/three Yes albums and don't hate ELP) I'd've heard this sooner. But, no. Blame it on the thing's overwhelming popularity, blame it on the fact that I wouldn't be able to have its cover shown on Last.FM... Most likely, blame that I just never got around to it. Whatever reason, it doesn't matter. I've finally gotten to this album, and, boy, am I glad I did. This is some premo-prog rock. Seriously, every song (save maybe one) scratches that exact itch. From the bombast of "21st Century Schizoid Man", to the way it quiets down for "I Talk To The Wind", to that Mellotron riff on "The Court Of The Crimson King". An exception aside, I don't feel there's a moment wasted. Impressive for an album where the shortest song of five is **six minutes**. (And that one exception, by the way, is "Moonchild". That's not an unpopular opinion, I hear; most fans of this don't like how "Moonchild" just... Doesn't end. I'm aware there's a remix by Steve Wilson that chops off two minutes and fans prefer that version—but that's besides the point. I'm not into all the free improv, in short.) In fact, "Moonchild" dragging on as long as it does is the only reason I'm not awarding this album a 5. Believe me, otherwise it completely deserves a 5. I mean, with how it lives up to being the codifier for prog? You bet your entire ass. But... Eh. If the remix were the version I listened to, maybe. In any case, I'm just happy to finally have this one under my belt. And I should actually go listen to other prog albums, too. Like THE LAMB LIES DOWN ON BROADWAY or... I'unno. TARKUS? I meant to get around to that one but never did. Maybe with this album on my mind, I can—... Eh, later.

Whenever people talk about this album, I feel like they're mostly talking about the title track. That's not to put down the other songs, of course, but "2112" is such an incredible, iconic, towering piece of prog rock (any Randian infiuence it might have aside) that it's hard to compare. But then, I don't think this album would be as acclaimed as it is if it was just a "2112" delivery system and the rest was "Who gives a dang?" The second has to, and does, hold ifs own. "Something For Nothing" and "Lessons" rock on their own; "A Passage To Bangkok" has to the hookiest hook on the album; "The Twilight Zone" is classic prog nerd topic shit with a killer guitar lick to boot... Even "Tears", the ballad of the album, comes out an enjoyable listen as some kinda 70's cheese. I wouldn't entirely blame the mindset claiming that the second side of the record is filler to justify releasing the title track on an album. Sort of a weird take on how a lot of 50's albums were constructed, y'know? But that's missing the fact that the other five songs are classics in their own right. They're worth the time, just as much as "2112" is. And all together, it makes one of the truly finest prog rock packages I've ever heard. And from Canadians, no less! My people! Now **this** is some national pride right here, I'll tell you what.

Y'know, if this were just an instrumental album, I wouldn't fully understand why it's here or the hype from mainstream, but I'd think it was just fine. Chill-type-I-guess electro-pop. Maybe a little boring to me, but otherwise it's nothing offensive. The vocals, though—**the vocals**. Like, I'm sorry, Karin sounds like a Björk wannabe. And not a very good one, either. Their voice really grated on me; enough that I had to dock this thing a star down to an "Eehhh" 2. Them's the breaks. Also, I kept reading their stage name as "Freaky Ray." And maybe it their vocals **had** been a little less freaky...

Y'know, I've never been much one to joke on Billy Joel, and this album here is pretty much why. Now, sure, before the first time I listened to this album in, I'unno, 2021, I just generally didn't have much of a reason to. But giving this thing two relistens in 2024—oof, boy. This is some amazing piano-led singer-songwriter 70's pop rock. And there's all those qualifies, yeah, but still—it's real good stuff. Maybe a little cheesy in some parts, but like I'm not at least some-percent cheese at this point in my life. I do with cheese; I enjoy cheese... This is good. Just look at "Scenes From An Italian Resturaunt". It's an epic for sure, and a fan favorite for a reason. And if I'm not giving it a 4, it's only just because it hasn't quite yet reached the "entered my soul" phase yet. I can't say I don't see this album doing it, but as it stands, it's just a really great listen. So, y'know, ultimately, no. I might not have provided a lot of explanation, but in general, that's why I won't joke on Billy Joel. Even with some of the stuff he made after this. Or some of the stuff he made **before**. You ever hear Atilla? Goodness me. Joke on that stuff all day.

Y'know, maybe it was just the state of mind I found myself in today—very tired, I guess 'cuz I forced myself to wake up earlier than I had been recently—but I'unno. This album just didn't blow me away. Of course, the one-two-three of the opening tracks are great (that's where "Just What I Needed" comes in, after all). Everything else, though... Eh. Kind of all slid together for me. And I'll grant, I could just been in the wrong head to take it in properly, although I have the impression I wouldn't even if I hadn't got conked out hard when I laid down on my bed while playing this album a second time. Still, I wanna give this thing a 4, thanks to those first three tracks. They're good times, what can I say? Otherwise, eh, it really woulda been a 3 from me.

I don't really have much to say about this one, except that of all of the Australian albums my group has gotten so far this is the one I've liked the best. Turns out all they hadda do to win my affection was play some damn solid punk with horns on a few tracks. Who woulda knew?

I think it's a good album, but one where I wasn't in the right mood to truly love it. Like, if I was happened to come into this thing while I was feeling sad, it probably would've blown my mind. For sure, the few times I tried to put myself in that headspace, it clicked way better. Though without truly being there—y'know, not pretending... I can feel it, rumbling under the ground, but at most it's a 4 teetering on a 3, speaking in terms of personal enjoyment. At least it wasn't the slog the album covered made it look like it'd be, oof.

And just as I thought I was getting sick of Britpop, here's one that leans way more into garage rock and pop punk (Britpop punk?), and, da,mn, I just think this shit rocks. 50 is a little long, yeah, but I had my fun with this, so I can't complain too much. Or really have much to say other than what I just did. "Girls From Mars" reminded me a lot of Weezer. I'm not the only one, right?

I feel like in most normal situations I'd give this album a 3. Like, as much as I can recognize in the moment, while it's playing, all the stuff that makes it great—the production, the sampling, the vocal style, the mood—hours later, I can't remember a second of it. And that goes for most all trip hop, really. Unless it's in direct comparison to much more boring trip hop (see: MAXINQUAYE), I'm not sure what it can really do to bump up an extra star. Well, this thing found a way: a **bitchen guitar solo on the last track**. Seriously, I'unno who decide it should rip so hard, but if I ain't happy! Absolutely, it's enough to earn that extra star from me. And maybe more trip hop albums should have solos like that, I'unno. Massive Attack, it wouldn't hurt to try. You too, Tricky.

I can't 100% remember how I've rated every other goth album my group's come across, but I think it's here I wanna firmly put this genre into the "not my thing" box. Like, lemme just stop saying "If I were goth...," y'know? 'Cuz this album in particular, this album was very "in one ear, out the other; can't recall nuffin'" for me. Normally I'd attribute that to undiagnosed ADHD, or a general "if I had more time to spin it," but here, with this kinda soundscape, it does nothing for me. And I'm not particularly clamoring to remember, either. There's not even any one element I can shrug at to justify bumping it an extra star. So, all the goths of the world out there, I like your fashion, and I like your girls with the big tiddy, but your music? I jus' gotta be honest with myself here and stop giving the benefit. Maybe down the line I'll find out that appeals more to my sensibilities, but for sure it's not here.

I wanna summarize how much I enjoyed this album just by talking the weird-ass cover of "Comfortably Numb". 'Cuz its ass is **very** weird. I mean, if you didn't tell me this was a Pink Floyd cover, just from the arrangement alone I wouldn't be able to tell. Some kinda electroclash glam rock thing? Very strange! And the vocals—they sound like SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER Bee Gees, right down to "AH-HA-HA"s. Why did they even cover this song at all? What the heck even is this? I don't know about anyone else, but to me, what this is is **great**. I know I've described a lot of albums I haven't heard before as "fun listens," but this is the most I've meant it yet. It's largely thanks to how glam-y it is. I've always had a thing for glam rock, and the way it's done here—**good shit**. Combine that with how queer it is, and I kinda feel a little dumb for not checking out any of their albums sooner. Like, I can blame my mom and sister annoying me with "Let's Have A Kiki" all I want; at the end of the day, this is incredibly up my alley. I'll even choose "I got distracted by other things" as the reason why side two didn't do as much for me as the first and why I won't dock it a star for that. I don't think there's any other Scissor Sisters albums on this list, and as I'm writing this I don't feel like checking. So thank goodness we at least got this album. I can't say how "worthy" it is to be here, but it's an absolute blast regardless. (And seriously, my mom and sister were **all the damn time** with "Let's Have A Kiki" back when GLEE covered it. In retrospect, it's the biggest foreshadowing I can remember for how much they'd end up getting into stuff like RUPAUL'S DRAGRACE. And, y'know, better that than wherever they would've ended up if they got more into the "Turkey Lurkey" half of GLEE's cover.)

This is actually the first time I've heard this album with its original vinyl track listing. Before now, I've always listened to it as it was expanded in 2001, which pushed its runtime from under 40 minutes to nearly 90. Hearing how it sounded with only six tracks to its name, though... Well, to start, in either case the music was electric. This is prime Who performing live here, after all. How they sounded in the studio was always great, but in a live setting, especially in the days this was recorded, they went to the next level. It was some of the wildest, hardest rock of its time, and even still now, and I'm thankful they got an album that captured that. And in this six song format? The expanded edition was always enjoyable, but 83 minutes **is** a lot, no matter how good the material is. With just the 40, however, this is **tight** shit. No nonsense, just three covers and three hits, including the mega-medley-extended "My Generation". That thing's gracious enough to give us a little "Listening To You" in there, and, like, I understand people who balk at its runtime, but with that, and energy and playing like this, I could never come close to disliking it. Speaking about people who balk at this album, by the way—I mean, I hate to make my review about other people's reviews, but I wanna defend not just this album's inclusion on this list, but the decision to include live albums at all. It needs to be realized—they can be just as, if not more important than studio albums. Take what I said above: The Who were great in the studio, but they could only come so close to capturing their live sound in there. I think it'd be a tragedy if we didn't have this album to preserve it for people who couldn't be there. And look at enough album on this list, James Brown's LIVE AT THE APOLLO. That was the album that **made** him into the star he was and household name he remains. He put his own money for that, 'cuz he knew he needed a good representation of his live shows that studio recordings couldn't. And, hell, take a look further into the metal scenes—with exceptions, I don't think you can be a good metal band without a classic live album to your name. Iron Maiden's LIVE AFTER DEATH, Judas Priest's UNLEASHED IN THE EAST, Motörhead's NO SLEEP 'TIL HAMMERSMITH, Thin Lizzy's LIVE AND DANGEROUS, Deep Purple's MADE IN JAPAN... I could go on. Point is, they all serve a purpose and provide a sound and energy that studio albums could never hope to. LIVE AT LEEDS very much deserves its spot on this list, right alongside WHO'S NEXT and TOMMY. It's an essential part of who they were as a band that cannot be missed. If you don't like live music, fine. I don't expect everyone to be 100% with how songs get changed or expanded on stage, especially when they **can** devolve into wankery sometimes. (Bonzo, I love you, and I'm in awe of your playing intensity, but I cannot deal with your 30 minute drum solos.) But don't say it doesn't belong here. It's more worthy than a lot of studio albums I've heard, and that's a fact. Also, the album packaging's got a really cool "bootleg" design, and that's just neat shit, man. I always love seeing bands intentionally do this kind of thing—like, Aerosmith's got one, too, that's even called LIVE! BOOTLEG, and that's just great. I hear actual material on it's not up to snuff—and in fact, from everything I've come across, I don't think Aerosmith has a single good live album. But I **did** say that were exceptions, after all. Sorry, Steven.

No deep thoughts this time. I just think Celtic punk is fucking awesome. And Celtic folk, too, for that matter. I just love the melodies these have. Like, damn, I feel like I should be in a pub, five Lagers deep trying to sing along, but I'm so blitzed I can't even **speak right**, let alone sing. And when the band plays "Waltzing Matilda", I'm down on the bar sobbing. Gawddamn. Amazing stuff.

I'm just in awe of the production, mostly. Of course Chuck D and Flava Flav's rhyming and rapping is amazing and worth a five on theif oqn, but the production from The Bomb Squad? The sampling going on here? Incredible, incredible. It's this kind of sampling I would love to do if I were a producer myself. In fact, at some point in the future I gotta

Mm. I think this is one where I hafta blame my expectations. Like, as far as I've seen, this is supposed to be the bestestest Beyoncé album **ever** forever and ever. I'd always assumed it'd be LEMONADE, but, no, it's the one she surprise dropped in 2013. And I'm just wondering, "Is it actually that good, or are people still being blindsided by its release method?" And it **is** good, don't get me wrong. But the greatest Beyoncé album of all time? I don't have enough context to really answer that, though I feel I'd still fall back on LEMONADE. And is it really that amazing? Eh... I won't say "No," but it just didn't hit that level where I can fully agree. Like, I know what a 5 for me sounds like, and this just ain't it. Beyoncé's got the voice and whatnot for a 4 at minimum, but I just didn't find that certain intangiable element that'd make me 5 it like the rest of my group. Just how it goes. (Also, even if I did, "Mine" would still be boring. Take that, Drake—I guess.)

Another one from the category, "Before now I only knew it for one song, but now that I've actually heard it—damn, what took me so long?" It's gotta be one of the best albums of the 80's, as one good album with "Sledgehammer" (the aforementioned one song) should be. Like, in terms of all the various worldy-type progressive art pop songs from the decade, I doubt it got any better than this. My only real complaint is that some of the outros run a bit too long, but it's a nitpick in the grand scheme of things. To quote a bunch of teen girls voiced by an e-mail checkin' wrestlem'n, this album really is "so good." (Now, to address if it's the best album of the 80's overall—I **did** have that thought, but, I mean, as long as Weird Al's IN 3-D still exists... Though that's such a high bar to clear, I would take it too seriously, y'know?)

Definitive. This, to me, is what big beat should sound like, in sampling, production, tempo, tone, energy—everything. Even in length, as much as I don't think everything needed to be 5+ minutes. If there's anymore big beat albums on this list, I doubt I'll like them as much as I do this. I mean, you name me another album with "Fucking In Heaven"—y'can't.

Part of me feels weird to like traditional country music as much as I do. Not country music as a whole; I've listened to too much Cledus T. Judd to say I don't like country. It's **traditional** country in particular I feel odd about. I grew up in the mid-/late-2000's. I became a teenager in the early 2010's. What is someone in **my** age range doing liking music this (to use this word as much as I can in the non-political sense) conservative? And if I was younger—goodness! Like, I'unno. This kind of sounds, these arrangements and instrumentations, the way they sing... It just does it for me. Like, this to me is **COUNTRY**, no extra qualifiers. I can totally see the appeal of just kicking back with a beer to this stuff. Even if the songs that aren't about heartbreak are about murder. It's not a sound I'd seek out all the time, but every once in a while, if I don't wanna put on Cledus or go the "I only listen to Johnny Cash" route... Sure. I can throw it on. Part of me wants to give this a 4 because of how much I ended up liking it despite my expectations (before we got it I was ironically hyping it up to my group), but... Eh. I like it, but I'm not in **love** with it. Definitie "It's fine" energy. Now if this had a goofy lookin' Satan on the cover like they'd have a few albums late, whoo! Five stars! A+! Six stars! Hot damn!

Now **this** is some damn good shit. I'm not sure what I expected out of it besides political commentary and criticisms I wouldn't 100% understand (and maybe I still should, though it's maybe a little too late for that), but this funk/jazz Afrobeat thing it's got going on it just amazing. I hardly even mind the fact it's made up of two tracks each nearly 13-minute; they're just that enjoyable to listen to. I don't even have a proper closer for this little paragraph excpept to repeat myself: this is **damn** good shit.

As Britpop goes, this is fine. I guess I just can't hear those "giant steps" forward for the genre that this album is supposed to have. I mean, I do like it quite a bit, but I just can't get myself too hyped over it.

I'unno if I've said this in an earlier review or not, but I really needa stop seeing albums from artists I don't recognize and going, "Who the f**k is this guy?" 'Cuz I've really enjoyed all the ones my group's gotten so far where I've had that reaction, and this is no exception. It's really fun late-60's psych rock released in 1970. And it's twelve whole dreams! What more could you want?

The Beach Boys' output post-PET SOUNDS from the late 60's to the early 70's, from SMILEY SMILE to HOLLAND, is a very interesting stretch of albums. In the grand scope of a band like them these records are pretty obscure stuff, put next to PET SOUNDS, SMiLE and their surf material. However, at the same time, they also happen to be a lot of the best work this band ever did. For example, SMILEY SMILE could never match up to what SMiLE could be, but as an early lo-fi and bedroom pop record, it's fantastic. SUNFLOWER has songs like "Add Some Music To Your Day", "This Whole World" and the masterpiece "Forever". And FRIENDS? FRIENDS is generally one of my top three Beach Boys albums; I used to wake up to it nearly every morning, back when I actually woke up in the morning. Then there's SURF'S UP. One blemish aside, it's the best thing the group had made some PET SOUNDS. Or maybe it's even better, if you wanna go that far. Front to back, from "Don't Go Near The Water" and "Disney Girls (1957)" to the triple threat of "A Day In The Life Of A Tree", "'Til I Die" and the title track, it's near untouchable progressive pop. Especially those last three songs. I didn't wanna focus all my attention on them, but seriously, the organ on "A Day In The Life Of A Tree" alone—!! You'd never expect music this beautiful coming from an album with a record cover like, y'know, **this one**, but that's part of why it's so amazing, honestly. It's not as dark as the cover lets on, but it still somehow manages to capture a lot of the feel, I think. At any rate, no matter how much I like Cooper Black font, it's a better album cover than PET SOUNDS had, that's for sure. Now, let's address the blemish: "Student Demonstration Time". It's the only one Mike Love wrote without any other Beach Boy, and fittingly, it's the worst track on the album. It's just so out of place with everything else. Seriously, what's this rewrite of "Riot In Cell Block #9" doing in the same space as "Surf's Up"? I can appreciate the band being more socially conscious with this song and "Don't Go Near The Water", and I get having some variety, but it just doesn't land too well. All the same, though... That's also why I kind of love it? Either way I don't think it's bad enough that its inclusion drags this album down a star, but I'm just so amused by how much of a sore thumb it is. And it's dumb "BAH-DAH-DAH-DAH-DAH" blues rock. I find it hard to hate that too much. Besides, it's not even the worst Mike Love song based on another song—and I know Brian co-wrote it, but in my mind "Be True To Your School" is all Love. Just the perfect example of him as an uncool prep. But anyway, it couldn't have made me happier that this is the first Beach Boys album we got. I actually spent a lot of time today listening to material on the box set FEELS FLOWS from this album's sessions; that's how excited I was. I don't think even PET SOUNDS, where I still maintain the cliché of holding it as their best, would've inspired me to dig in like that. Naturally, then, I can't give this album any less than a 5. I'd give it a 6 if I could, and I haven't felt that way about an album since we got ABBEY ROAD. It's just a gorgeous collection of tunes. I really wish they could've kept this streak up past HOLLAND, too. I mean, I give it up for THE BEACH BOYS LOVE YOU, but I know that it's not for everyone. And just knowing that this band eventually ends up recording "Summer Of Love" and letting John Stamos sing "Forever"... Yecch. Thanks a lot, Love.

Man, it was fun to see this one pop up, 'cuz I'd heard it for the first time only a month ago—ironic, don'tcha think? Anyway, I think it's a pretty darn enjoyable listen. I'm not 100% that any of the album cuts hit as hard as "You Oughta Know" or "Ironic" (except the chorus of "You Learn"; I fell in love with it the first time I heard it), but it's not like they're that far away, all things considered. And that moment when it cuts to silence on the opening track—man, I gotta kick out of it. So, yeah. In total, I just can't hear any reason why I wouldn't rate it a 4 at minimum. And that's not just because I'm Canadian and needa rep my people, no.

Up top, I wanna say that my relationship with Jerry Lee Lewis doesn't go any further than the fact that his biopic, GREAT BALLS OF FIRE!, is one of the few I actively refuse to watch. And keep in mind, I've seen STARDUST and BACK TO BLACK, so that's saying something. It's just, I know he's a bad guy, and I'd rather not watch a movie about his life, but otherwise... Like, all I really know him for is his musicianship. And because of that, that's no doubt why I'm able to listen to this and enjoy it so much. 'Cuz, gawd, I can hear what all the fuss is about; he can **play**. Y'think you can calm down a second, man? Goodness. Sounded to me like one of those performances where the people would just straight fall apart because of how hard he's playing it. For my group's first rock and roll album, it's really good for showing off how wild you'd imagine it'd sound. I mean, there's still a part of me that'd prefer we'd've gotten something like HERE'S LITTLE RICHARD first, and not for any reasons having to do with Lewis as a person, but I don't think I can really complain about the album we got too much. As for the fact it's a 4 and not a 5, it's the usual reason—I'm just not blown away enough by it to really justify the extra point. It probably deserves it, but... Eh. I guess I'll blame that "RRRRRRRRRRR" thing Lewis kept doing; I wasn't too big on it. (Also, if anyone knows why the version on Spotify is truncated to 22 minutes... Seriously, the hell is up with that?)

*{nod, nod}* That's some cool jazz alright. I mean, I'unno. I'm no expert on what makes this jazz specifically so cool, but it's real good shit, at any rate. Gets me exicted to hear the other Miles Davis that're no doubt on here. Well, excited as I can anyway for an album as cool as this.

What a treat to get this on Canada Day. I mean, it'd be a treat to get this any day, but on Canada Day, specifically? Man, oh man. 'Cuz simply, this is one of the best Canadian albums ever released. Seriously, from the crashing opening synth of "Tom Sawyer"—damn thing's a jump scare if you're not paying attention—it's Rush at the top of their game, right on down. Like, 2112 the song is a masterpice, but as an album? Really feels like "2112 and five other songs," as good as those other five are. But MOVING PICTURES here, it's the whole package. You got your radio-ready songs like "Red Bachretta", and you got your proggier stuff like "Witch Hunt", but neither side is any more or less important than the other, y'know? It's rock damn solid. And to touch on the radio-ready material—like that's a bad thing? Hell if a prog band has some songs with hooks and that're catchy. Sorry they're not writing neo-jazz classical epics about By-Tor and honewdew, y'know? Like, my apologies, but it really stings me that the top-rated review of this album—which, I'll be up front, I didn't read in full because I come here for reviews, not creative writing exercizes—seems to be saying that Rush killed prog going into the 80's. At least that's what I gleam from the paragraph where Geddy Lee stabs prog rog to death—prog rock, who used to be about jazzy suites or whatever. Truthfully, I haven't heard enough 80's prog rock to comment on how it fared or has aged, but just talking about this album—no. No. Hard no. This might be Rush's greatest album, far as I'm concerned. This or 2112, but either way, MOVING PICTURES is a landmark album. It's simply incredible. I don't know how someone can hear "YYZ" or "Lifelight" and think this album's so bad they hafta write a whole fairy tale to express how much they don't like it. I mean, maybe I'm just mad at the form of the review. The fairy tale thing. Really, if they dislike the album that much, fine. In fact, I'd love to know **why** someone dislikes those songs as much as they do. But in the way they chose to present it... I'unno. It just strikes me as incredibly pretentious; like they think they're **so smart** for not liking this album and saying so in this way. And, y'know, apologies as well for ranting on so long about that. MOVING PICTURES has the kind of reputation where it doesn't need defending—by anyone, let alone me—but as someone who cares about hearing people's opinions, wether I disagree with them or not... It just frustrates me. So, lemme bring this back around: without any spite, I meant what I said about this album. It really is that good all around. Now, sure, I might return to the 70's hard rock sounds of 2112 a bit more than this album's synth thing, but that's not to undermine it. It's a classic from my home country, plain and simple. At the end of the day, that's really all that needs to be said. (And, hey, this album doesn't have influence from Ayn Rand, so that's another positive.)

It's... Pff, I'unno. It's just some easy listening bossa nova. Perfectly servicable. I just don't know what it's doing here on this list. Like, what exactly is so notable about it that it deserves to take up a spot? It can't be for Astrud herself, because you can already hear her singing on GETZ/GILBERTO. And that album doesn't have any out-of-place circus music, so...! Again, I'unno. It's pretty listenable; I'm just not impressed with it.

This album can be really pretty in parts. I'm not sure why this isn't as celebrated as TRANS EUROPA EXPRESS. I mean, that's all I really hafta say: I enjoyed this one **way more** than I did the other one. And people complain about this being repetitive? Please, like it doesn't evolve on itself. I swear...

This is one of those albums that's wormed its way so deeply into my heart and soul that I can't even think of anything to say about it. I mean, is it mixed like a brick? Sure, but I hardly even notice. I just throw on "Jesus Of Suburbia" and I'm, like... Still in awe of it. Top three Green Day album, for damn sure. Goodness me.

I mean, I'unno. I just have such a hard time getting invested or, like, interested in this. I'm sure there's some technical aspect about that I'm missing, like her breath control or something, but... Nah. I'm just gonna rate it how I feel: an "it's fine" 3.

Y'know, for the longest time, QUADROPHENIA was my favorite rock opera The Who had made. Attribute that to how I first experienced deep cuts from both that album and TOMMY: I saw The Who in concert back in 2016, and I was blown the hell away by "The Rock". Back-to-back with "Love, Reign O'er Me", I became an instant fan. Meanwhile, they'd played "Amazing Journey" and "Sparks" earlier, and... Well, I recognized "Pinball Wizard" at least. I'unno, at that time they just didn't really do anything for me. Fast-forward years later. I still like QUADROPHENIA a lot, but especially after having seen the film adaptation... It just feels a little more standard than it used to? Like, "Yeah, this is how The Who typically sound." And of course, that's not a bad thing, but... Eeehhhhh. It doesn't sound as incredible to me as it used to. Meanwhile, TOMMY, having seen its film version and having spun Tenacious D's medley a million times? Oh, hell yeah. This is the weird-ass rock opera shit I wanna hear. Mrs. Walker, it's a joy. Whatever problem I had with it way back when—maybe I thought TOMMY sounded smaller than QUADROPHENIA—I don't even mind. Nor do I mind its 74 runtime. I just have a blast listening to it, whenever I do spin it in full. But even when I restrict myself to the songs in Tenacious D's medley ("Pinball Wizard", "There's A Doctor" and "Go To The Mirror!")... Well, simply: "Listening to you, I get the [good-ass] music." (WHO'S NEXT still tops, though, just to be clear. And if you've never heard Elton John's cover of "Pinball Wizard" from the movie soundtrack, do y'self a favor. Honestly, I like it even better than the original. Love me all that piano stuff, goodness.)

I'll admit up front, I didn't really give this thing the proper time and attention that it—that any album, of course—deserves. Much like back when my group got COLES CORNER, for some reason I thought it'd be a good idea to try and listen to this thing in the same room where my mom was cleaning and blasting her own music from the TV. I mean, heck, even in the moment, I realized very quickly that there's only so much you can pick up on when "Houdini" and "The Real Slim Shady" are blaring right next to you, but thanks to the pure stubbornness I had for not wanting to listen to Eminem right then... The only part I remember fully picking up on (and it was only after I finally moved somewhere quieter) was the final vocal hit of the last song, and... I'unno. There was just something about the way it sounded that hit me the wrong way. Enough so that I didn't even bother giving this thing a second listen, so I'm writing this mostly based on samples and scrubbing around fan YouTube uploads. To be honest, I don't think this album's bad, really. It's a collection of soul-y late-60's tunes, very far away from the pretension I imagined I'd be in for thanks to the "folk jazz" genre label on Wikipedia. Normally, I'm very into this sorta thing. I dig Aretha Franklin, after all. And I can't say there aren't a few spots where I did find this thing kind of beautiful, even through the noise of "Mockingbird" and "What's The Difference?". On the whole, though... Look, I hate to parrot opinions, but there's just something about her voice sometimes, man. It leaves me very unenthusiastic to wanna revisit this thing. Now, I don't think I'm asking for a perfect voice here. I know I'm used to hearing voices digitally modified to be flawless, but I can recognize how much charm there is in the little human errors. That's what makes this shit alive, man. That's where the soul is! Or something like that. But Nyro here... I can tell when she wants to hit the big notes like Aretha does. She just can't manage them, though. In those moments, she sounds like Cher. I only just now realized that as I was writing this, but yeah: she sounds like Cher sometimes. And the thing is, Cher sounds like that **all the time**, so I'm at least able to let her get away with being unique. Nyro keeps fluctuating, though, and I suppose I can respect the fact that she's not trying to put on a voice, but I just wish she'd stick in one lane or the other. Now, I'd kinda feel bad about giving her a low rating. After all, from everything I've seen, she's clearly someone very influential who just didn't get her public due at the time. The album wasn't a commercial hit, but it did influence people like Elton John and Todd Rundgren, and in 2020 Rolling Stone named it one of the 500 greatest albums of all time. A more famous, well-known "greatest album"—like, I'unno, as an off-the-dome example, TALKING HEADS: 77—had to be kicked out entirely for this to be here. That's not nothing. And it's not like any of that means it should get an automatic five stars from me, but... I liked enough parts of it that I can't go lower than a 3. I don't like her voice, but again, there parts I **did** find kind of beautiful. It's just that this feels like the least enthusiastic 3 I've given since... COLES CORNER, funny enough. So I guess I didn't really miss too much when parts were drowned out by "Venom".

For me, listening to this album was about two songs: "Heroin" and "European Son". "Heroin" is pretty much exactly what I hear in my head when I hafta imagine The Velvet Underground. Stark lyrics getting at real experiences of doing drugs and living life on streets. The kind of lyrics you'd call "poetry." The arrangement is minimal, based around on chord and drums that're more being thumped than played. There's an atypical structure where there's no real chorus but it variously speeds up and grows in intensity to emphasize its words. And it's got those avant-garde-y noise elements in there as well. It's the kind of thing you listen to and give a small nod: "real music." In 2024, I don't really personally understand how groundbreaking all of this (aside from the lyrical content), but I still like it a lot. It's a bleak, harrowing listen, and the previously described way it goes up and down just appeals to me, I'unno. Then there's "European Son", which, as a closer, I think represents a lot of other things about this album. Not all of themm—Nico isn't on it, for instance—but for one, the first couple of minutes are way... Hookier than I expected it to be? Which I don't think is a bad thing. I like hooks, and I don't expect VU to be all all-caps "ART" like "Heroin" all the time. It's just a matter of expectation, y'know? Even if I do like them quite a bit. But then when it does get art-y, jamming out for the last three or so minutes, I kinda get this "noise for the sake it" feeling. Like, just play whatever you want as loudly as you want and call it "art." It's not as bad here as that description would imply, but it still leans in a little—so that's what I think about the art-y parts that I don't believe work too well. And the lyrics... I'unno, they're about somebody in Andy Warhol's circle. Or who was. As someone who has to take a second to start getting the lyrics, they're fine. As is the whole track—to paraphrase somebody else in my group, it's "a perfectly unconvential closer for an unconvential album." Speaking of closing, I suppose I should say something about Nico before I go. She's fine. I get this kind of New Wave-y vibe from her voice, and I'm kind of into that. I'unno why Andy decided she **needed** to be on here, but she's not a detracting factor. She does "I'll Be Your Mirror" very well—as I hope she would, after she broke down crying after how many times she had to record it. Overall, I can't give it less than a 4. I can't hear that special "makes you want to start a band" factor I've heard about that would make me give it a 5, but darn if it ain't good music all the same. Different from the norm, sure, though that's still what makes it so special to a lot of people. Y'wouldn't want it sounding any other way. Such as, for instance, what Billy Idol did to "Heroin". Serioiusly, if you haven't heard it before—goodness me, you're in for a trip. Recoil slowly and laugh.

Y'know, while to me The White Stripes are very much, definitionally, garage rock and blues, I did really enjoy hearing them explore sounds outside of that. Playin' around with marimba and more piano... And, hey, there's the song from the PARANORMAN credits. At my core, I'm still more a "Ball And A Biscuit" girl than anything (except maybe "CNR", honestly), but still, I'm happy they went ahead and tried all this out.

Y'know, listening to this, I was thinking back on why I gave IF YOU WANT IT DARKER a 5, and how much of it was because it was "the album he released before he died." Now, of course it's not the sole reason; that's shallow and would ignore everything being done there. The soundscapes, the mood, his voice, the lyrics I managed to catch... Like, it would have been an amazing album either way, but with the extra, unintended context of his passing, it just became all the more powerful. Here, then, we have an album on the opposite end of his life; his second ever released. The one I kept hearing described as "bleak," "depressing," "scary," "a mirror..." All that. It's probably his most famous album besides his debut or whichever one "Hallelujah" is on. A poet singer-songwriter's masterwork. And if this thing is a mirror... Well, I'unno how it reflects back on me that my second time listening to the back four songs on this album, I straight-up fell asleep halfway through. Like, don't get me wrong, there's stuff I like about this album. His guitar playing style on "Avalanche" was unexpected, but I was pretty amazed by it. And I can certainly hear, in its atmosphere, why everyone keeps saying it's so depressing. But then, that's also kind of the problem there: it's depressing, and aside from one or two songs, it hardly changes from that mood. Which is only a problem for me because I'm not in a state of mine where I can relate—or, at the very least, I don't feel like I'm smart enough to understand the lyrics well enough to get it. Like, trust me, I know there's no shame in it, but I still feel so stupid having to hop over to Genius and rely on their annotations to figure out that he's singing about Nico. I mean, I don't wanna have it come across like "sad music bad; happy music good." That's not it at all; there's plenty of sad songs I can put on and enjoy. It's just, when it comes to the super poetic singer-songwriter playing an acoustic guitar late-60's sorta deal... I'unno, I've enjoyed Bob Dylan's nonsense word salads more than I have whatever points Cohen's trying to make here. So, y'know, I wanted to give this thing a 3 at least. Like, hey, there's part of the instrumentation I enjoy, and maybe if I sat down and read all the Genius annotations... But I just gotta rate it how I feel. And to that, I **do** feel a little bad about it. Of course, I don't hafta be generous just because he's passed on, or so often called a genius, or a fellow Canadian, but... I guess combined with what I was talking about in the first sentence, it seems like if he'd passed shortly after this album and it that surrounding context I would've rated it a lot higher. And to be honest—maybe. Maybe I would have. But in a timeline where he thankfully went on to release a lot more music... I'unno. This just really wasn't my thing.

To me, this is the last of Metallica's classic period. I'm sure there's quite a few diehard metal heads who would love to debate me on that (among other topics, like if Metallica even had a classic period to begin with)—but look. This thing is full to the brim of amazing songs. And not just the singles, although let's not forget how incredible "Nothing Else Matters" is for being a 3/4 love ballad from Metallica of all bands. I'm talkin' the deeper cuts as well: "Holier Than Thou", "Don't Tread On Me", "Through The Never", "The God That Failed"... This is consistency up there with MASTER OF PUPPETS, you ask me. Sure, it's a more traditional "heavy metal" sound and not as thrash as some would prefer it, but like that even really matters. I doubt it'd bug most people while "Wherever I May Roam" is playing. Even the over-played stuff, too: they're played as much as they are for a **reason**, after all. So, big surprise, Metallica gets a second 5 from me. And if you ever have the time, check out Wax Audio's mashup of "Sad But True" and "Superstitious"; it's really good.

I can dig this. Vibe with. I really dig the beat work it's got goin' on. And... Yeah, that's all I feel like I hafta say. Which feels weird to me; I should have more about one of **the** albums of hip hop, but... I'unno. Yeah. It'd be neat if we lived in a timeline with a second album from these people.

Y'know, ultimately the first side of the album (the one with "Jesus Built My Hotrod") **is** the better half, but I really liked the second half as well. It's a departure from the "metal psychobilly" thing side one had going for it, but I'unno, I really dug these slow, heavy, epic riffs. It reminded me a lot of Rob Zombie, actually, and that's a big plus for me. I wasn't a fan of the last track, and that's why I'm only giving this 4 stars, but still, I had a blast with this album.

Y'know, I can't exactly hear what's so "grunge" about this, but for harder 90's psych rock that keeps in a lot of that folksiness—dang, it's good shit. I wish the group coulda gotten one of the albums that led to this group being named one of the earliest pioneers, alongside people like the Melvins and Mudhoney—'cuz otherwise I have no idea why this is here—but still, good tunes are good tunes, and these are good tunes.

Y'know, it's not just another amazing slice of Seattle grunge. That alone would already earn it high marks. But you factor how damn **metal** this thing is, and, oh, goodness, it's one of the highest classics of the time. That's all I have to say about it, really—it's just so good. I mean, shit, Layne's vocals and Jerry's guitar aren't praised to the Heavens and back for no reason. Combined, no one else in this genre sounds like this group, and that's damn special. My dad had really good taste buying this CD back in the day, I tell you what.

I like the downtempo and ambient parts, for sure. The rest... Well, I didn't find the more inaccessible parts to be as grating as others have. That's all I'm really inspired to say about this album—yes, sadly, I don't have any unrelated stories to tell about nearly having sex in a Joker costume. What a shame.

*{clicks fingers, finger guns}* That's country, alright! I'unno. I guess I just don't hear the "Cosmic American Music"-ness about it that makes it so important. To me it just sounds like early 70's country, which, hey, I can dig. I'll be generous enough to strike it a 4

There's a 1-star review for this album that compares Kravitz here to "Prince at home." Funny enough, I'd also compare Kravitz here to Prince, but in a 4-star way. I mean, 'ey, what can I say? I love Prince, I like the few Kravitz songs I've heard... Put 'em together with all these hippy vibes, and, hey, I can dig it. Tune in and drop out, man.

An absolute masterclass in sampling. Without a doubt, it's my favorite sampledelia album of all time. Like, seriously, the breadth of the samples used, and the way it all weaves together... I wish records like this could still be made. But short of releasing it independently, without clearing them beforehand... And I like what the Beasties are doing, too, by the way. I love how they rap, and the way they work with the samples is amazing. But the Beasties are the Beasties, y'know? Call me dumb for not catching the intricacies, but to me they don't sound terribly different from album to album. So for me, it's all about the beats, and I can hardly think of an album with better beats—not just sampled-based, honestly—than this. So, y'know, thanks for screwin' all this, Gilbert. Thanks a lot.

I'unno, I just like 50's rock and roll a lot. Most of it, if not all, sounds the same, I'll admit, but within this space, I don't think that's a bad thing, personally. I mean, getting on 50's rock and roll for sounding similar is like getting on Motörhead or AC/DC for all their songs sounding alike. If they do that one sound well, what's to complain about? And Buddy Holly and the quote-unquote "Chirping" Crickets do it very well. There can be something comforting in it, y'know? That said, if you want the **best** Buddy Holly album, go check out 20 GOLDEN GREATS if you haven't already. That's the best of the best of his work, and not just because they're all some of his biggest hits. I mean, that collection has "Words Of Love", and that alone's enough for the big thumbs-up.

LISTIE SAY yeah, it's a real good 80's album. I just wish I had a bit more time to figure exactly **why** it works so well for me. Is it just that I like synthy 80's music so much? That could be something, sure. Do I appreciate how odd this album is a lot of places? Good probability, yeah. Is it just because I recognize a lot of samples that were used in this kick-ass mashup with Iron Maiden's "Rime Of The Ancient Mariner"? I can't say no. Whatever the reason, its hits me (HITS ME) with those laser beams. Absolutely worth checking out beyond its one big hit.

Off the bat, lemme put this in the exact words that helped me clarify my opinion on this album: if SURFER ROSA is the Pixies' IN UTERO, then DOOLITTLE is their NEVERMIND. Maybe that's a bad comparison to you, but here's what I mean... I get why some people would consider IN UTERO(/SURFER ROSA) to be the better of the two albums. Courtesy of Steve Albini's production, it's artier, abrasive and very un-commercial compared to its sibling. And of course, just because something's commercial doesn't automatically mean its worse, but if the strawman I constructed in my head does exist, then that's the reason they'd cite. And it wouldn't be unfounded; even Kurt(/Francis) didn't like the polish the other album got, prferring IN UTERO(/SURFER ROSA)'s more underground stylings. Which, I don't say all this like I don't personally get why they'd think that way. I can see through the fuzz and appreciate the music for its riffs, emotion and energy. Without the polish, it's a lot rawer, and to a lot of ears, honest. I **do** enjoy IN UTERO(/SURFER ROSA) a lot. But even as much as I understand, I can't deny who I am at my core. And at my core—well, I often tend more towards polish. Poppier production. And that's why I tend to agree with the more general opinion that NEVERMIND(/DOOLITTLE) is the better album. Not only is it the blueprint for a lot of music going forward, but, damn, it's got the **hooks**, without really sacrificing any of what makes the band special. Even without all the noise, the songs and musicianship are still just fantastic. I mean, let me drop the gimmick here to say this: I think I'm gonna remember and enjoy "Monkey Goes To Heaven" a lot longer than I am "Where Is My Mind?". Naturally, "Where Is My Mind?" isn't a worse song, and I think how it sounds is interesting. However, "Monkey Goes To Heaven" has "THEN GAAAAWD IS SEVEN," and that sticks in my head. That's just how it all falls out. (Also, I think this is the album Weird Al had in mind when he wrote his pastiche of the band, "First World Problems", and me being me that alone gives it extra points. Enough for me to tell my friends and enemies Ilike DOOLITTLE better, though just not enough to push it over into a 5. Maybe in time.)

Hip hop albums always tend to [[be]] the hardest ones for me to review. I figure I've talked about this [[be]]fore, but just in case: I'm a melody girl. It's always what I tend to focus on, more than anything else. Like, I hafta **really** love an album or something to really pay much mind to its lyrics—and even then... The point [[be]]ing, anyway, that when I listen to hip hop albums, I'm mostly focusing on the beats and how the flow interacts with them. It's missing the point of the genre to not pay mind to the words, I know, but that's just how I [[be]]. And these, by man I've many times now expressed my dislike for Kanye West... Are fine. "The Corner" has the best best, and then the rest are just fine. Not even Dilla's beat wows me that much, surprisingly. So... I guess I'm at a 3? I'unno. If I allowed myself the time to really dig into and analyze the words, maybe I could rate it higher, bit with my autistic and undiagnosed ADHD ass... This is the best I can do. Take it or, I'unno, let it [[be]].

Let me just start by saying this: I haven't had ths bad of a first experience with an album since I heard Public Image LTD.'s METAL BOX . The first three tracks on this album... I had to wonder, honestly, if this guy was takin' the piss. I just couldn't comprehend that someone could have this kind of anti-flow on purpose. Like, does he know he's supposed to... At least **acknowledge** that the beat exists? That he doesn't have to stress each syllable exactly the same? That, hell, the beat should also be on beat? And I came into this knowing that British rap usually isn't very good in general, so you can only imagine my shock hearing this. I can breathe a sigh of relief, though, that it **does** actually get better from there. I can't say I ever 100% gelled with this guy's rapping style, but as the album went on I was more and more able to be fine with it. To the point where, heck, I'll say I actually liked the last two tracks, the closer especially. It does a neat thing halfway through, I feel like. Neat enough, anyway, given what this album started with. As for this thing's plot... Well, you'd probably do best to not think of it as a rap **opera**. It's more, as one of my group friends put it, a rap "TV show." I don't totally think thst saves this album's story from being a fair bit of nothing, but under that "TV show" mindset I can't be too bothered by it. So color me surprised that this thing actually managed to raise itself from a "What the hell is this shit?" 2 to a "It's fine, in the positive sense" 3. I don't really think it's something I **needed** to hear before I die—and I wouldn't call him "idiot savant Brian Wilson" like one review I saw did—but I can't really say I wasted my time pushing through it. Seriously, though, mate. Those first three tracks. It should be so easy to not sound like that, honestly.

It's 3-star albums like this I always have the most trouble with, 'cuz, like... I'unno. It's fine. I liked what I heard, but I wasn't amazed by it. I'unno what else to say, really. I guess there's that I liked the psychedelic parts the best, and if there had been more maybe I'd've bumped it up to a 4. But as it stands... Yep. That's a 3-star-ass shoegaze album. It's neat.

Did you know that ZZ Top's sound on this album was actually kind of controversial? Yeah, Dusty Hill, the bassist, compared it to the "Electric Dylan" controversy. I mean, ZZ Top, to that point, were best known for playing blues and boogie—the kind you'd hear in southern Texas, not too far from the Mexican border. So this comes along, and... What's that? Synthesizers? Drum machines? **New wave influence**? I gotta imagine their audience weren't happy with this contemporary, more-commercial sound. All these years removed, however, spinning it here in 2024... I'unno. Maybe it's not "La Grange", but it still sounds to me like ZZ Top. And that's all I could really ask from a ZZ Top album. Sure, the songs all sound like each other, but take it from a fan of AC/DC and Motörhead: that ain't a bad thing for some people. If the sound's good, distinctly theirs and they do it really well, who cares if they keep repeating it? So, y'know, I'm pretty good to give it a 4 all around. It's not a magnum opus masterpiece—gimme TRES HOMBRE if you want that—but as an early 80's rock record, it ain't one where you can go wrong.

Y'know, disco's one of those genres where I know when an album's good or isn't, but I wouldn't really be able tell you exactly why either way. Maybe I'm just not gay enough—I'unno. So, like, this is obviously a really good disco album, thanks largely to Nile Rodgers and Bernard Edwards's writing and production. I just can't tell you why I think it's a better CHIC album than the last one I heard, RISQUÉ. Hell, I couldn't even articulate why I was so in-the-middle on **that** album. To me, disco's just disco—if there's there, it's there, and if it ain't, well, white people who ain't the Bee Gees probably made it. I will make one specific remark: past the title track, I feel like the album starts to drag a little. I don't think anything really changes past then, and my drifint attention around then might hafta do with how much sleep I'd gotten that morning, but I'unno. It just feels like a small step down from "He's The Greatest Dancer" and the frequent film needle drop title track. I mean, that first one didn't get sampled into "Gettin' Jiggy Wit' It" for nuthin'. Anyway, I feel like I'm ramblin', so lemme jus' cap it here. The album's a 4, it's solidly in the "good disco" camp, and... I'unno. I keep thinking their name's Sledge Sisters, like the Scissor Sisters.

Off the top, I just wanna say: I get it. Y'know, why this is currently the 19th lowest rated album on the entire website. I do, honestly; I have sympathy. From what I understan, I can't imagine the Butthole Surfers are an easy band to get into. If you don't dig more experimental music—which, given a lot of the other album's in this website's bottom 20, most people don't—it's gotta be a real uphill battle. I mean, there has to be something there. Multiple publications wouldn't name this one of the best albums of the entire 1980's for nothing. Kurt must have had his reasons to put this down as one of his 50 favorite albums. So... What's, uh, the deal, eh? What did I hear? Above, I described the band as experimental. Now that I've taken in the album fully (I wrote those two paragrphs beforehand as preconceptions)... Well, it's still an appropriate word to describe them, of course. It's just not the single one I'd use anymore. They're more, like... "Noise." Big noise. Which, don't take that entirely in a bad way. There's still some melodies and riffs. It's just that they do whatever the hell they want, as long as it's noisy and abrasive. They do rock, sludge, punk... As long as it's chaotic and loud. And that, I figure, is the reason why it's rated so lowly. Some people can listen to this stuff, this noise, and hear the art of it; of the band pushing past and defying conventions and sensibilities. It's ugly, but that's what makes it so great compared to the formulaic and broadly appealing music of the mainstream. If you can't click into that, though... Well, then it's just noise. Too thick to penetrate and not worth the effort to try. And that's not laziness on their part; I mean, why waste the time when you know you're not gonna get anywhere? But that's enough essaying about other people's opinions. What about my own, eh? What did **I** think? Well, I can hear through the wall of noise and see what they're doing, but I'm not in love with it. It's just not the kind of music I gravitate towards, and there's nothing here that really convinced me to try harder. Sure, I did like a lot of the heaviness and sludginess, and that's why I can't give it lower than a 3, but it feel it says something that my favorite part of the whole album is the "Sweet Leaf" riff. And if I wanna hear that riff... I could just listen to "Sweet Leaf"? And VOL. 4? Maybe if I was sicker of the classics and the mainstream, or at least had more problems with it, I could hear this and be amazed by how unconvential it sounds. But I just gave a ZZ Top album a 4-out-of-5, and I can't tell you how many times I've listened to "Nothin' But A Good Time". I appreciate the underground—it's just not my scene.

Hearing this album for the first time, I realized—general pop culture knowledge has done WAR a disservice. Just look at their two most common needle drop and reference points, "Low Rider" and "Why Can't We Be Friends?". Both are good songs, true, don't act like I'm tryna put them down, but neither are in any way indicitive of what they're really capable of. Like, damn, you're tellin' me these same guys can also make extended odysseys like "City, Country, City", "Four Cornered Room" and "The World Is A Ghetto"? I'm not just impressed; I'm kicking myself for assuming this album'd sound like their biggest hits and not checking to confirm. This is some progressively soulful and jazzy music to get lost in. I hear this is their best album, and, frankly, just hearing "City, Country, City" alone I can agree. From everything I've read, that's not even people's favorite, although for me it **was** the moment it all clicked. Where I went, "Naw—for real? They can do this?" And I just started to imagine driving out of the city, passing all of the gas stations and rest stops and other stuff at the limits, until—bam. You hitn the country. Rolling, rolling along, slightly disturbed though still without a care. But then, the gas stations and billboards appear again, until—bam. City again. As you drive across the country, the cycle repeats. City, country, city; country, city, country... On and on. That's just wha popped into my head, anyway. So... Yeah, that's a big ol' 4 from me. It borders on a 5, but as I'm writing this it's only barely not there. Still, in any case, if somehow you've stumbled across this review on this website and haven't heard it yet... Well, damn, give it a spin. Hear for yourself the best of what WAR is good for.

Y'know, I just find it curious that this is the only Gorillaz album here. Or, if there can only be one (to nab a phrase), that **this** is the one that made the cut and not DEMON DAYS at least. That's not to put down the band's debut as a bad or unimportant record, but... I'unno. Maybe that's just me as a big Gorillaz fan speaking, 'cuz as someone who came into this group during the long hiatus between PLASTIC BEACH and HUMANZ... Their debut has just never been one of my favorites? Out of eight or so albums, I think I've commonly ranked this one around the middle. Maybe even towards the bottom. It's just that, with a few exceptions, this album is largely trip hop and dub. It's not my genre, exactly. Like, besides MAXINQUAYE on the trip hop side of things, I've yet to come across a trip hop or dub album I'm truly 100% negative about, but by that same token I've yet find one I'm 100% **positive** about. Which, to be fair, this probably the closet I've come, and not just because I'm a Gorillaz fangirl. I can't think of a better opener than "Re-Hash", "Tomorrow Comes Today" is of course incredible, "New Genious (Brother)" grooves hard, "Double Bass" is a nice roundabout, "Slow Country"... Well, honestly, "Slow Country" might be my favorite deep cut from any Gorillaz album. That synth line that preceeds the "Can't stand the loneliness" section—maybe my favorite moment on the entire album. Considering "Clint Eastwood" is on this same album, to this day one of the band's top five singles, that's saying something. And let's say some words about the rockers on this thing. "5/4", besides being a neat bit of... Whuzzit? Poly-meter? Mixed meter? Whatever word means that the riff is in 5/4 while the rest is in 4/4. I wish that one had gotten its video back in the day, but the fanmade version more than suffices. "Punk", meanwhile, is such an enjoyable, unintelligble goof that, heck, I can't help but love it. You'll always catch me yelling my own gibberish alongside it. As for the things that keep me from that 100% positivity... I'unno, "Latin SImon (¿Que Pasa Contigo?)" never really did it for me. It's just a little off my vibe—in Spanish **or** in English, for the record. Then you got "Starshine", which I've always found a bit too slowly and space-reverb-y for my liking. And "19-2000" is a fun single, but I've always much preferred Soulwax's "shot at a hit pop record" remix over the original. On the whole, too... Well, as I said above, this is their trip hoppiest album. Even with the rockers and the poppier bits, I don't think it has as much variety as some of their later albums. That variety, in my mind, is what makes them as great as they are: DEMON DAYS, PLASTIC BEACH, season one of SONG MACHINE... And also, they're poppier, and more often than not I tend towards that stuff? Which, y'know, this is probably a huge assumption about you, the reader, but don't take me as someone who looks up "without the rapper" mixes of these songs. I wouldn't live in a world without Del's verses on "Clint Eastwood", and neither should you. "Rock The House", even as a slightly lesser single in my mind, is way funner with Del's verses than whatever else could've been written. Similarly, as much as this isn't my favorite Gorillaz, there's a lot I love about it, and I hafta respect it for being as much as a success as it was. Enough of one, even, that it got to be in this book above DEMON DAYS. There's way more to it than Pitchfork's 7.6 would imply. It has "short-lasting, faddish appeal?" There's no way you coulda known where they'd go, mate, but come on. Murdoc, 2-D, Noodle and Russel deserve more credit than that. (And speaking of that review, I'unno why it kept confusing 2-D for Damon Albarn? I know they have similar voices, but continually insisting that Albarn's singing on this... Wasn't he busy making some opera about JOURNEY TO THE EAST at the time, anyway? Come on now. I expect better from you, Pitchfork.)

THE WALL has always been a hard album for me to talk about in terms of why I like it. Of course, I rattle off about the autobiographical-inspired elements from Roger Waters, the general amazing muscianship, the flow of the narrative, how incredible it is we even got this album at all given the state the band was in... And for the record, it's not even because I'm more melody-first than lyrics so I don't know what to say about this. This was my first Pink Floyd album; it's the one I've lived with the longest. I can rattle off nearly every word of it by heart. It's my third favorite behind THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON and WISH YOU WERE HERE, in that order. I love, love, **love** THE WALL. Hell, it was Doug Walker's shitty "review" of the movie adaptation that got me to **finally** stop watching him. No, no, I've always struggled to talk about why I like this album is because I don't know what it means to me. Note: what it means **to me**. Not **generally**; I well understand that. What do **I** get out of it, personally? THE WALL, more than any other album I've encountered, feels like one where you **need** to talk about what it means to you. You can't just point out bangers or say "It's a bit comfortably shit, innit?" and move on. You need to have at least **some** self-reflection on what it says about **you**. And that's probably just a load of pretentious shit, I realize that. I'm probably just over-thinking and over-worrying about not enjoying this album "correctly." I know I won't be looked down upon if I don't bare my soul as part of this review. Certainly, looking around at a lot of other reviews, not a lot of people share my feelings. But that's just kind of the person I am, y'know? 'Cuz sometimes I think about this piece of creative writing I did for myself on THE WALL, inspired by The RS500, where all I did was talk about how my dad bought it for me at a book store, and I feel bad. 'Cuz it's like, "Really? That's all you get out of it? That you own it? There's really no deeper significance to you beyond the fact of your possession?" And knowing what the album generally means, and the elements taken from Roger Waters' and Syd Barrett's real life... I mean, is it any shallower than Doug Walker interpreting "Goodbye Blue Sky" as an Oscar bait song about "World War II with monsters?" There wasn't even a word in there about how I enjoyed it. So, maybe I'm just concerned that over a decade later the only other meaning this album's gained for me is "Doug Walker's a shithead." 'Cuz it's not like I haven't had experiences with isolation, or with how easy it can be to descend into far right points of view (and how hard it can be to completely rid yourself of them, goodness). It's just, I've never really made the connections back to this album. So what does that say about me and music, then? Believe me, THE WALL isn't the only piece of music I don't derive personal meaning from. Is it a lack of personal experience? Do I need more? How do I get more? Will I ever? Will I just be stuck behind this waist-high wall I've built for myself, that I could easily get out from behind but just refuse to for one reason or another? **Will I ever truly touch grass**? And it can go on like that, spiraling forever and forever further down the line of "What's wrong with me?" But that's probably a bit deeper than even this album calls for, honestly. And again, I look out at every one else who enjoys this album; all the people who blast "Another Brick In The Wall (Part 2)" and "Comfortably Numb" without playing the rest of the album around them, or who go to concerts and make the "hammer" sign... Is enjoyment not enough meaning in and of itself? To experience a story, grasp its theme, delight in its melodies... Even if it's not as deep a meaning as I want it to be, it's still **something**. It's no less valid than relating personally to the album's themes of isolation, war, abandoment and cycles of violence. Just because I'm not engaging with the album, or art in general as a mirror doesn't mean I'm engaging with it wrong. So maybe that's the part of my soul I mentioned above. Or maybe it's not, and I still need to dig deeper to find it. In any case, THE WALL is deeply entrenched in there. For my money, it's the greatest rock opera of all time. I doubt I'll ever get sick of it. From the crashing, epic riff of "In The Flesh?" down to the hopeful words of "Outside The Wall"—followed then by the realization that the album loops, and that the cycle of walls being built and demolished will never end... It's a masterpiece among masterpieces. An amazing end to their imperial period that started with DARK SIDE. Bless THE WALL, and everything it does or could stand for.

The awfully presumptuous title aside—I'unno, a lot of this sounds to me like it could've been in the SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD movie soundtrack. Y'know, put it next to the Sex Bomb-Omb songs... They're garage rock, The Hives are garage punk... Makes sense. And I really love that movie, and I really like those songs, so on that basis alone... They're not my new favourite band, but yeah, I'm happy with a 4. (Also, a fact: my favorite Hives song is "Tick Tick Boom". Thanks, LEGO ROCK BAND, for that one.)

Off the top, in response to the top-rated review of this album, lemme just ask this: is it THE CHRONIC's fault gangster rap got as popular as it did in the 90's? Like, should we be mad at it for being the thing that popularized the genre, if you're the kind of person who gets mad at gangster rap as something that "killed hip hop?" Personally, I take the same stance as I do when I talk about SHREK being at fault for a lot of bad animated films in the 2000's: you can't blame the originator for everyone else copiyng it poorly. After all, it could have been anything, and getting mad at and blaming the album or film that randomly won the draw feels a bit like a waste of energy. I get the desire and the impulse to have something to rail against, but I'unno. With that off my chest, we can talk about the album proper—and already, I need to pull out another "off the top." We need to get the lyrics out of the way, first and foremost. Putting aside the rhymes and flow (both of which, honestly, Dre isn't terribly good at), this album can be terribly misogynistic and homophonic. That's not a new statement, of course; pretty much everyone who talks about THE CHRONIC address it at one point or another. It's not most can easily get over, if at all. So, y'know, I understand people who would rate this thing a 1 based on that alone. But at the same time, as much as I understand, I'm not here to pearl clutch about it. This album is some 30 years old. In 2024, I don't see the use, really, in getting too worked up. That kind of stuff is still happening, after all, and I think it'd be more worth everyone's energy to deal with it now then make a big show condoning it back then. That's enough moralizing and talking about what I think people should and shouldn't do. This is an album with a song called "Deeeeeeeez Nuts"; I should get a soap box if I **really** wanna go off. In the end, I jus' wanna express why I, myself, like this album as much as I do. It's really simple, and, point of fact, doesn't even have anything to do with the lyrics: it's the beats. What can I say? Dre's a great producer; an **amazing producer**, and G-funk beats... The **synths**...! If I had to pick any one reason why I generally tend to like West coast hip hop more than the East coast stuff, it's that the West gave us G-funk, simply. Next to sample-heavy beats, they have my favorite kind, period. And this album was where it started. They're all over this thing, and that makes me so happy. Like, 2001 has its own, iconic beats, sure—just look at "Still D.R.E.", but on the whole, nothing matches up to a good G-funk synth. Hell, if there was a purely instrumental version of this album, I'd be all over that. Of course, though, to stay consistent within this review in my beliefs, I must also say that I can't give this thing too much credit for being the thing that popularized G-funk. It could have been any other album; it's likely someone else could've stumbled onto what Dre did. Or, hell, some other sound could've defined Cali if THE CHRONIC or G-funk. But all the same, just because I can't give it credit, that won't stop me from being happy that this album **did** popularize it and loving the beats. So maybe I'm a hypocrite, just getting mad at people who like a thing I do, I'unno. You make the call. Me, well, I can't give this thing a 5, because... Well, yeah, its lyrical content (though, let's be real, it's not **all** just hating on women and gay people—there's hating on Eazy-E, too, after all). But as an album I put on to bump to its beats, damn. Near untouchable.

I don't think I've heard another album that so perfectly—and beautifully, honestly—captures the exact sound of late 60's psychedelic baroque pop. I'm in awe, quite frankly. So... Damn, I ain't got no choice but to give this thing a 4, at least.

If I half-points were possible, I feel like this is the first one (that I can remember right now, anyway) I'd give a 3.5 to. See, on the one hand, I like this quite a bit—this kind of snotty 70's British punk does it for me. I mean, heck, I still like the Sex Pistols' album despite a lot of their... Y'know, problems. (I don't need to hear "Bodies" ever again, and we'll never forgive them for necessitating the Dead Kennedys to record "Nazi Punks Fuck Off" years later.) The sound of the guitars, the shout-singing, the pace, the energy... That's what I come here for. On the other end of things, however, there was the problem that I've run into with a lot of albums on this list from more obscure artists: what makes this thing so special, anyway? 'Cuz as much as I like it's British punk-ness... Yeah, it's sure British punk. What exactly sets it apart from all of the other British punk that I presume is on this list? 'Cuz it doesn't have the prestige of the Clash's debut, nor the historical impact and infamy of NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS. It's just... A good punk album? That's it? That's all it takes to get on this list, over innumerable albums that're just as, if not more worth? And I don't wanna turn this into another one of the endless million screeds on this website about the fact that MADVILLANY or whatever isn't on here. Again, I wanna stress: I **like** this album. Enough to tip that 3.5 over into a 4, even. Jus', I'unno. Maybe if I had the book in front of me to explain what makes this album so important to listen to before I die, I'd get it. But in the absence of it... I enjoyed my time with it, yeah, and I might revisit it in the future. It's not like I'm gona to my grave, though, feeling like I missed some important part of music history because I never heard The Adverts.

Modern retro soul. I've seen a lot of other reviews describe this album that way and, I mean, really, it's the best way. It's like if "golden period" Stevie Wonder was making albums five years ago, it's great. There's not more I can really think to say than that, honestly. It's just a good reminder that I should probably be going out and listening to more recent music. Even if "recent" here means "half a decade old."

I wanna put aside that this is an album from Paul McCartney. Throw away any comparisons you'd be unconsciously making to the legacy of The Beatles—how do you consider this album on its own? If it was just a release from a band called Wings? Simply: it's one of the absolute greatest 70's rock albums of all time. Up there with A NIGHT AT THE OPERA, HONKY CHÂTEAU, HUNKY DORY, OUT OF THE BLUE, LED ZEPPELIN IV, THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON... I could go on. It's just masterful: hit after hit after **hit**. The only one I can think of that I like better than BAND ON THE RUN is BAT OUT OF HELL, which, I mean, that's a high bar to clear, but just that it's even in the same conversation...! And I just wanna take a second to say: "Jet" might be the best song on the whole album? I'm not sure what consensus says about it, but for me, gawd, the opening of "Jet" can excite me like nothing else could ever hope to. And the synth lines on it, too? **Damn**. Jus', I'unno. I'd talk more, but specific words fail me. It's really an album where I'd rather just play it for someone and let them experience what makes it so great than try to describe it myself. So... Y'know, go on, if you haven't already.

Look, I gave this thing the best shot I could, but... I'unno. I just really didn't care for it. Like, the first three tracks were fine, I guess. But after that, it was just a whole lotta indie rock nothing to my ears. Nothing I could really grasp onto. Sorry.

I don't have many words to say about this, honestly. It wasn't as noisy as I was worrying it'd be, and thank goodness for that. Going by the reviews and the samples Spotify provided, I was worried I was in for "noise purely for noise's sake." While I still don't think it adds to much, it's not completely unbearable. And what they're playing behind all the noise... Yep, it's 2000's garage rock revivial. Ultimately, I think I'd rather be listening to The White Stripes, bit as the "we have it at home" variety... It's not gonna "save rock n' roll," but in a pinch, it's fine. And that's my final verdict. "It's fine." A big ol' down-the-middle 3. Which, hey, I was expecting to give this thing a 2, or even a 1, so if I were The Icaris Line I'd be happy with a 3. I also, as well, wouldn't be surprised that I was taken out of later editions of the book.

Well, samba continues to not "wow" me too much, but just juding what's here: yeah, it's nice. Relaxing. Pretty in parts. I can see myself throwing it on again, and, I'unno, at this moment that's enough for me to score this thing a 4.

Eh, first, let me just say I wasn't able to take this album in as well as I wanted to the day my group got it. I'unno, things happened. But I will say, from what I did manage to take in—yep, that continues a lot of the stuff I loved hearing on the first side of HOUNDS OF LOVE. That's an easy 4 stars from me.

Y'know, on its own I woulda given this thing a 4. It's really good, soulful pop, but nothing that really blew my mind. But consider that I played this album's cover of "They Won't Go When I Go" three times. That alone moves it up to a 5 for me, goodness. So, so good, goodness.

Y'know, when it comes to Billy Corrgan and the Smashing Pumpkins, I'll for sure have more to say about them once my group gets to hit up MELLON COLLIE AND THE INFINITE SADNESS. **That's** the one I have some sort of attatchment to. Versus this album, which, until today, I'd only known for "Cherub Rock" and, especially, "Today". As a result, in comparison, I don't really feel like I have as much to say about this album—except for that I'd really hafta agree that it's one of the best and most unique alternate rock and grunge albums of the 90's. Goodness me, can Corrgan write a tune—and can this band **play them**. (Plus, I don't mind Corrgan's voice, so that's a hurdle I have no problem getting over.) It's an **easy** 5 from me. It's an easier 5 than MELLON COLLIE might get at least, that's for sure.

I'll admit, the only reason 100% on this album is because of how many times I've listened to MY AIM IS TRUE (and, as well, Weird Al's pastiche "I'm So Sick Of You"). Now, don't get me wrong: I still liked this album a lot. Enough to slap it with a 4, even. Compositionally, it still sounds like Costelo, and I like his writing a lot. It's just, instrumentally, aesthetically... In short, I prefer his new wave/pub punk sound. This alt. rock/power pop sound... It's **good**. It's just not what I'd reach for first. Ain't no "Miracle Man" or "(The Angels Wanna Wear My) Red Shoes" on here.

I'unno who I heard say that UK rap sucks, because, honestly, I thought this "banged"—as the kids say. "Ladies Hit Club" or whatever it's called kinda sucks, but otherwise, yeah, I'm happy I heard this.

I could give this thing 1 star just for the damn headache I put myself through before I heard even a second of this thing. See, I found out that there are two songs on this album where the writer and singer, a very white guy, uses the N-word. With a hard "R" both times, too. (Genius.com claims the second one's a soft "a," but let's not split hairs; the first four letters are the same.) So, me, myself, for my benefit, before I could put this album on, I felt I had to answer one simple question: is this guy racist? Catch me, then, doing Google searches and reading articles from websites I'd never heard of, about not only this guy, but about punk's use of the N-word in general. See me find a Reddit thread where someone references a biography from a third party who says the songwriter regretted those N-words. Find me doing some soul-searching to figure out if the use of the word even bothers me, and what that might say about me as a person—after all, I still listen to Billie Joe Armstrong, Elvis Costello, Axl Rose, Ben Folds and Richard Cheese despite all of **them** using it. Eventually, after what felt like an **hour**, I just hadda stop. 'Cuz what was I even doing this for? Simply put: I don't know him. I'll never know him. Even if he hadn't passed away twelve years ago, I'd never get to know him well enough as a person, personally, to know if he's racist or not. I didn't even know his name before today—and even as I'm typing this, I can't recall it. All I'm left with, then, is the art. And I don't know if I can judge a person's entire soul based on forty minutes, let alone one word among many. And, yes, of course: it's a bad word. I don't like that he used it. But I can't just see it and call him racist entirely on that alone. Like, what's the context of the line? Does he **really** mean it? Is he playing a character? Or does it even matter in the first place? And for my money, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. This is punk, after all. Unless you're one of the groups the Dead Kennedys wrote "Nazi Punks Fuck Off" about, I believe, generally, you're against racism. Of course, there's plenty of exceptions you could list, but for this man alone, I didn't see anything to suggest otherwise. In the songs where he used that word, I'll grant he was probably just playing a character. If other people don't, that's fair. Interpretation and all. But as awkward as I feel about it, I just can't agree. So that's settled then. Although first, before I actually talk about the damn music, I wanna state the funny thing about those previous paragraphs. See, if my group had never mentioned it, or I just didn't see them mention it, chances are I never would've known about those N-words. After all, as I've stated in previous reviews: I'm melody-first. I hardly register lyrics the first time I'm listening to something unless I'm staring directly at them. And there's no guarantee I would've been for this album, so it might have flown over my head completely. I could've saved myself the headache and however long I just spent writing these nearly 600 previous words. Let's get to the actual point, then: the music. What do I think of it? Eh. It's fine. Like, I'unno. I saw one that Wikipedia had given "psychobilly" as one of its genres, and that got me really excited for something that, frankly, isn't here. This isn't the Reverend Horton Heat. No, I should've been paying more attention to the **first** given genre: "punk blues." And on that front... Sure? I guess? I'unno. There were a few parts of it that rocked, but on the whole it just didn't impress me terribly much. It's not **bad**; I'm willing to give it a 3 at most. I suppose it's just that I had misplaced expectations. Although believe you me, I'm **very** tempted to give this thing a 1 on the fact that I spent all that time reading articles and worrying just to end up at an "Eh, it's fine." Especially given that I didn't do nearly as much worrying over listening to Kid Rock or Kanye West, and I know for a **fact** over how terrible **those guys** are. So, I'unno. Take it or leave it. ("It" meaning either "this album" or "this review," frankly.) I'm just gonna hope whatever my group ends up getting tomorrow won't tire me out as much as this one did before I even pressed "play."

Y'know, while I was listening to this album I wasn't sure what exactly I was gonna say about it. 'Cuz, I mean, come on. It's TO PIMP A BUTTERFLY. Without a doubt, it's the most important and highly praised hip hop record I can remember. I know there's a lot of people who'd **heavily** disagree with that, but for my money, nothing else comes close. And therein lies the problem: I'd want whatever I'd say about the album to match how big I feel this thing is. But even after nearly ten years of living with it, I struggle to really come up with the words. It's not even a typical case where I can excuse myself 'cuz I don't really "understand" the album, because I do, and pretty well. Maybe I just don't have the vocabulary? I'm not sure, and I don't wanna bore you with speculation, so allow me to get to the one definitive thing I know I have to say. This album begins with a spectacular run. "Wesley's Theory" is... Like, maybe the best track on the album, honestly? "King Kunta" bangs so hard. "u" is, exactly as it set out to be, fucking depressing. And "Alright" is such an incredible groove that I can't even. But then we hit a strerch of songs where... Honestly, they just don't do too much for me? Excepting "How Much A Dollar Cost" and "The Blacker The Berry" (phenominal, both of them), the stretch from "Momma" to "You Ain't Gonna Lie (Momma Said)" just doesn't do it for me. Even understanding their place in the narrative. Now, of course, I don't not enjoy them enough to not give the album as a whole the 5 I believe it fully deserves, but... I'unno. I think it's just the beats? Comparing it to every think that comes before it and everything that comes after—well, there's some outros I love, but as a whole, they're just too laidback for me. So much smaller than what I expect from the rest of the album. It's always been a sticking point for me, and it's probably why whenever I listen to stuff from this album it's usually just the first three or five songs or just "Alright". Ultimately, at the end of the day. though, it's a nitpick. Not nearly enough to knock this thing upon the towering pedestal of importance where I've placed it. It deserves all the praise it's gotten, and whatever more can be said about it. So... I'unno, yeah. That's my perspective on that. What do you think about that, Pac? Pac? Pac—?

Welp. You know what time it is. Let's get this over with. As far as I'm concerned, there are two big "whammies" on this 1001 Albums list. Just, two albums that are "1/5" awful without a doubt, and are the only two where I legit wonder why they're here. First, there's Kid Rock's DEVIL WITHOUT A CAUSE. A solid hour of shitty rap rock from a complete poser wannabe-cowboy-pimp-gangsta. Completely irredeemable even if Kid Rock wasn't a MAGA shithbag. And second, there's... Well... To me, Limp Bizkit isn't a band. Literally, yes, of course, they are. But in perception, they're a joke. A meme. Completey incapable of being taken seriously. Which isn't the fault of the instrumentalists or the DJ, let's be clear. They're all great players. The instrumentals on this thing are actually kind of kick ass. Especially "Take A Look Around"—the MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE theme as a metal riff? Hell yes! No, the problem is, of course, Fred Durst. I didn't wanna lay the blame entirely at his feet, but that's just the truth. He gets his Durstiness all over everything and drags whole thing. He can't rap—when he doesn't sound smarmy, he's whiny, or he's putting on that "tough guy" voice. He can't sing—he's nearly completely flat and soujds like he doesn't care. And his lyrics? Goodness, they're petulant and stupid. I'm actually kind of offended he claims OTHER PEOPLE need to "get some better rhymes." And when you put him next to actual MCs like Xzibit, Method Man and DMX, Durst's shortcomings as a rapper only become that much more evident. Believe me, I wanted to be kind to this album and give it a 2, if only for the musicianship. None of them deserve to be stuck here backing up an idiot like Fred Durst. But Durst's the face of the band. He's the only member, besidee maybe DJ Lethal, most people know by name. He's the draw. And on that basis—yeah, no, this sucks major shit. This fully deserves the 1 I was always going to give it. I'm not as mad at this album as I was at DEVIL WITHOUT A CAUSE, but it's a chocolate hot dog nonetheless, and neither of them should be here. Fuckin'. (Man, can you believe my group got this album back-to-back with TO PIMP A BUTTERFLY of all things? Crazy.)

Honestly, after the last three albums my group got, I'm just happy to have one where I know I'm not gonna spend so much time reading, writing or thinking about it. (Seriously—way too much preliminary reading for FIRE OF LOVE of all things. Goodness.) This is a solid up-the-middle "it's fiiiiine" 3. Nothing great about it, but just enough that I wouldn't spin it down to a 2. I mean, honestly, it was nice to hear some good, punk female vocals. The abrasive kind, too, that for sure is gonna offend some people's sensitivities. It kind of reminded me of Yoko Ono's experimental warblings (which I mean in a positive way, I feel like I hafta point, 'cuz I know how some people would read that). All the same, however, I don't think it's a voice I'd regularly come back to. And besides the voice—unless I missed some stand-out lyrics, of course—there's just nothing else here I find terribly interesting. So, yeah, a generous weak 3 from me. I can applaud the fact that they apparently made all of this as teen-agers, which, goodness, I could never. But I can only hope they found some more interesting material on future albums.

I feel like there's a lot I could write about this album, but let's cut straight to the point: this is some the funkiest-ass funky ass funk I've ever heard. Grooves to interstellar degree. Jus', goodness me. Put this on, put on some sunglasses, and get the hell down. 'Nuff said.

Y'know, I don't have much a defense against this thing being one of the lowest rated albums on the website. Like, yeah, I'm not gonna blame aggregate taste for putting it down here; sonically speaking, it's for sure the absolute hardest album I've heard yet to get into. But I don't think it's **as bad** as its status would imply? For one, I expecting it be nothing but noise: no melody, just clattering and shreiking for the sake of it under the excuse of it being "experimental." But there actually **is**, however, composition, and some kind of melody line to latch onto. It's an incredibly **unusual** melody line to most ears, but it's still **there**. It's not completely thoughtless and thrown together like I'd've otherwise assumed. Then there's the second factor here, and that's the fact that it absolutely belongs here on this list. Like, there's two things I personally want out of this list: albums generally considered the greatest of all time (RS500-core), and interesting shit from around the world. This **absolutely** scratches latter. Believe me, chances are more than likely you're not gonna come out of this album liking it, but I garuntee you you've never heard anything like it before, and you'll be all the better for it. I mean, seriously, I can't tell you how many American and British albums my group's listened to that're flat 3 and I've gained nothing whatsoever from them. "That's sure **this** genre," "that's sure **that** genre," etc. I want more stuff like CLUBE DE ESQUINA, CALL OF THE VALLEY, RUM SODOMY & THE LASH, ZOMBIE—and, yes, this. Random, obscure 80's New Wave or post-punk albums won't broaden your horizons. But this will. It's absolutely worth at least one run-through. And at any rate, **this** is the lowest rated album on the whole website and not **Kid Rock**? The heck are we doin' here, people? Goodness me.

I'unno. As I'm writing this, it hasn't even been that long after I finished listening to this, and already I can't remember a second of how it sounds. Is that a critique of the album, or is it just me getting distracted and forgetting? Take your pick, I guess. Either way, I feel generous to slap this thing with a 3. There were enough spots I liked that prevent me from going lower—if only I could remember them.

The biggest question I feel like I've had to ask myself in trying to talk about this album is "Is it dated?" That being, "Is it dated in terms of its production and genre?" and "Is it dated in terms of commentary on the real world?" Of course, my answer to both variations of that question is "Yes." This thing was released in 1989, after all; I'd be surprised if either one had aged terribly well in 2024. But let's pull in and address each one separately. I wanna start with the thing I feel like most people would take issue with: the commentary. Naturally, there's gonna be a few issues it tackles that maybe don't apply... As well today? Although, if I've learned anything from history, a depressing amount **does** carry through across centuries. But that's not actually why I think most people would have a problem with it, despite "datedness" being the thesis. Moreso, I imagine they'd take issue with the fact that Janet Jackson is a celebrity, and, as such, who the hell is she to try and talk about the problems of the "common folk?" Given the pedestal she's been placed on, can it come across as anything but fake? To be blunt, personally, I don't care. I often talk to myself about the "power of music," but it can only do so much by itself. If Janet brought attention to some issues through some sick jams, then that's a good thing. I mean, I'm not sure what else she could or is really supposed to do besides jump to the extreme of "quit music entirely and spend the entire fortune she's amassed to fix it herself." I don't believe that'd be as effective as some people would want it to be, and generally I don't think that's what most people would want her to do, really. Frankly, I'd just be happy that someone with a position like hers would be speaking about this stuff at all. And besides, if I can listen to all of her brother's socially conscious music and never get put off by "fakeness," then it's not a problem for me here, either. And let's switch over to talking about the music, and to get back on the thesis. I'm not gonna front here: this album sounds incredibly dated to the late 80's and early 90's. But, like, I'unno—is that a problem, really? This is New Jack Swing. Maybe I'm just too much of a sucker for modern throwbacks to older sounds, but to me this is just what it's supposed to sound like. And frankly, it sounds **incredible**. It's maybe—no, **definitely** the single best collection of New Jack Swing I've heard. I mean, sure, it **can** get a little tiring because of how long the album runs. (64 minutes? Oof. I kind of wonder if the original vinyl version, which edited the album down a bit to fit, runs any better, but let's stick with how we were supposed to listen to this thing.) On the whole, though, I can only think of a handful of songs from other artists that I'd classify as more definitively "New Jack Swing." I can't think of any other **albums**, that's for sure. I'm still knocking it a star for its length, but regardless, I really enjoyed my time with this album. If you're the kind of person who's bothered by datedness in music, I maybe wouldn't recommend it, but if you take it as it comes like me, it's a hell of a time. No wonder there was a point in time where Janet was bigger than Michael, oof, goodness.

Y'know, I'm mostly just curious why **this** is the only Foo Fighters album on this list. Like, let me clear: this isn't a bad album. It still rocks, and hat's all I expect from them, ever. Long as they have the tunes, I can hardly complain. And of course, they are here, and the fact that Dave played it all by himself is impressive. I can tell why this was big. Me, though—I'unno. I just figure it's not the best of Foo. Like I know System Of A Down's debut shouldn't've been their only album on the list. Good grief, I'm not even the biggest fan of either band, or even that up in arms about it, but just knowing about their discographies all my life... But here we are, so... I'unno. It's just curious to me, that's all. Still, for their breakout, I can't give it less than a 4. In times like these, I don't figure it's anything **that** special, but honestly, it doesn't owe me anything. For what it gives, yeah, I'll stick around.

Y'know, maybe I had wrong expectations going into this. 'Cuz when I read that this thing with dream pop, my mind jumped to the example it always does: The Flaming Lips, circa THE SOFT BULLETIN and YOSHIMI BATTLES THE PINK ROBOTS. And those are both masterpieces of their times, so it's probably not fair, either, to compare this album to those. But I listen to this thing, and, like, honestly, there really isn't too much of a comparison? Like, it's dreamy in parts, although nothing to the extent that BULLETIN or YOSHIMI could be. Y'know, there's no "Buggin'" or "In The Morning Of The Magicians". Frankly, I think I'd hafta stand with what I've seen so many other people say and call this thing more "2010's indie." Which, if you consider that a knock against this album, it might just be a "blaming SHREK for all the terrible kids movies that came out after it" situation? Or maybe not; I haven't heard enough 2010's indie music to say. But just judging this... Pff, yeah, I'unno. It's fine. Kendrick Lamar got a good sample out of it, but otherwise... I'unno, I'm just waiting for THE SOFT BULLETIN to show up.

See, this is more like I wanted from the dream pop album my group got yesterday. Beautiful, etheral... Absolutely dreamlike; as if you could float away on it. And as far as I can remember, this is the best "vocals as an instrument" album I've heard in a while—where, yeah, there ate lyrics, but they maybe don't really matter? They're another melody, to help everything else flow along, and they're great at that. Jus', mm. I'm in love. It's real good stuff.

Way back in my review of The Who's LIVE AT LEEDS, I made a big deal vouching for the inclusion of live albums on this list. In short, if you haven't read it: there are just some bands where the studio setting didn't do their sound justice. Sure, they could sound **good** in the studio, but what they could do on stage is another level entirely. The Holding Company—as far as I'm hearing from this video I'm watching as I type this—was one of those bands. After their smash hit show at the Monterey Pop Festival and their debut studio album, the people were **clamoring** to hear the band's live sound captured on record. For some people, it was a hotter, more anticipated release than The Beatles' White Album. And come August 12th... Well, they sort of got it? Kind of, technically? Maybe not, depending on how you look at it? Most people these days probably know this, but in case you, the reader, don't, lemme jus' rip this off: this is a studio album. And it's not even a funky hybrid case like Frank Zappa's SHEIK YERBOUTI, where he overdubbed the shit out of live tracks. Despite what the cover claims, only one song on this album was recorded live, and it wasn't even where the cover says it was supposed to have been. This album is "live" in the same way "Bennie And The Jets" is, or Richard Cheese playing a royal wedding or Mos Eisley Spaceport. But putting that aside—would you know if I didn't tell you? They still kill it. They still rock to shit. Sure, even the **crowd noises** were recorded in the studio, but it's all put together so well, and the music is so good, I can hardly care. It's like the accusations lobbied against KISS's ALVIE! or Thin Lizzy's LIVE AND DANGEROUS being a studio creation. Sure, they lied about what kind of album this was, but I'm pretty sure I'll be able to get over it, y'know? Generally, I'd still enter it into the same pantheon as NO SLEEP 'TIL HAMMERSMITH and MADE IN JAPAN. And with it being at a nice, tight 37 minutes, too, there's no reason why you shouldn't give it a spin and try it out. It ain't a ball and chain; y'ain't got nuthin' to lose.

I'll keep this short, since I wasn't able to get to this album the day my group had it and I just **need** to hurry on to listening to Country Joe & The Fish—oops, I'm not supposed to know that. But anyway, before now, I had no idea what Bobby Womack had done besides "be on a Gorillaz song." So to discover that he used to make lush-as-hell funk and soul... Oooh, this shit is incredibly up my alley. The soul stuff especially, it's so pretty. Honestly, I really wish I'd been able to spin this yesterday instead of having to hurry along like I feel I hafta. This is shit I really adore, goodness. Country Joe could never.

Unlike other people in my group, I'd recognized Country Joe & The Fish right away: they're one of the bands who played Woodstock. Yeah, these guys were there on the same bill as Jimi Hendrix, Santana, Sly & The Family Stone, Janis Joplin, The Who, Joe Cocker, Joan Baez.. They shared ground with all'a those people. Although, honestly, from what I can remember of the movie soundtrack, I feel like I'd probably put Country Joe & The Fish more on the... Y'know, Arlo Guthrie and Sha-Na-Na side of notability. Which makes it even crazier than Country Joe himself got a solo performance on the album **alongside** his performance with the band, but that's besides the point. Neither song is on **this album**, anyway, so let's get back to the point. This, apparently, is the first psych rock album to come from the Bay Area. Right at the top of the Summer Of Love, these guys were there, and I hafta imagine that's why they were invited to Woodstock. By that same token, I also hafta imagine that's why people today wouldn't be too kind on it. Even accepting its place in history and its importance, it can be hard to go back to the first of something while being actively aware of all of the tropes and clichés it helped spawned. Now, I already made a case in my review of Dr. Dre's THE CHRONIC for why that sort of thing doesn't bother me. In short: I don't think you can blame the originator for everyone else doing its thing poorly or for everyone else tiring its thing out. Although... I'unno. This thing ended up going back and forth for me a lot. On one end, you got the stuff that leans more into acid rock, and that's the stuff that really got me to sit up and go "Yes! I can dig it, man! Tune out, drop in, whatever." But then on the other end, you got tracks where all I can think to myself is, "I've heard this a million times before—so maybe I just didn't like this kinda stuff to begin with? Or maybe they just didn't do it that good to begin with?Especially the song that explciity mentions LBJ, jus', **wow**..." Like, maybe it sounded better back when it was more special; when it existed more by itself and there wasn't as much similar material to compare it to. After being to absorb so much and come to a conclusion, though... Boof. I mean, lucky for them, I'm probably gonna remember this more for the acid rock stuff, but still—boof. And that's why I'm at a 3. "Section 43", by itself, is too good for me to really rate it any lower. And being 100% honest, the psych stuff isn't all **that** bad. Even if it's not very special, I can still be a real sucker for that keyboard sound. On the whole, however, besides the Woodstock notoriety, I'm not sure why you'd come back to these guys **first** over a lot of the other stuff that came out afterwards. At least they had a better set than Sha-Na-Na did.

Elvis was an amazing singer. Elvis **is** a **helluva** singer. We can have discussions for days about the people he took his voice from, or the system that caused his in particular to catch on over others', but that doesn't change how much of an incredible performer he was. It's evident even and **especially** as far back as his debut here, which was cobbled together from random RCA and Sun sessions. Truthfully, this isn't my favorite era of Elvis–I'm more excited for FROM ELVIS IN MEMPHIS to pop up–but regardless, it's always such a treat to hear him do his thing and adapt seamlessly to each style he tries while still sounding like himself. Jumpin' rockers, walkin' R&B, weepin' country... I can't help falling in love with his voice. Of course, let's calm down here and address some realities about this album. Primarily, as enjoyable as I think this album is, I believe, firmly, that it's more on this list for historical reasons than for "you **must** hear it" reasons. This **was**, after all, the first 12" record teen-agers bought in droves. Prior, the long-player was strictly the domain of serious classical and jazz, while the teen audience stuck with 45's and singles. As a result of its popularity, it's essentially **the** album we can point to as where rock and roll was popularized, alongside "Heartbreak Hotel" being the single. But as an album experience... Well, remember what I said above: it was thrown together from random RCA and Sun sessions. So, while it's a very enjoyable listen, it's not even where most people would recommend you go to discover why Elvis was as big as he was in the 50's. For that, you'd hafta turn to collections of his Sun recordings, such as THE SUN SESSIONS and SUNRISE. Heck, even the quickie "we need Elvis product while he's away in the army" albums FOR LP FANS ONLY and A DATE WITH ELVIS contain stuff like "Mystery Train" and "Baby Let's Play House". (Shout out, by the way, to the British being lucky enough to get "Mystery Train" on **their** version of this album.) FROM ELVIS IN MEMPHIS was also cobbled from sessions, but at least it feels a bit more purposefully put together. So, yeah, in 2024 there's better ways to understand Elvis than this album, and there's better Elvis album experiences than this album. Hell, there's better ways to take in this era of Elvis than this album (check ELVIS' GOLDEN RECORDS). But all that, of course, doesn't change how fun this album is, from Elvis's singing down to the band backing him. Seriously, let's not forget Scotty Moore, Bill Black and D. J. Fontana; they're as important as Elvis himself is. And if you wanna hear the exact songs, in the exact order, that caused America to fall so in love with Elvis, you're not gonna regret it. I mean, it's only 28 minutes, anyway; you don't have much to lose. All I know is, whatever way you choose to engage with this material, you're bound to be having fun on record with Elvis.

Slick, professionally played blues music. Compared to other albums we've gotten recently, it's not as energetic as LIVE AT LEEDS or LIVE AT THE APOLLO, or as jammy as LIVE/DEAD, or even as wild as CHEAP THRILLS (for all that album's "recorded in a studio"-ness). B.B.'s a consumate showman, and he can play the **hell** out of his guitar, even if he never lets himself get **that** out of control. Still, it's an album I've enjoyed a number of times before, and it's one I know I'll enjoy again. (Although, I'll also remark: crazy that this is here and not the Cook County Jail one. I know this one is regularly cited as a performance primer, and that's probably why it was here, but, man, that whole "performing in front of a prison crowd"t hing adds so much, you don't even... Jus' a bit of a shame is all. Seriously, check that album out if you dig this—or, like, AT FOLSOM PRISON, I guess.)

Indie garage rock. Ho-hum. It's perfectly fine; I found it really hard to care. I hate to leave reviews this short, but I really can't think of anything else to write up. No frame, no lens, nothing to write a faux-essay about. Just, "Ho-hum. Indie garage rock."

Holy shit. Now **that's** some fuckin' **blues**. The kind so hard it'll blow your speakers out if you play it too loud. Like, goodness, it's such a contrast from the last blues album my group got, only just a few days ago. 'Cuz, I mean, yeah, B.B. King's professionalism is something to be admired, and his playing is amazing even under his restraint, but you put it next to a band playing so raw and so electrically it's like they're gonna cause a blackout just on their own... Jus', oh, goodness. In short: it's the kind of blues I like the best (i.e.: "it sounds the most like Weird Al's 'Generic Blues', which is a **huge** compliment in my book, believe me). It's so much a 5 in my book, I won't even take the easy erection joke set-up the title gives. Good-ass job y'did there, Muddy.

Y'know, for most of my time listening to this album, I was all ready to give it an "Eh, it's fine" 3 and move on. 'Course, that's 'cuz I spun side one twice before I got to side two. And side one... I mean, it's good, but... Eh, I'unno? I was just expecting to have my mind more blown by "the album with 'Heart Of Glass'," and nothing on side one was really clicking into that. Even "One Way Or Another", although that might be because I'm so more familiar with it as "the Swiffer commercial song" than I am with it as a Blondie song. Then I slapped on side two... Oh, wow, "11:59". Now **that**'s an amazing tune. It aligns so much with the kind of energy and tone I normally enjoy that, g'y'ah, I hope it's the fan favorite deep cut, 'cuz it's sure mine. I'd put it with Elton John's "Have Mercy On The Criminal" on my "list of amazing side two openers that I can think of/remember as I'm typing this." And wouldn't y'know, the rest of the side kept pretty well around the bar "11:59" set—and "Heart Of Glass"goes without saying, naturally. So, that's a 3 for the first side, a 5 for the second side (I was at a 4 'til I heard the "WOW" leading into the guitar solo on "I'm Gonna Love You Too")... Well, hey, that's an 8/10. And I'll have you know, I woulda still rounded it up to that even if I gave side two a 4. Good that it all evens out for you either way, eh, Blondie? (Also, next time I'll listen to the two record sides closer together, promise.)

Hrm. OK, see, here's the thing: ARULAR was obnoxious. Incredibly so. That's what my review on this website of the album was about, and thinking back, it's really the only thing I can remember (besides "g'lang-a-lang-alang"). Despite that, however, I never found myself crossing over into annoyance at it. For sure, I got close a few times, but at the end of the day, I kind of just recognized that this was thing and I hadda accept it. KALA ended up being a different story. On the whole, I actually found it a whole lot less obnoxious than ARULAR. Although, as a result... I was kind of bored by the whole experience? Perhaps it's because M.I.A.'s whole "world music dance hall," "nasal monotone voice" thing isn't as shocking as it was the first time? Honestly, as much as I know I should, I can't muster up enough of a hoot to actually check. Hell, I don't even care enough to interrogate the thought I kept having throughout that it felt like big critics go gaga over this kind of music specifically because it's obnoxious on purpose (I **really** can't see what Robert Christgeau saw in this). Frankly, the only song I really paid any attention to was the big single, "Paper Planes", and that's just because, instrumentally, it remindedme of Post Malone's "Sunflower". And maybe I recognized a vocal performance from a mashup? But otherwise... Like, y'know, some part of me wants to be generous and give this thing the same 3 I gave ARULAR. M.I.A. doesn't **deserve** that kind of generosity, but that's besides the point. I could slap it with a "maybe it'd go off better in the club" and use that as the justification, 'cuz I really don't hear how it's any better or worse than ARULAR. But let's not underesimate how damn uninterested I was in this album. I hear this kind of beat work on the last album, I heard these nasally monotone vocals on the last album... For sure, there's something about this album that I'm missing. Something in its conception, or just some "media literacy" intepretation that'd make me like it a lot more. I just really don't care, though. Lemme jus' cross this shit off with a 2 and never hafta think about this damn anti-vaxxer ever again.

According to Wikipedia, this album's legacy has very little to do with its music—as in, the compositions, or what these songs about. Instead, its legacy is that it's a favorite among audiophiles. This album was a popular demonstration record for speaker sets. It, especially its opener, has been used to test studio and front-of-the-house systems. I'm sure the only list besides this one where it sits besides PET SOUNDS and SGT. PEPPER'S is EQ's list of the ten best recorded album of all time. Not that any of that matters to me, really, I should say. I'm the furthest thing from an audiophile. I listened to this album on, like, $20-some headphones. I can't tell if something's bricked or clipping unless I'm looking at it. And, generally, as long as what I'm listening to doesn't sound like unmistable **total ass**, I'm fine. I just find it curious that this album's biggest impact was to became a tool for testing speaker quality. 'Cuz listening to the music... Well, it's not bad. And maybe I actually kind of like more than a fair few moments on it? But it's wholly unremarkable; completely inoffensive jazz pop that, at points, sounds like it should be playing the background of a Sega CD pool FMV game. During two different songs, on opposite sides of the album, I yawned out loud, no foolin'. And, y'know, I don't wanna make any assumptions and say I "understand" what pepople are talking about when they say Steely Dan is boring, 'cuz this is from only one member of the group.... But he is, notably, the only currently living member, so... Look, if this thing **is** one of the best recorded albums of all time, then maybe it's been recorded too clean. Y'know? Nobody's doing anything terribly interesting; there's no risks being taken; there's no **edge** to it. It's been polished to be a smooth nugget. And, sure, I can admire and appreciate all the effort that went into getting it that way, but it's not even that shiny. It's there. It's something to fill your time for a moment. And then you move onto something more interesting.

Y'know, I'd just like to pull up two terms from one of the reviews of this album I read on this website: "Flaming Lips vibes" and "baroque-grunge." That about sums this album's appeal to me. It's the dreamty, contended sigh of melancholy, sometimes wrapped purely in the instrumentation of angst, and other times mixed in with more unique spices. Which, reading that back, sounds like a really pretentious way to put it, but that's the best way I can think of to describe it. Plus, of course—it has a song in SHREK. Nostalgia for that alone already garunteed this thing points, so it's nice to hear that the rest of it holds up as well.

Mm, I'unno. For me, it was all just a bit too low-key. What mean is, I just didn't find the beats terribly interesting, and being the "melody first" kind of person I am, if I'm not interested in the beats, then I'm probably not gonna be able to pay much mind to the lyrics. I figure GZA's a good lyricist—this album wouldn't be one of the big two solo Wu-Tang albums otherwise—but overall... I'unno. It just caused me to zone out too much, and not because the flows were hypnotic or whatever.

Look, let's get one thing straight: I review music, not musicians. If I wanted to just rant about how awful someone is, there's Twitter for that. I mean, consider Kanye West: these days, I hate that man with a burning passion, the divorced dad, Nazi-lovin' fuck. But despite that, I still gave MY BEAUTIFUL DARK TWISTED FANTASY a 4 because the music still resonated with me. Sometimes, bad people make good art. That's not a rule, but it **is** a common fact of life. But I don't wanna sound like I'm pro-"separate the art from the artist," because let's make this clear as well: you can't. As much as people out there would want to, I personally believe you can't fully understand an art unless you take into consideration the artist. That's why, as much as I gave MY BEAUTIFUL DARK TWISTED FANTASY a 4, I'm never gonna listen to it again, because Kanye is a fuck and I don't wanna give him my time. Like, usually it's never enough to affect my rating (unless you're Kid Rock), but if you're gonna come in here and be like, "Well, if you just look past their past transgressions," I feel like you're being disingenuous, at best. So, look, this guy's a child rapist. He was found guilty of raping a 15-year old, and that was the first thing I knew about him (because despite this album's appearance in this book it's apparently still not even notable enough in the English world to get a Wikipedia page). I could easily give this thing a 1 and move on with my life just for that alone. I don't blame others for doing that, but, myself, I just had to dig deeper and know: what's this thing actually like? Boring. This thing is fucking boring. From the first second, all I could picture in my head was commercials for cruise lines and it never let up the whole time. That's what this thing sounds like: chintzy background music for advertisements. And I don't know if that's what all rhumba music sounds like, or just what this guy sounded like by 1992, but I sorta refuse to let **him** be the representative, so... And none of these songs have enough going on to justify them being as long as they are. A 7+ minute average for track? Jeez! What gives him the right? Trust me, if you've heard the first thirty seconds, you've heard the last thirty seconds, and every random cluster of seconds in-between. Where in the world does this thing get off? Now, of course, there **are** parts I like. There hafta be; nothing's 100% bad. Even Kid Rock's stupid album had at least one or two parts I could begrudgingly say I like. But then, here's a good question: "why would I listen to **this guy** for it? Why do I **have to**, when there **has** to be someone else doing this who also **hasn't** been found guilty of any heinous acts?" Like, don't tell me there's no other album in the world that could've represented rhumba music better; I doubt **this guy** is the only one worth considering. So, like, this shit's a 1. A big, fat 1. And I don't hand those out easily, lemme tell you: you hafta **offend me** on some level to get one. Kid Rock's, well, Kid Rock. MAXINQUAYE was such an intermittently boring waste of time that I couldn't help it. And Limp Bizkit... Well, I was kind of hard on that Limp Bizkit album, but that's besides the point. If this guy had made better music, I woulda grumbled and complained about it, but I still would've given him the credit. Or, hell, if he wasn't a guilty child rapist, this thing would've been a 2, at best. But I feel no desire to give him any benefits. All I hear when I listen at this is this man's crimes. And frankly, given that I didn't know about him yesterday and I'll forget about him tomorrow, that's **all** I'll ever hear. Allow me to rate this thing accordingly, then: it's a 1. He's not worth anyone's time.

I think it's pretty good, but I don't think I'm as interested in it as I was in the last Pavement album my group got. Maybe because I can pin it more to the 90's, whereas they'd achieved something not as easily pinnable on their follow-up? I don't really find myself as interested in interrogating as I did the last time. I'll nod, acknowledge that it had some nebulous good influence on indie that I don't have the experience to figure, and say that there's quite a few moments and a couple of songs on here that I enjoy, but I can't do much more than that. It's a "minimum 3 and no lower" in my eyes.

"The Pretenders" was a name I'd already known, but when it popped up, I couldn't figure out why for the life of me. I knew they were an important band for **some** reason... It just alluded me at the moment. Or maybe I never knew, I'unno. Well, after listening to the album, I can tell you the exact reason: these are just real good tunes. It's not any more complicated than that. Although, I will say in agreement with Robbi Miller (from SOUNDS): yeah, the second side's better than the first. I listened to the first side while I was taking a walk, and, sure, I could hear **something** in there, but overall nothing really struck me. I can't even think of a specific song to bring up as an example. Listening to the second side hours later, however, after taking a second to warm up to it... Damn, goodness. "Brass In Pocket" and "Lovers Of Today"? Absolutely incredible, both of them. Listening to this album was worth it alone for discovering those two. **Especially** the last minute or so of "Lovers Of Today", I swear. For most of the day I was feeling a pretty decent 3, but after taking in the second side, yeah, I'll give it a 4. I've been made happy enough to be generous and do that.

SKA. I LOVE SKA. Seriously, at the moment I'm writing this, I can't think of another genre that makes me as happy as ska does. I'm such an unironic fan of the stuff—so why have I never heard Fishbone before today? I'unno. I suppose it's just a case where I already have albums lodged away as "my ska albums" (LET'S FACE IT by The Mighty Mighty Bosstones and TURN THE RADIO OFF by Reel Big Fish), and given how much else I listen to as it is, I just don't have the want or time to find more. But dammit, I'm a fool. This Fishbone album, sonically, is everything I want from ska. It's damn near perfect—or maybe it just is, flat out. And, frankly, I should be giving Fishbone the respect they deserve, given how hard those previous bands I mentioned knocked their style. So, here I present it now: thank you, Fishbone. Not just for paving the way for stuff like "Sell Out", but for being the first among those mentioned here to make kickass music. (Seriously, though. You shoulda seen the smile on my face and felt the happiness in my heart. Gawd**DAMN**, I love ska!)

Y'know, I've actually heard this album. Yeah, I know this kind of album isn't exactly in my normal wheelhouse, it's true. I heard it one time, years and years ago—I'd wager at least six or seven of the buggers. I believe I was tryna start listening to the entire 2012 Rolling Stone 500 list, and this was the only album I heard before I got distracted and forgot, but it's been so long, and with a memory like mine, I can't really say for sure. I'll say this much: I remember exactly as much about it from hearing it six or seven years ago as I do from hearing it an hour ago. Like, I'unno. Maybe I was just in the wrong headspace when I put it on, but it kinda just washed over me. Perfectly pleasant, except for some, like... Dips into jazz, I think? They were out of place and I didn't like them, whatever they were. But other than that, I remember better the fact that this guy made a shitty anti-COVID restrictions song with Eric Clapton than a single second from this, his most acclaimed album. Honestly, I just can't bring myself to care. Still, I'm willing to be generous and give this thing a 3, because even how forgettable it was, I don't think I disliked enough about it to go full-on with a 2. It's teetering, though, believe me. Sorry, Van. Y'jus' ain't "the man" to me.

Well, I figured it had to happen eventually. Here it is, what I considered to be the wall of my group's walls before I had the displeasure of discovering that Ella Fitzgerald album: 69 LOVE SONGS. A nearly three-hour triple album consisting of... Well, just as the album's title says, with 23 of these suckers a disc. It's a tall order to ask, and there's not any way to cheat like there was with the Ella Fitzgerald album and its decades-later "best of" compilation. Hell, a lot of people in my group were talking about taking the album one disc a day at a time. And that's probably the most sensible solution here. Me, though? I decided, "Aw, fuggit. I'll get this album all out of the way now." And thus, I broke these nearly-three hours into twelve chunks (following the six 10" disc vinyl release) and listened to them across how-many hours. My goal, then, was simple: treat this thing like Prince's EMANCIPATION and try to find a good single album in this mess. Which kind of defeats the point of why this thing was made, but I doubt I'm ever gonna come back to the whole package, so... How did I fair? To begin with, lemme speak generally about this album: I actually like quite a fair bit of it. Yeah, a lot of songs on here remind me of They Might Be Giants or Sparks, with some of the weird angles it takes love songs at. As well, the woman who sings sometimes sounds like she comes direct from Chumbawamba, and I love the woman who sings in **that band** a lot, so that's another thumbs up from me. Reminding me of any of those bands is a big "plus" in my book. I wanna credit the TMBG and Sparks comparison, too, for why I ended up paying so much attention to the lyrics. Like, as I've stated so many times in my reviews, I'm "melody first, lyrics second," so if you've made music where I can actually pay attention to the lyrics... Jus', wow, million points in your favor. And I'd forgotten how much a song's melody can be improved by some good lyrics, 'cuz there's some songs on here I found legit beautiful. Pretty, at least. Like, goodness, it's sure been worthwhile for me to dig in. But let's narrow in on that. "Digging in." Unavoidably and obviously, the biggest problem with this album is that there's too much album. If you're willing to take the time to sift through it, you're bound to come out with a lot of material you like. But that's a tall, tall order to ask anyone, to sit through 69 songs and nearly three hours to find the smaller album within. It's why I haven't actually done this sort of thing yet with Prince's EMANCIPATION, even as much as I want to. Like, even accepting this thing's concept, I shouldn't **have** to play album editor, y'know? Sure, I can find it fun, but it's not something you should be asking of everyone. And especially if you listen to this whole thing in one straight shot instead of breaking it up into chunks like me... Like, even before I started playing this album I didn't agree with the 1/5 reviews I saw, but I can't act like I don't know where they come from. It's very easy for the ambition you'd hafta have to make something like this to be mistaken for complete and unashamed ego. Or maybe it's the other way around–who knows? For my money, though... Aw, hell, even if I know I'm never gonna listen to this thing in full ever again, I'll slap this thing with a 5. Not every song on here is perfect or even all that special (which would be a miracle if they were given there's 69 here), but way too many of them appealed to me specifically to really mind those lesser ones too much. Besides, this thing's such a unique experience. There's only maybe two or three albums I can think of that could provide something like this, and I doubt any of them would be as enjoyable or live up to this thing's level of consistency and quality material. I'm completely sympathetic for anyone who'd hate this thing, but, hey: at least the songs on here weren't all soul-drainingly similar like that Ella Fitzgerald album was. Seriously, goodness, now **that's** a slog... Now, about that "single good album" I said I'd whittle this thing down into... Well, unfortunately, it'd require a bit more time than I really had today. I will probably make one down the line, certainly—I didn't put all this effort into consideration for nothing—but for this review, allow me to close things out with my two favorite songs from each chunk. The "24 Song Loves," if you will. I'unno. (Also, apparently Daniel Hader, aka Lemony Snicket, played on this thing? I literally didn't find that out until the last few seconds of the last song. Well, I'll be damned.) A: "I Don't Believe In The Sun"; "All My Little Words" B: "Let's Pretend We're Bunny Rabbits"; "The Book Of Love" C: "Fido, Your Leash Is Too Long"; "The One You Really Love" D: "Nothing Matters When We're Dancing"; "Sweet-Lovin' Man" ==(23)== E: "Grand Canyon"; "No One Will Ever Love You" F: "(Crazy For You But) Not That Crazy)"; "Promises Of Eternity" G: "Washington, D.C."; "Papa Was A Rodeo" H: "Epitaph For My Heart"; "The Way You Say Good-Night" ==(46)== I: "Busby Berkeley Dreams"; "I'm Sorry I Love You" J: "The Death Of Ferdinand De Saussure"; "Wi' Nae Wee Balm We'll Me Beget" K: "Queen Of The Savages"; "Blue You" L: "How To Say Goodbye"; "The Night You Can't Remember" ==(69)==

Y'know, I like this album quite a fair bit—I think it'd be weird if I liked Weird Al's pastiche of this album and not the album itself—but I'm not as gaga for it as I know the others in my group are. Sure, I like a lot and appreciate how it meshes together all of these harsh elements and melodies and makes it sound seamless, but it all comes down to that ever-so-intangible and unexplainable "X factor." Simply, industrial rock isn't my thing, and I didn't hear anything on here that made me wanna explore more. Johnny Cash's cover of "Hurt" is more up my alley, y'know. Still, I don't feel I can give this thing less than a 4; it's just that well put together. Still gonna bring down my group's average, but, hey, not as bad as I could have.

Y'know, I can understand why people would prefer the simplicity of PINK MOON to this. If the arrangements don't go off 100%, well... It kind of undermines the lyrics, doesn't it? And if you're already not feeling them—woof. I mean, heck, I can tell you I wasn't feeling the flute on the instrumental title track. But lucky for me, I actually found a lot of this album to be incredibly pretty. "Fly" in particular was gorgeous, goodness. I read that the arranger's goal with this album was to try and evoke PET SOUNDS, and, well, I say 'e got real damn close. Not to mention, Nick Drake's guitar playing is as amazing as always, so... Yeah, I'unno. I'm feelin' happy enough about this whole thing to give it the 5 I didn't give PINK MOON. (Although, I mean, given what I hear about the lyrics, feelin' happy might not... But whatever.)

Y'know, I don't believe this album should be here. And it's actually not because of what I think about its musical content—I'll get there in a moment—but more its recency. Which, yes, I know, I'm not the first one to bring it up in the reviews on this website. I'm sure one of the top five rated reviews brings it up, or more; I don't feel like checking right now. Regardless, I stand pretty firm in my idea that albums under five years old should be disqualified from lists like this. Simply put, we've had no chance to see if they stand the test of time. Like, in thirty years, we could be looking back on this album as a complete wreck, if we even remember it at all. Of course, all the same, we could be praising it as the modern SGT. PEPPER'S or PET SOUNDS, but, goodness, give it a chance to stew for a second first. This album was only six months old when it got added to the book—in human terms, it probably couldn't even crawl yet. And as I write this, it's currently three-and-a-half years old—still probably shaking on its legs a little. Now, here's the thing: I'd maybe be willing to forgive all of that. I don't normally like talking about what should or shouldn't be in this book, 'cuz more often than not it's irrelevant to my reviews. I'm not here to talk about something's inclusion; I'm here to talk about the music. So, if you catch me bringing it up... Woof. Yeah, I'm sorry to the people in my group who were excited to hear this album; this thing's boring as shit. Like, I always had this assumption in mind that I wouldn't like Lana Del Ray, and finally actually hearing her for myself, yeah, I was right. I mean, maybe her other albums are better, but as an introduction, I don't think the randomizer could've picked a worse one. It sounds like so many other random pop songs I've stumbled across, with its cooing, baby vocals that I don't think she can really pull off, and all these atmospheric "vibes" instrumentals that nearly put me to sleep. And after, like, the first two tracks they all sounded the same to me. I only remember "White Dress" 'cuz of this bad vocal inflection she does, and because she tries to fit way too many words into one of the lines, and the title track... Well, I'm already forgetting it as I write this, so... Like, she really wants to call this shit "wild at heart?" This is as wild as room temperature milk. And it's not like I dislike modern music, either. That's an assumption I feel like I'd have, but there's a fair number of new albums, of new material, that aren't even five years old that I can safely say I love. Coheed And Cambria's VAXIS II, BABYMETAL's THE OTHER ONE, Gorillaz' CRACKER ISLAND... Hell, The Weeknd's DAWN FM, to bring up an artist who's popular in the mainstream. It's just that this sound is **extremely** not for me. People who're into this artsier sort of stuff... Sure. All this "art deco chamber pop nostalgia vibes" stuff. And I'm not even against vibes, but... Blurgh. I wanna give this thing a 2 just because I feel like a 1's too harsh. Like, that's the rating I reserve for shit like Kid Rock, or for convicted child rapists who make boring rhumba music for cruise line ads. Hell, I probably shouldn't have even given Limp Bizkit or MAXINQUAYE a 1. Like, this album's worst crime, speaking about its music, is that it bores me pretty badly. I'm sure if I knew more about Lana Del Ray's politics I could see how it influences my view of her art and **maybe** justify lowering the score, but honestly, I'd rather not. Like, honestly, the worst thing I can say about it is just what I started this review with: I don't think this album should be here. And as much as I'd like to say it's more for reasons of recency than for subjective reasons of "quality"—being 100, there's a good chance it's not.

I wanna put aside any debates about how much of this album was recorded live or in the studio. If I can still consider CHEAP THRILLS a live album despite how much I know for a fact was done in the studio, then to me this is 100% a live album. A pretty fun one at that, too. I mean, Thin Lizzy just rocks hard. There's really nothing more complicated to them or this album than that. And being as much of a sucker for dad rock as I can be sometimes... If Thin Lizzy is even normally considered dad rock, but that's besides the point. I enjoyed myself listening to this, and at the end of the day, that's all I ever wanted from it.

Maybe my problem's just that I've heard Nirvana and NEVERMIND too much. That's not to imply right out the gate that I disliked TEN; far from it. For as dark as it can and does get lyrically, this thing rocks to hell and back. Goodness, "alive" is downright anthemic despite what it's **actually** about. Then there's Vedder's voice. I know, especially from a lot of the reviews I skimmed here, how much of a sticking point it can be for people. Either they've heard one too many bad imitations, or maybe they just don't like it... For my money, however, I can't imagine these songs without it. Vedder's voice, even after all of the copycats, is still unique, and it's damned **impassioned** as he sings. In short: yes, I like it. So what's with that sentence at the top, then? The heck do I mean by that? Very basically, it's just that for much as I accept it as one of **the** defining albums of the grunge and alt rock movement of the 90's... I'unno, it just doesn't sound very grunge to me? Alt rock, for sure, but when it comes to grunge, NEVERMIND has always been my benchmark. "In Bloom", "Come As You Are", "Breed", "Territorial Pissing"... **That's** grunge to me. Maybe it's because Nirvana takes so many cues from punk, whereas Pearl Jam, as I've read it, sounds way more classic rock. And maybe if I'd spent years listening to TEN I'd feel the opposite way. Either way, ultimately, despite the fact that the sentiment's my opening sentence, it doesn't really matter too much to me. Both albums are incredible, front to back. I don't think grunge could've gotten two better albums to get launched by. And for me, it's the fact that it lives up to its reputation that bumps it up that extra point from a 4 to a 5. S'only fair if I've also given NEVERMIND a 5.

As a melody-first music listener, lemme say up top that the beats are pretty fresh. Fly, funky, phat... Whatever word you wanna use. On that front, it gets a pretty good rating from me. As late-80's beats, anyway. You compare this to where the rest of the 90's went, and, woo, no competition here. But considering this is a late-80's record, really, yeah, it does good. Now, speaking about LL as a rhymer and a flower... Mm. Honestly, to me he's got a voice where, like... I don't feel like I hafta take him too seriously? Besides the title track, it often sounds to me like a typical "party jam rapper" voice. Y'know what I mean? I'unno, I hear him and I think of Young MC. Like, I'm not saying it's unenjoyable, or that some of the rhymes can't be good (even putting aside some of the ones that've, well, "not aged well"), it's just... I kinda feel like I'm missing something. 'Cuz it's not bad; it's a 3 at minimum. I just don't know if I'd say it's one of the 50 best rap albums of all time. In short: I can't say he knocked me out.

Yep, that's 60's music alright. ... What else do you want me to say here? What else **can** I say? Like, sure, I guess it can be kinda pretty in a few spots (the title track is the best song here), but otherwise it's just... So blandly fine. I don't wanna go so far as to call it "generic," but there's really nothing here as far as I can tell. White-ass, lightly psychedelic "soul" with a cover drawn by a 6-year old. It's pleasant enough, and I don't feel mean enough to give it a 2, but goodness, if there ain't a billion other 60's albums I'd've rather spent my time with than this.

Right from the words "indie folk," I'll admit, I was a little worried. See, I tend to have this association in my mind between it and, like, insufferably pompous and hipster twee shit. The kind of stuff contemporary critics will just eat up for one reason or another, but for everyone else it's just a nuisance. Now, of course I went into this project with hopes that that line of thought would be proven wrong. I'm not **that** cynical. I just... Had some doubts otherwise. After listening to it, on the one hand, I can hear where I was coming from. "Lookit us with our flannel and our mountain-man beards–aren't we so **cute**?" That sort of sound. If someone upchucked hearing this music, I'd completely get it. However, looking at the other hand, I gotta admit: I'm happy my doubts were largely proven wrong. I tolerated it way better than I thought I would–heck, I wouldn't even say I "tolerated" it. I actually liked it quite a fair bit, thanks largely to this kind of "beautifully dreamy" atmosphere it has. It reminds me a lot of The Beach Boys' PET SOUNDS. I jus' kinda sank into it, and, well, while I never had that same feeling of "Damn, this is the greatest music of all time" I have with PET SOUNDS, it was just so nice to float along this thing's current. It's not too dissimilar to what I get out of some of my favorite dream pop songs. So, yeah, I gotta hand it to Fleet Foxes. I went into this album expecting it to be a "3 at **best**" deal, but listening to it here in the dark as I write this review... Goodness, no, I may just hafta give this thing a 5. It just hits such a wonderfully good mood for me. I can't say "no" to it. And I guess I should take back what I said about their beards, too. Not the flannel, though. Flannel's a bit much. Like, I'm sorry; I know it fits your aesthetic and all, but that's just how it is.

This album sounds like it was recorded in a sort of cramped space with only one, low-quality microphone. And I only assume it was a cramped space because I hafta assume the saxophone player was placed right next to the microphone the way it blasts over everything every time it appears. But, I'unno, it adds to the charm. This whole "garage proto-punk" thing they got. I mean, I feel like it tends to play out better when they're doing their few originals over the covers—which is a bit of a shame given that the album's 1:2 originals to covers. Like, even with their ramshackle recording, the covers just don't sound too terribly special to me? Honestly, in some parts it sounds like the parodies of garage rock Frank Zappa would have The Mothers do. And, yeah, it does feel like at least 25% of the words spoken on this album are just the lead singer going "WWWWWOOOOOAAAAAAAAWWWWW!!" But I still think I can nod at it as a good enough time to give it a 4. I can understand an argument for why it could go lower—that it's just noise that later bands would refine into less noise—but I'unno. Here are The Sonics, and here I am pretty satisfied.

My first time listening to this album, I didn't get it. Like, sure, I thought it was... Fine, I guess, but in a really underwhelming sort of way. I just couldn't figure out what was supposed to be so notable about it. That changed once I read Stephen Thomas Erlewine's review on AllMusic and I realized: this thing's largely acoustic. There's one electric guitar that comes in every now and then, but otherwise, it's largely driven acoustically. I could go so far as to call it folk, even. In that light, it's actually kind of amazing how hard this thing rocks, all without a hint of fuzz or distortion. Just Rod singing the hell out of these songs and the band playin' similarly. Color me impressed, I gotta say. It's enough to make me feel justified giving this thing a 4. Good job, Rod. I just hope your next album is more immediately understandable.

I'll admit, I cheated a little on this album. Before I even heard it, I went and watched an old video about it by Polyphonic. So, no, I didn't hear this thing with clean, unaware ears. But honestly, I'm glad I did, because knowing ahead of time what this album's deal was allowed me to appreciate it a lot more. Like, it is just damn impressive that these guys play in so many unusual time signatures (9/8, 3/4, 5/4) and yet it's still an album you can throw on at a dinner party. Most people would use that fact as an insult, but I really like that its rhythmic complexities don't get in the way of it being a great listen. You can enjoy it either as a super-intense jazz listener, or just casually. It's not at all what I expected from a famously "complex" jazz album. Although, it's not like this is THE SHAPE OF JAZZ TO COME or anything; don't let me get too ahead of myself here. Plus, most of the songs end up being in 3/4 "waltz time" anyway, so... Still, I'm perfectly happy giving this thing a 5. It's just stellar playing and great jazz melodies all around, with an added layer to keep it interesting beyond that. And once more, shout outs to Polyphonic for explaining that layer to a dummy like me.

Puttung aside a lot of what I could say about Courtney as a person, sympathetically or negatively—hot damn, now this is the kind of angry punk grunge I dig the shit out of. Those rockin' guitars, those crashin' drums, and goodness **me**, when Courtney Love's voice gets that "yelling strain" on it... I'm all for it; I'm all over it. Like, I can't remember exactly how CELEBRITY SKIN sounded, though I can tell you for sure that this has gotten me more into Hole than that album did. Jus', goodness, it's amazing this thing came out as good as it did despite everything that happened around it, both before **and** after. (And to be clear, of course this album isn't 100% wall-to-wall loud and angry grunge guitars. It gets softer musically every now and then, and I like those moments a lot as well. They keep this album up at the 5 where the louder songs put it. I'm just being honest about what I'm probably gonna remember this album for, and it's gonna be for the louder, angrier songs.)

Post-punk has never been a friend of mine. Check my profile—no matter when, you're probably bound to see that it's my worst rated genre. Any time the randomizer gives us an album that's classified as one, unless I already know it, I tend to groan. You can probably blame METAL BOX for that. Even though I have given good reviews to albums labeled as "post-punk," I still come back to METAL BOX as **the** sound for me of the genre. Which is to say: artsy nonsense. Throwing together every dull, irritating anti-music idea you have and acting like we're supposed to be impressed because it's "anti-commercial." It was the first album I ever gave a 2, and since then, I've never felt like being too kind to the genre. Shit like DUB HOUSING didn't help. So, what about Killing Joke, then? How do they stack up against METAL BOX? Do they break the mold? I'm happy to say that, yes, they do. This whole albums fairs a **lot** better than METAL BOX and I dig these songs a lot—hell, I'll even say they "bang." "Rip?" Whatever word the kids these days use (I'm in my late 20's). They groove in just the right way for me, I like the guitar riffs and rhythms, I **love** whenever the keys come in... And I can totally see the complaint that some of these songs maybe run a little long, but it didn't bother me. Heck, I kinda liked getting a little lost in them. They rock so hard, I don't even care. This is just really good, heavy punk shit. No wonder bands like Metallica took inspiration from them. And to narrow in my invocation of Metallica... Yeah, it's not just because they covered "The Wait". Moreso, they're the umbrella I feel like putting it under over post-punk: that is, heavy music adjacent to metal and grunge. And heck, that sort of logic follows through to the albums I mentioned I'd given 4's. They were by DEVO, Talking Heads and Television, and I'd consider them all more New Wave or just straight rock than post-punk. So, perhaps that's really why I have a problem with the genre, truly: I keep finding reasons to separate out the stuff I like, leaving me to think of it as just pretentious crap. Hell, even this album, chances are good I'd refer to it as "industrial rock" to people before "post-punk." And that's not fair to post-punk, I realize—assuming it even is anything beyond an arbitrary label, but let's not get into that. Instead, I'll say this much: KILLING JOKE is the best post-punk album I've heard yet. It appeals so directly to my love of heavy music, and I think it bangs hard. If you like bands like Metallica or Nirvana, it's worth giving these guys a shot. And I can only hope that moving forward, albums like this can become the rule for my image of post-punk rather than the exception.

Listening to today's album, I ended up playing both the mono and stereo mixes of the first side. Basically, there was some small talk in the group about the general difference between the two kinds, and I figured it'd only be right to give them each a shot. In short: they're both fine. Generally for albums released in the 1960s, I tend towards the mono mixes, since the ones in stereo were usually an afterthought, but they both do the job fine. I understand the remark from one of my colleagues that the mono mix is a bit muddy, but, personally, it sounded just fine to me. Kinda made the songs sound a bit more powerful, honestly. And boy howdy, I'm glad I got so familiar with side one, 'cuz that shit's great. Amazing psychedelia that rocks like hell, front to nearly the back. My group hasn't gotten far enough in the list yet to be sick of 60's psychedelia, and I'm glad we aren't, 'cuz I'd've hated to throw this aside just because we got a bunch of mediocre ones. And this stuff's actually not even just psychedelia; there's a whole lot of garage rock and even some proto-punk tones in here, which is for sure probably why I like it so much. Like, seriously, draw some attention to "Son Of A Baker" and the guitar thing it has going on there. Goodness! There's only one song I wasn't all for, "Lazy Sunday" (it's nearly a bit too cheeky for my tastes), but regardless, I feel like I could give this whole album a 5 just for this first side alone. But then there's the second, and... Look, I like a bit of narrative in my stories. I love concept albums and even a bit of musical theater. And, heck, even the songs on this side are pretty good. Nothing **quite** on the level of the first, but nothing that'd drop the album down a point (and even still, I'd put it back up just for some of its organ sounds). It's—wuff, it's just the narration. It's just... Dumb. With all of its made-up British words, sounding like it's meant to be read to young lil' lads n' lassies. And, I mean, I regularly engage with young peoples' media, but this sounds like it's for **young** people. Kindergarteners or preschoolers, really. I mean, I'll put it like this: I have a lot of love and respect for BLUE'S CLUES as **the** show of shows I watched growing up, but even on my most nostalgic days, I don't think I'd go out of my way to rewatch any of it. (I **am** an **adult**, after all—I watched THE IRISHMAN and nearly fell asleep!) I'd be a real dummy to mark this album just for a little bit of narration on the second side, though. In the grand scheme of the record, it's more a nitpick than anything else. The music here is still incredibly stellar. Like I said, my group luckily hasn't gone too far that this would be lost in the shuffle aside a billion "Who gives a shit?" albums from this decade, although I still wanna believe even if we were, I'd still be able to recognize this material as stand out. At the very least, it's the best album I've ever heard packaged in a metal tin—yeah, that's right, PIL's catching another stray. How about that, eh? Now **that's** nut-gone, innit?

Y'know, I'm really glad that there's another blur album on this list, and not just because I enjoyed the last one of theirs I heard as much as I did. No, I'm glad I have a second chance to review them, after my first was some Letterboxd/Stan Twitter-type nonsense that amounted to "hurr, Gorillaz, am I right?" These days I kinda really hate that style of "review," so it's nice to have an opportunity to say something more. Though, to be 100% to start: I still kinda just hear 2D whenever Albarn sings. Like, yeah, I know, that's just how he sings, but you spend as long listening to PLASTIC BEACH as I have, it's hard to hear anything else. That said, I really do like that voice in this musical context, all rock-y and pop-y and... British. Come to think of it, maybe I just like Albarn's voice in general, or at least the beds of music he chooses to place it in. And let's talk about that music by switching lenses, from Gorillaz comparisons to Oasis ones. For the longest time, I'd always tended to listen to Oasis more because of--well, to be blunt, their Beatles-ness. As much as that's an insult hurled against them, it **is** why, alongside the general hugeness they aim for, I'm more likely to put one of their songs. The fact that general Western pop culture is aware of more Oasis songs than just one like blur doesn't help. But actually putting on blur, honestly, they interest me way more. I feel like they're more keen to experiment than Oasis is, who, meanwhile, tend to stick in their Beatles-inspired wheelhouse (from what I've heard, anyway). It's something I can hear clearly carried over to Gorillaz and their tendency to play genre roulette. Of course, blur still fits pretty nicely into "Britpop" (and they're **very** "Brit", goodness), but I really enjoy their willingness to try other tones, textures and soundscapes. Of course, that experimentation (not to mention, again, the Brit-ness of it all) is probably why Oasis won the "Britpop wars" over on this side of the pond, and why Albarn didn't really get his time to shine until he put himself behind cartoons. That's really a shame. Don't get me wrong, "Song 2" is great, but I kinda wish a few more blur songs had become hits. Wha'cha gonna do, though, eh? In all... Y'know, from what I remember, I believe I gave PARKLIFE a 4. I liked that album a lot, but I think what kept me from pushing it over into a 5 was... Like, I think you got the sound of this album pretty early on, and I don't recall very many exceptions or deviations except for a few. PLus, if you care about lyrics but you're not a Brit at that specific point in the 90's, you may as well not bother with 'em. Lucky for me, I don't tend to, and this album has way more sonic variation than PARKLIFE. So, yeah, I'll happily give this one a 5. Makes me feel pretty "heavy metal," as one might say. "Woo-hoo," indeed.

This album's two sides are labeled as such: "Hard Rock Cafe" (that's the first five or six tracks, depending on if "Blue Sunday" is separated or not) and "Morrison Hotel" (the rest, from "Land Ho!" on). "Hard Rock Cafe" is the "blues" half of the album. Now, I was ready to write off this half because The Doors have always been a psychedelic rock band in my mind's ear. So, this whole "return to roots" blues thing... I didn't think I'd be too much for it, but y'know what? It's good stuff. I won't say I'm amazed by it, but there's some pretty good stuff here. Well, aside from the opener "Roadhouse Blues", anyway. I'unno, for some reason it didn't do anything for me, either time I heard it. Maybe it's just too generically "60's blues rock?" I dug everything else, though. "Peace Frog" is a bit of the Doors sound I come from, and "You Make Me Real" is a rollicking piece of garage blues. "Waiting For The Sun" is a pretty neat stand-out, too. I'd give it a 4 in total. As for the second half, "Morrison Hotel" (the psych half)... Y'know, this is the half you'd expect I like more. It's the sound I come to expect from the band, after all. But then, the sound I expect comes from their hit singles and Weird Al's pastiche. "Light My Fire", "Love Me Two Times", "Riders On The Storm"... Heck, even "Touch Me", from the album whose negative reception was the whole reason this album, and side one in particular, was made. That kind of fun psychedelia, or at least atmospherically ethereal enough. And "Land Ho!" is the former for me; I'll point that one out as a favorite. But everything after that... I'unno; I'd be hard pressed to remember anything specific from them. I suppose "Indian Summer" comes closest to the "ethereal" point, and my lack of ability to pay attention could be more general and blamed on a tiredness I've been feeling all day, but I'll say it again: I'unno. I didn't hate any of it, so it's worth a 3 at least, but I think this side could've stood to be a bit more... More. Balance the two sides out, it's a 3.5, which... Mm, honestly, I'd bump down to a 3. Even as much as I liked the first side and "Land Ho!", looking at the whole package... I don't think it would've been my first pick for my group's first The Doors album.

Y'know, I can't say I really dug this album the first couple of times I heard it. I'unno, putting in contrast against the two Bowie had released before this—HUNKY DORY and gawddam **ZIGGY STARDUST**—mixed with the fact that, for some reason, I just couldn't get a handle on it... That's why, at the same time, I was both looking forward to giving this thing a second chance and worrying I still wouldn't find anything to speak about. So, I wanna thank this four-star review of the album I found on this website that said, simply, "Elton John if he was edgy." And it all clicked. Like, this is glam. This is heavy glam rock—why didn't I hear that before? Holy shit, it's heavy glam, and it's **so good**. All the heavy guitars and the melodies and the horns and the background singers and... Well, the everything. And there's so much everything, goodness. And I wanted to say it didn't have the same sense of theatrical greatness that the last two albums had, but then "Time" happened and shut me right up. If I can reference another review, a negative one this time: it **does** sound like a rock opera. And that, on top of the glam, is why I feel so happy giving this thing a complete 5/5. Which kind of feels strange? I mean, check my history; I didn't even give HUNKY DORY a 5, and I said that was my favorite Bowie album. So, is this my favorite now? I mean, for as great as I've found ALADDIN SANE to be, it doesn't have "Changes", "Oh! You Pretty Things", "Queen Bitch", or "Life On Mars?". I'm not sure if any individual song on here quite matches up, so for that reason alone, I'll keep saying HUNKY DORY's my favorite Bowie album. But as a complete album experience, until I get to hear ZIGGY STARDUST again, ALADDIN SANE will hafta be happy with second place.

(THE REVIEW BEGINS... NOW.) Alongside its older sibling THE SOFT BULLETIN, YOSHIMI BATTLES THE PINK ROBOTS sets my benchmark for dream pop. And believe you me—that's a pretty high bar. A collection of eleven beautiful songs about life and love, all leading up to "Do You Realize??", perhaps the most poignant song I've ever heard about accepting the fact that you will die and making the most out of life while you have it instead. It's another one of those albums where I wanna have more to say about it, but it's wedged itself so deeply in my person that I struggle to really come up with the words. I mean, I guess the album kind of dips a little between the second part of the title track and "Do You Realize??", though ultimately it's a dip from a perfect 10 to a 9.5, and either way it rounds up. Now, if you'll excuse me, I hafta go beg the randomizer to give my group THE SOFT BULLETIN as soon as possible. (THE REVIEW IS OVER... NOW.)

These days, my opinion of the Sex Pistols runs a lot more negative than they used to. The fact they're a punk rock boy band. The mere existence of "Bodies". The idea, which I subscribe to, that it's their fault the Dead Kennedys eventually had to write "Nazi Punks Fuck Off". And I'm not even gonna get into what Mr. Rotten's been up to recently--let's just leave it at "I'm disappointed." But like I've said many times before, I review music, not people. I hate Kanye, but I've given his albums positive scores. The people in my group know this well enough, so I won't dwell on it. I will briefly mention "Bodies", though. An anti-abortion song? Ew! No! As much as I'd wanna pretend I don't let my politics get in the way of my enjoying things--THE INCREDIBLES, for instance, is **incredibly Randian**, but it's still one of the best Pixar films ever made--but sometimes, I just have to put my foot down. This is one of those times, and honestly, I didn't even listen to it this time around. OK, OK, OK. All of that stuff talking about politics is out of the way. Let's actually get to the damn music on this thing. Which--it's sort of weird to not wanna talk about its politics, honestly. Part of the reason why it's famous, or infamous, is for how shocking songs like "God Save The Queen" and "Anarchy In The U.K." were at the time. I mean, calling the monarchy a "fascist regime?" Oh, my monocle! Hell, even the fact that the cover used the word "bollocks" was controversial. And maybe it still is, who knows? Of course, it's 2024 right now. The only thing shocking about the Sex Pistols is the general fact that way too many punk rockers have turned hard conservative. So, finally, finally, lemme finally get off this kick and actually talk about the gawddamn music like I said I was going to ten minutes ago. Frankly, there's a part of my brain that's still 13 or 14, that still likes this music as much as I did back then because it's loud and bashy, with some snotty British voice shouting over it. Surely, I may have been vaguely aware of what these songs were about, but I couldn't tell you exactly what. There were just a lot of parts I liked to shout along to, or imitate to myself, even when I wasn't listening to the music. Although much of my opinion about the band and its members has changed and evolved over the years, I think I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy my time with the music. That said, however, now that I have way more experience with punk than I used to--your Clashes, your Green Days, your Bad Religions, your Ramoneses--this album jus' feels... I'unno, maybe a little too simple? I mean, yeah, it's punk, and given the skill level of some of the band members... Plus, y'know, it **is** basically the grandfather of punk, so it can be cut **some** slack. I'm just left thinking about what other bands would do with this style in the future, and... Well, I don't think it's any surprise that these days I mostly engage with the Sex Pistols via covers of "God Save The Queen" and "Anarchy In The U.K.". Check out Motörhead's cover of the former, by the way; Lemmy does it great. All in all... I think when it came to Sex Pistols, I think they were more concerned about being shocking to the establishment of the time than anything else. Sure, they managed to bang out a couple of good tunes, and ("Bodies" aside) I won't say this is a bad album. Like, clearly it still resonates with people enough that it made a top 100 placement on the 2020 Rolling Stone 500. Goodness, Kurt Cobain even claimed that they were more important than The Clash--y'know, "the only band that matters," as they were dubbed. For my money, however... I guess I'm at a 3? More specifically, a 3.5, but I just can't bring myself to round it up. It's fine for what it is, and I'll never be able to say I don't enjoy it, but there's been so much better punk music since. (I mean, this ain't worth much, but I'll take it over PIL anyway. Yeah, that's another shot at METAL BOX fer yah. Truly, the worst thing I could say about Mr. Rotten these days.)

And right after I'd given KILLING JOKE 5 stars, too. Like, I was pretty hopeful, honestly, that after that point I would actually start to hear more in post-punk. Like, I don't **want** to hate it; I don't wanna hate **any music**. There just has to be **something** there that I'm just missing. Then this album waltzed in. And maybe I'm not missing anything. Maybe I just don't like post-punk. I'll give this album one thing: it doesn't have any of the apparent dub influence that's colored so many other post-punk albums. At least The Fall left that style out of this. The rest, though... I mean, it really felt like a lot of these were written in the studio. As if one of them just started playing a riff that everyone else liked and they just went off on it, expecting to be able to pull a fully-formed song out of thin air. Unsurprisingly, they don't, and these songs often sound like they're just going around in circles trying and failing to find a point. It's not even a cool moment when the riff comes back in; it's like they're just returning to the only concrete part of the song they have. The mixing's ass, too. I hardly comment on mixing, and I know this is still punk, even if it has the "post-" prefix, but I'm sorry, this is bad. And if **I'm** noticing how bad it is...! Like, goodness me, you guys couldn't have even found a bigger closet to record in? You really had to stick the drummer in another room? And, jeez, at least get a mic that can produce a sound better than "1920's radio." Oh, sure. Maybe if I had more of an appreciation for abstract art, maybe I'd understand and like this better. That's how James Murphy of LCD Soundsystem came to love this album. And I'm not gonna say every riff here is that bad. But... Jeez. It's not as abrasive as METAL BOX was, but I don't think I've disliked a post-punk album this much since METAL BOX. And at least METAL BOX did have some nice songs, as rare as they were. About the "abstract art" thing, too. I don't wanna let this get away with being a mess just because it's "artsy." That's an excuse, not a reason, like Tommy Wiseau claiming THE ROOM was always a black comedy. Like, yes, it's art; I'm not saying it's not. But all music is art, good or bad. And this is bad. Honestly, maybe the only good thing that came out of this album's apparent success was that it led to Mark E. Smith featuring on a Gorillaz song. "Sch-tick?" yeah. Not my kind of schtick. I'll pass, thank you. And maybe--unfortunately--I'll remember not to get my hopes so high about any post-punk albums my group gets in the future.

I don't ask for much from jazz. What I mean is, I'm not a scholar. I can't tell you tit from tat about modal jazz, or about how exactly anyone here is playing. If I tried, I bet I'd come across as a huge poser. At best, I'd just be repeating something I might've heard in a Vox video. But even if I did have the ability to identify specific keys, modes and notes, I don't think I'd want to listen to jazz like that anyway. Putting it on specifically to analyze the music theory of it? Sure, I can appreciate complex playing, but I've never been one to tend towards music just because it's complex--or abstract or experimental, or however else "real, important jazz" is supposed to be impressive. I've grown up listening to pop and rock. Older stuff, mostly, but that's besides the point. As such, I generally tend more towards... Y'know, melodies. As long as I'm provided a good melody; something I can focus on or just have play in the background--and there aren't any external, non-music factors that'll discourage me from listening--I can't really complain. Now, that's not to say I'm a complete sucker; that as long as a melody's pleasing I'm perfectly pacified. There **has** to be more going on there. I mean, I can't tell you how many albums I've heard from this list that sound pleasant, but really had nothing else going for them. There needs to be a deeper layer, and that's where the complexity comes in. Even if I don't focus solely on it, just being aware that it's there really does a number for my enjoyment. The ol' "Ooo, I'm so smart" "big brain" feeling, y'know? And it's always appreciated where it's not too present; not distracting if you're not specifically listening for it. "Great players playing great melodies and solos." That's all I really ask for, in short, and that's what KIND OF BLUE provides. I mean, if I'm being 100%, I'm not sure if I'm gonna hold any specific differences between this or the other Miles Davis album my group listened to, BIRTH OF THE COOL. Like, if I ever listen to either of these again, it's probably gonna be a coin toss. In that sense, I don't think I can rate this any higher than I did BIRTH OF THE COOL--which I gave a 4, but still. Either way, this is some of the greatest work from one of the jazz men and group of jazz players to ever exist. If you're willing to not be such a jazz snob about its "simplicity," it's absolutely worth your time.

Coming into this album only knowing Satana only for "Smooth" probably gave me the... Well, not the wrong mindset coming in, but different expectations, for sure. I mean, to be clear, I'd always known that Santana existed for a **long** time before "Smooth". Hell, they'd played Woodstock--just like Country Joe! So, here we are only a year after Woodstock and 29 years before "Smooth". What do they sound like at this time? There's two I think I hafta keep in mind about this point in this history. For one, prior to their first album, they were a jam band. Even though--according to whoever wrote the Wikipedia article for their first album--they'd largely give that up for more conventional songwriting, they still kept a lot of the improvisation inherent to jam bands in there. Secondly, there's this genre tag that Wikipedia (them again) applies to this album: jazz fusion. And I think that goes a long way to explaining why this album sounds the way it does. "Smooth" had set me up for way more energy. Not so much, y'know, high tempos, horns and singing like Rob Thomas of Matchbox Twenty, but... Energy, y'know? But ABRAXAS, I find, is actually a pretty laid-back album. Sure, it can kick it up a notch when it wants to, but I'm pretty sure that when I think back on this album, I'm gonna think of the more chill tracks. The ones that rely on the groove **heavily** to carry things forward. I do like it quite a bit, lemme say. If I'd caught this at a better time, it would've been nice to just max and relax to Latin grooves. Note, though: "if I had." 'Cuz this was another one of those rare days where I finally woke up at the time I normally want to, but since my body's used to me getting up later, I spent a lot of the day being all yawny and tryna keep my eyes open... So an album like this was incredibly easy to space out on. To which--I mean, I don't think a lot of albums would be able to completely, 100% hold my attention when I get like that, but goodness me, this could've done better. And I think that's why I'm feeling a 3 on it? One that I could see myself going up to a 4 on, by the way. I recognize, the state of mind I was in today wasn't this thing's fault, and I shouldn't judge it for that. All the same, however I do think it kind of highlighted how... Nondescript I found it? I mean, I'm sure I'll come back to this in the future and find a lot more to enjoy--Carlos Santana's guitar playing, for instance. I mean, hey, if anything carried over to "Smooth" nearly three decades later, it's that he can rip a mean guitar. But at this stands... Pff, yeah. Man, it's only a warm one.

In 2003, this album won the Mercury award--essentially, it'd been deemed the best album of 2003. This was a fact I'd stumbled across way back when my group had gotten Coldplay's A RUSH OF BLOOD TO THE HEAD, where I discovered that it'd lost to this album. In fact, albums from Radiohead and The Darkness, and The Thrills' SO MUCH FOR THE CITY (which, hey, I like that album) had **all** lost to this album. This album, which--OK, I'm not British, and I was a little kid in 2003, so it's not like I would've known about this thing at its height. I can't throw the "Well, **I've** never heard of this album before" card at it. But I still hadda wonder the obvious--what **is** this thing's deal? What did British critics see in it? According to whoever wrote this album's Wikipedia page, it was its success that helped grime music gain mainstream exposure. So, hey, let's look at it like that--this is the album that brought grime to the common folk's attention. This album, more than any other, should explain the appeal of grime. And, honestly, it's because of this album I think I finally know why people don't like grime so much. In short: it can be pretty obnoxious. Every song this album is just... Loud. And kind of repetitive. I get the feeling that they were supposed to be "hype," but I don't get that feeling. I'm just... Kind of tired, honestly. And wondering, with every new song that pops up, how long it'll be 'til this album is over. Seriously, I do **not** think this thing needed to be just shy of an hour. The fact that way too many of the beats are kind of complete ass doesn't help. Seriously, the bass on some songs sounds like a bad, extended fart. Like, goodness, once I get over the novelty of this all being rapped in a Cockney accent... And, boy, don't even get me started on some of the obnoxious vocals and vocal effects sprinkled throughout this thing... What's funny to me is that this is actually the first UK rap album I can say I dislike. Like, A GRAND DON'T COME FOR FREE started out atrociously, but by the time it ended it'd actually managed to win me over. KONNICHWA, meanwhile, I think is just plain good aside from its lead single. They both had me wondering, in different ways, what UK rap and grime had done to make it so infamous to Western ears. And, well, I get it now. At least I have my own understanding of it. So, y'know, even if I'm never gonna listen it again (unless I wanna get a headache), I **am** happy I heard it, in some weird way. I wouldn't **recommend** anyone else to listen to it, but still. And, like, the only reason I'm not giving it a 1 is because... I'unno, a "1" always feels to mean unless I feel like an album **really** deserves. I figure if this album was shorter, or at least if I'd taken it in smaller doses instead of taking the brunt of it all at once, I wouldn't have been so down on it. Or maybe I would have, who knows? It's pure generosity that this thing might not actually deserve. So... Take it or leave it, I guess. (Speaking of things this album don't deserve, by the way--seriously. This album over the one with "Clocks"? Goodness me, British people have weird tastes.)

This band's history is kind of fascinating to me. Did you know that their third album was a collection of religious mass songs sung in Greek and Latin? Which, for the record, wasn't even the band's idea--Reprise Records thought a classically trained musician should arrange their third album, and then the only reason they went through with this idea was because the band's producer (who owned the rights to their name) agreed with Reprise. The recording and release of that album, by the way, went so badly that the band dissolved afterwards, and wouldn't reform until the early 2000's. Of course, that didn't stop the band's producer from releasing two more albums under their name before the 60's ended. From all the reading I did about the band's albums (and albums credited to the band), the impression I had is that they never really got control of their own sound. And that extends to this one, by the way. They'd been composing material for an album, but their producer decided to bring in two outside songwriters to compose a majority of the album: seven out of twelve. In the end, the band's two main songwriters ended up being solely responsible for only one track, "Luvin'". Before the 2000's, it seems the only time the band really got to dictate their own sound was their second album, UNDERGROUND--and even then... Hell, before the 2000's, the only Electric Prunes album written entirely by band members was JUST GOOD OLD ROCK AND ROLL, and by that point the band was just a random group of musicians their producers slapped the name on. So, that's a lot of preamble and context for this band I'd never heard of before yesterday. Again, it's all just so fascinating to me, the ups and (mostly) downs their group had. It's honestly a lot more interesting than the actual music on this album, 'cuz, like, at the end of the day, it's just 60's garage psych. It's not bad stuff, or unenjoyable, but even the band members will tell you that some of the stuff on here is filler and didn't belong. Sure, I liked the two big singles ("I Had Too Much To Dream (Last Night)" and "Get Me To The World On Time") and the two songs that the band's actual damn songwriters had a hand in ("Train For Tomorrow" and "Lovin'"). The rest, however... It's either nondescript stuff I imagine my group is gonna hear a dozen or so more times before this list's over, or "The Toonerville Trolley". And I really do hafta feel bad for any band who has to record something like that. It's like when Elvis was forced to sing "Old MacDonald". And that's really the feeling I come out of this album in general with: I just feel bad for the band. Like, not horrible, and I'm not sure how much this album would've been if they'd been allowed to use more or all of their own material (AllMusic, for instance, rated all the albums that came out later that did slightly worse than this one), but... Y'know, still, it sucks that they got jerked around so much by their producer. At the very least, I can tell you if the band had more creative control they wouldn't've had some random classical musician make them record gawddamn church music. The music on this album is fine at best, not particularly inspiring in the middle, and "The Toonerville Trolley" at worst. I wouldn't have ever seeked it out on my own, but, hey, at least I ended up having more to talk about and comment on than just their name. "The Electric Prunes"--seriously. Only in the late-ish 60's could a band get away with calling themselves something like that.

This album is Cyndi Lauper's legacy. Besides the title track from the follow-up album, TRUE COLORS, I imagine if anyone thinks about Cyndi, they're gonna think about this album--and its big hit more specifically. From the quick overview I did, it just seemed nothing else she did (besides "True Colors") could really ever compare to how big and explosive her debut was. Which I don't think is a bad thing, entirely. Like, if you're gonna have a legacy, this album is a pretty good one to have. For one, as overplayed as "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" may be... It's still "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun". It's one of the biggest and most iconic songs of the 80's, and not for no reason. It's huge, it's anthemic, and, dammit, it's just plain fun. And "fun" is the word I'd apply to the rest of this album. Sure, it's all pure bubblegum. No one's suggesting you should live off of it. Take it from someone who chews a lot of Juicy Fruit, though: it's really tasty gum. Produced in the most superbly 80's New Wave pop kinda way. Lauper sounds like she's having an absolute blast recording this thing. Add on top of that a pretty good of my favorite early Prince single... Honestly, I have a hard time thinking of any negative points I feel worth bringing up. Maybe the fact that "He's So Unusual" is hard-right panned? And then in that same ear on "Yeah Yeah" you've got this squeaky Harley Quinn voice? And "Witness" might be the weakest song? I'unno. None of that makes me want to give this album any less than a 5, anyway. It's just fun, and that's all I, a girl, want.

These days I don't really believe in "irony." To paraphrase Todd In The Shadows, hitting your hand with a hammer still hurts. Maybe back in the day I subscribed to it, 'coz I felt like I hadda justify watching things that were widely disliked. But these days, if I like something... Heck, maybe I just do. I bring that up because that's what U2 was doing here: ironic rock n' roll. After the public declared the band firmly up their own asses following the mess that was RATTLE AND HUM, the band figured the best way to get their cred back was to drop all sincerity. No more of that JOSHUA TREE Americana, no. We got twelve slices of Eno-produced irony rock for the 90's. Which ended up helping them in the long run, of course. That's what allowed U2 to survive the arrival of Nirvana and grunge that killed so many other bands--the idea that they weren't really serious about any of this. That this is all some satire of the culture, expanded especially in the accompanying tour and the album they recorded during it, ZOOROPA. However, I'm writing this review 33 years later. Irony may be coming back in vogue in some small way, but I like to think in general people're allowing themselves to be more sincere about things. So, let me be sincere about this: this is my second favorite U2 album. I mean, let's not act like the appeal of this thing was entirely just the irony. This is U2, not too long after THE JOSHUA TREE and a long ways off from ALL THAT YOU CAN'T LEAVE BEHIND. The Edge plays a great guitar. I like the way Bono's voice moves. Eno can produce like a muh-fuh. This thing's got great singles, and it's got great hooks from all of them. "Even Better Than The Real Thing", "Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses", "One", "Mysterious Ways"--oh, goodness, "Mysterious Ways". I suppose the only thing it's really missing for me, and why it's second behind THE JOSHUA TREE, is that anthemic quality. "Where The Streets Have No Name", "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For"--I just need to bring up those two and you get what I mean. It's just something they had to give up when they traded their sincerity for cred via irony. And I can't say it was a bad move. Again, irony is what helped them survive the 90's, and what allowed them to eventually crawl up their own asses again with stuff like SONGS OF SURRENDER. Besides, even if their attitudes gave the idea they weren't taking any of this rock star posturing seriously, it's very clear that they were still 100% serious about the music. They put a lot of work into these songs, and it paid off in dividends. Enough so, even, that they were able to have a residency at the stupid Las Vegas Sphere that ended just last March where they played the whole thing, front to back. If that's not some indication of this thing's legacy... Either way, I really love this album, completely and sincerely, and that's enough. Don'cha think?

Y'know, as much as I'd want to pay this group some respect by not comparing them to Talking Heads--to be judged solely on their own merits as a New Wave act, at least... I find framing my listening that way kind of unavoidable, honestly. 'Coz the only question I have going into it, really, is "What do these guys sound like when David Byrne **isn't** around?" As it turns out: "less nerdy Talking Heads." Even if it still has quite a few of those weirder edges (particularly in the back half), it's way more polished than any Talking Heads song I've heard. Heck, I'd go so far as to call them a bit more mainstream--and I don't mean that as an insult, knowing how some would use it. I mean, you just gotta look at their biggest hit, "Genius Of Love". That's such an incredible synth hook it has. It's no wonder why Mariah Carey eventually had it sampled up for "Fantasy" (and then **that** got sampled up and knocked off for "Big Energy", but let's stay on topic). It's synth-y, 80's fun, with this crazy danceable groove, and just the right amount of weirdness to give it that aforementioned edge while still keeping it commercially appealing. I'm not surprised it became **the** song people know this group for, even if the rest of their catalog's seemed to have faded away from public knowledge. And if I could bring up a deeper cut favorite... "As Above, So Below" was probably my favorite. It reminded me the most of Talking Heads, which is maybe why I like it as much as I do, though I don't think I'd ever mistake it for one. Thanks largely to Tina's vocals (which, in spots, reminded me of lower-vibe ABBA songs), it can stand on its own. Plus, hey, it's also got a good groove, so... ("Lorelei" gets an honorable mention as runner-up favorite. The "Under The Boardwalk" cover is real good, too.) There we go, then: I like this album. It's not as much of a New Wave masterwork as the last New Wave album I heard (SHE'S SO UNUSUAL), and I'm not blown away stupid by it, but it does its job well. If I have only one gripe about it, "Wordy Rappinghood" probably wasn't the **best** way to kick off the album. Sure, it has a pretty good instrumental, but... I mean, maybe I just don't like New Wave rapping? I haven't gotten to that one Blondie song everyone seems to like, so we'll see if my opinion changes, but from the ones I **have** heard... Look, all I'm saying is that interpolating "Old MacDonald Had A Farm" kinda makes your song lame. I mean, "Old MacDonald" was the lowest point of Elvis's career; you really wanna hitch onto **that** legacy? As you've seen, I've given this album a 4, but even if the rest of the material was good enough for a 5, I'd still drop it to a 4 just because this song is so lame. I mean, seriously, goodness... But let's bring it back up a positive note. As someone who's only a casual Talking Heads fan, I'm happy to've heard this. I feel like I have a new appreciation for the non-Byrne band members now. I never figured he was the sole genius behind the group, but it's nice to have evidence that the rest of them could carry their own weight. Ultimately, however, I do think I still prefer Talking Heads for its nerdier, awkward-er edges, though if you're a fan of the band, or New Wave in general, I think this is worth your time. At any rate, it's better than NO TALKING, JUST HEAD. Goodness.

Y'know, I like country music. The old stuff, anyway. 'Coz, I'unno, modern country music is just... Modern music. And I hardly listen to that in general. But old music? The old country stuff? That's up my alley. And, no, I'm not an "I only listen to Johnny Cash" type. Most anything from the 1960's to the 2000's is up my alley, especially if it's been parodied by Cledus T. Judd or recorded by Dolly or (yes) Johnny Cash. And this album came out in the late 80's, so... Yeah, it's all my alley. And I like it. ...I'm not sure what else to say about it, honestly. "It's good country music." That's all I can muster. I mean, you want me to get into the specifics of why I like it? I'm not sure why. I know there **is** differences between artists, but for the most part, being 100, besides which decade it came out in, I have a hard time telling a lot of country music apart from each other. Which is fine by me; that means if I like one song from one decade, I'm bound to like more. And that's not to say I don't have specific favorites, but... I'unno. Country is coming to seem like it's gonna be the hardest genre for me to talk about, unless there's something particularly special about it—AT FOLSOM PRISON, for example, to bring up Johnny Cash again. So, yeah. It's a good album, I like it enough for a 4. I just don't have anything specific to say about it. First time in a while I haven't been able to blabber on and on about an album, but that's just bound to happen. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have this urge to go to Woolworth's.

Like a lot of people, pretty much the only reason why I know and remember the name Moby is because Eminem dissed him in "Without Me". Don't ask me why; it's 20-some year old beef and I don't care. But if you asked me—and Moby, for that matter—this diss was actually a great thing for Moby. It got (and is still getting) his name in a lot of ears. "Without Me" **is** one of Eminem's most well known and played singles, after all. And, goodness me, in 2024 it might be slightly better advertising for him than his music. I mean, let's be clear: I don't dislike it. Far from it, actually. There's a lot of stuff I like a lot, **especially** the piano parts. They're gorgeous. And letting myself vibe out to this album while I'm playing DR. MARIO... Yeah, it's a great time. But actually listen closely to the album, and taking it as a whole... Frankly, I don't think it really needed to be an hour long. Like, so you can maybe understand what I'm talking about, let's just focus on the songs built around samples. He takes a snippet of a blues vocal, lays down some dance drums and piano around it, sometimes inserts some synth strings, and lets it flow up and down. It's not bad, and it's where some of my favorite piano lines come from actually. He just never really builds on that set-up. I mean, take Fatboy Slim's YOU'VE COME A LONG WAY, BABY—which, yes, is built on more samples than this album, and is going for a different sound, but hear me out. Fatboy Slim does a lot with his samples, not just between songs, but even within them. They're always switching up into different sections to keep things moving along and interesting, and no two songs pull the same tricks. This album, meanwhile, opens with the same trick twice. Sure, I don't think either one's bad, but did they really both need to be here? Or at the very least, more could've been done to make them unique besides their sample and tempo. And it's not like there's not exceptions across the album. As I was writing this, the closer, "My Weakness", came on, and that's a beautiful track. As a whole package, though... This kind of feels like a casualty of CD bloat; like there wasn't any restraint in what to include. Just throw everything on there, even if it doesn't have any more ideas than the five other songs it sounds just like. Maybe I'm overthinking it. Like I said, if I allow myself to just vibe to it, it's fine. And, hey, there's no shame in that being your relation to an album. I'm not even sure why I would've been expecting too much, anyway, given where I know Moby's name from. But I can only be honest with what I heard, and what I heard is a pretty "it's fine" 3. One that could've been a 4 if it's tightened up its runtime, 'coz, seriously, I really do a lot of its piano stuff. The way it is now, though... Yeah, I doubt I'll ever again give the whole thing a play.

If this is proof that God doesn't exist, then I guess there really didn't need to be that much in the first place. This really isn't even bad, honestly. I feel like maybe the worst thing I can say about it is that Ian Dury's vocals are a little more lowkey than I'd like. A little too sleepy, maybe, even. It's not like it doesn't work at all atop a lot of these disco and music hall instrumentals, thanks in large to his accent, though I don't feel like I was really into the album until the last three songs. That's where it gets incredibly punk and pub rock, and it kicks ass. Even with "Blockheads" having this massive synth fart. It's maybe a case where the fact that I'm melody first is really doing this album a disservice. It's apparently filled with these stories of love and working class people from Essex, so perhaps if I'd dug into those more I'd've gotten more out of the majority of the album. Inevitably, though, I am who I am, and unless it's something I'm particular into... Yeah. At the very least, this album's musically good enough that I wouldn't give it lower than a 3. The only thing that holds it back from a 4 in my book is that the vocals could've stood to have been more interesting. And it didn't make me question my faith in a higher power in the universe, anyway, so that helps.

This is an album in two modes. In its first mode, it's superb 90's power pop. Incredibly hooky with an infectious, driving energy. It's really as Pitchfork put it: it's one of the best Britpop albums I've heard, and it isn't even British. Seriously, it ranks right up there with the best stuff I've heard from blur, Oasis, and at least some of the dozen random Britpop acts this list has given up. All it's missing is a snotty, Cockney accent—though I imagine some people are pretty thankful it's nowhere to be found. In its other mode, it's space rock. Now, I haven't heard very much space rock. There's the stuff in Pink Floyd's early catalog that could be called such, and that's really about it. So, getting to hear a 90's take on this genre... Gosh, I'm floating. It's such a good sonic soundscape. I can just picture being at the helm of a spaceship, lazily drifting among the stars through the cosmos. Seriously, any song on this album, not just the space rock half, could have been on a GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY Awesome Mix, as far as I'm concerned. If I hadda pick one mode I liked better... I believe I'd pick the space rock mode? Largely 'coz it's stuff I haven't heard before. As good as the power pop stuff is, I honestly couldn't shake the feeling that it all sounded like some other band I'd heard before, and I could never exactly place my finger on it. On top of that—and I might be speaking more about my preference for album length than I am CD bloat—I'm not sure if this really needed to be 66 minutes. Somewhere in the middle, I kept spacing out (no pun intended). Now, normally I'd chalk that sort of thing up to my attention span and not dock the album any points, but I'unno. This is one of those rare times I wanna be kind to an album, but combined with the remark about feeling like I'd heard some of this stuff before from others... Yeah. O course, it's still ultimately a 4 out of 5, and a heavy recommendation from me. The space rock stuff and the power pop I didn't space out on are too good to give it anything less, I figure. Like, it wasn't terribly consistent, but on the whole I'd still say I had a great time coming down with the Dandy Warhols. From where or what, I'm not sure, but, hey, it's the climb and all that...

Abigail Devoe doesn't like RUMOURS, and that helped me understand why I like it and so many others love it. Now, to be clear, Abby likes the **songs** on RUMOURS. She could point out a number of those to you, from the opener "Second Hands News" to the closer "Gold Dust Woman". Her problem with the album lies in the way it's produced. Lindsay Buckingham's goal with RUMOURS was to produce a perfect pop album, and he went far out of his way to do it. Just check out the anecdote about how he had his guitar strings changed three times every hour while recording "Never Going Back Again" so they'd retain their brightness. And to Abby, this method of production devalues the material — as she puts it, it's "manufactured magic." She prefers a break-up album like this to be way grittier, rawer, looser — see BLOOD ON THE TRACKS or BLUE. In other words, a more subtle genius that confronts the audience with its emotions, rather than pave over it with a layer of pop polish. If things were more like "Gold Dust Woman" or the outro of "The Chain"... Of course, that's all a fair and valid opinion. I won't even say I disagree with her, and I very much recommend you seek out that video to hear her opinions from her own mouth. However, I find myself much more siding with a comment I saw below the video that stated that, yeah, no, it **is** this album's production that made it as beloved as it is. The emotional heft would've always been there. The cacophony of three or so voices all yelling over top of each other to try and convince you that "No, **that person** is the asshole." It still would have struck a chord with people — I mean, hell, BLOOD ON THE TRACKS and BLUE are both top 10 albums on the 2020 Rolling Stone 500, right alongside RUMOURS, for as much as that's worth. At the very least, it shows that rawer emotions can absolutely hit it off with people. But neither of them had a song resurge on TikTok like "Dreams" did. N', heck, look at this very website: RUMOURS has the second-highest average, beaten only by ABBEY ROAD. From what I've read, it even used to be **number one**. And if I can attribute any one specific reason to why that is, it's that production makes it go down easier. To be 100, I'll recognize, maybe I'm just speaking through my own "melody first" likes and preferences for production. I do often find myself gravitating towards stuff with a lot of production. There's no orchestra or anything, but I eat that kinda shit up. Especially if it can make the music feel "grand" or "huge" or "epic." And I wouldn't say any of those three descriptors necessarily apply to RUMOURS, but look at "Never Going Back Again". Lindsay's insistence on replacing the strings as often as they were paid off. It ends up one of my favorite songs on the entire album **because** the strings are as bright as they are. It adds a level of beauty to the song that wouldn't have been there if it'd been any gritter. Or look at "Dreams" — it might not have resurged the way it did if it wasn't as laid-back and, for lack of a better word, dreamy as it is. It's that perfection, too, that I think helps a lot of the looser moments stand out. "Go Your Own Way" and especially "The Chain" wouldn't go as hard as they do if the songs around them weren't as shiny as they are. And you really do have to be in awe at the fact that this album was even released at all. Not just because the tapes it was recorded on were apparently run so thin the risk was run of having the whole thing tossed out, but... Y'know, the band turmoil. Of course the band turmoil. Everyone knows the band turmoil; it's **the thing** it's known for. But seriously, you hafta admire the fact that even though these people were going through such a rough and bitter break-up, they were still able to devote themselves to the music — even if they were playing on songs about how much of a jerk the other person thought they were. That's commitment right there. This has all made me appreciate and like RUMOURS more than I had before. I **had** liked it; I'd just never really gotten the hype around it. Again, just four years ago it was named a top 10 album on the Rolling Stone 500. To my eyes, even knowing it's just a list among lists, that's not nothing. And maybe some of it was resentment at TikTok, 'coz I've never liked that platform, so, of course, anything **it** popularizes... And, well, even now, I'm not gonna say this new listen-through and this new understanding has suddenly made it a top 10 album for me. There's other albums, in and outside of this website's top 10, that for one reason or another I'd place over RUMOURS. I will still agree with its reputation of greatness, though, of course. For all the hardship the band went through to make this album, and given what they produced, I don't think it deserves much less than a 5 — a 4, at worst. It's just the right combination of emotional weight and perfect pop polish. Which, for the last time, I get why the latter fact would turn people away from this album. Abby's just as right in **not being** a fan of it as anyone else is for **being** a fan. We can all go our own way about it. For my money, though, it deserves all of the acclaim and success it's gotten. It's one of the best albums of the 70's, and I won't be surprised at all if future generations keep that chain of praise unbroken.

Well, this is a better album to convince me of the Bay Area psych scene that Country Joe & The Fish were. (And I can't even remember anything about that album except for, like, some song about LBJ? I'unno.) Now, the funny thing is, I know it's not the "psych" part of this album that makes me like it so much. No, it's the **power pop** part. The way these songs drive, the way these guys' vocals harmonize, the way the drums bang, the way the guitar jus' **play**. It's front-to-back excitement. Even on the slower songs, or the ones that're full-on country, which I can get carried through thanks to, again, those vocal harmonies — and of course the fact that I just like non-modern country in general. Honestly, I don't even hear any traditional "psych" elements in here; it's way more folky and rootsier. Which, hey, is fine by me; I don't think my group really needs another one of those "generic 60's psych albums" I keep seeing reviews complain about. In short, this album's a winner in my book, and it's further proof that I should probably dig into these 60's bands a bit further than just The Beatles, The Beach Boys and The Monkees. Now if only this thing could be completely uploaded to streaming so I don't hafta listen to this thing on YouTube between Chips Ahoy!'s stupid twerking cookie ad, goodness.

I spent a lot of time over the course of this album thinking about the myth and legacy of The Doors. Which is really to say, "the myth and legacy of Jim Morrison," 'coz even though the band released a few more albums after Morrison passed... They don't count. Not really. Which isn't to discount the rest of the members, but that's besides the point. If there's one thing I remember hearing about The Doors, more than anything, it's that they were pretentious. That, y'know, Jim Morrison was some stuck-up, head-in-his-ass, "sensitive poet laureate," and that made The Doors's music incredibly lame and wince-y. That's certainly how the band's biopic (the one where Val Kilmer played Morrison) put it. And as much as I'd wanna proclaim that I'm a free thinker who doesn't fall into accepting public opinion like that, I feel like I still kind of did? 'Coz even as I enjoyed a lot of Doors music (mostly their hits), there was always this thought in the back of my head that if I dug any further, I'd uncover those pretentions everyone was talking about. The poems and whatnot. So besides a greatest hits compilation album, I never really did go any further than "Touch Me" and "Break On Through" and, at most, "The End". This is another album where I hafta thank Abigail Devoe for helping me find a better way to think about this stuff. See, Jim Morrison was a fat kid. He loved poetry. His father was a Navy man. His birth name was James Bouglas Morrison. He wasn't cool — he was kind of a square, actually. And, sure, he might have slimmed down by the time The Doors recorded their first album, but... Well, at heart, he was still that same fat kid. That slim appearance was never going to last. Just check out how much he still liked blueberry pancakes. So, instead of viewing Morrison as some big, important, up-his-arse poet, I took to him more as, y'know: a nerd. One who still wanted to be a serious poet — and he was one; he wasn't buried in Père Lachaise for nothing — but who probably wasn't **as** much of a jerk as the biopic made him out to be. (Though he might've still been one, I'unno.) And while I'm sure I still would've enjoyed this album either way, viewing this album through that framework did a **lot** for me. Heck, for one, it helped me accept and like The Doors' blues tunes a lot more. I wasn't so hot on them when I heard MORRISON HOTEL, and for all I know maybe the ones here are just better, but I really dug what I heard. Of course it's nothing like what you'd get from the traditional blues masters, but, damn, you put Ray Manzerik's keys on just about anything... And, oof, boy, Morrison's voice. It's **really** good on this stuff. Then there's the lyrics and poetry. As per usual, I didn't take them in as well as everything else. I'm "melody first," let's remember. But let me tell you, accepting the fact that the poetry was here, like... Just because he wanted his poetry to be put to music, I was actually able to take it more seriously than if "taking it seriously" was the expectation to begin with. I still probably didn't get much out of it, 'coz I'm bad at deciphering poetry, but, hey, still. That's better than I figured I would've done before. I actually **liked** "The WASP". I also wanna specifically spotlight "Riders On The Storm", the album's closer. For my money, this is the best song here — big shock I pick the song most people regularly consider the best on the album, I know. But, y'know, I think it's the best because, in my eyes, it's to The Doors what "The Show Must Go On" was to Queen. Of course, it's not a 1:1 comparison (the rest of the Doors didn't know that Jim didn't have much longer), but as the songs that ended up being the final songs on their respective final albums... I really can't think of better songs for them to end on. "Riders On The Storm" is the ultimate culmination of everything The Doors had done, and listening to it this time, I couldn't help but imagine this cinematic shot of Morrison riding off down a desert road, trailed by snakes and desert lizards. Which is maybe a bit too reverent of an image for how I now perceive him, but it's just what came to mind. (Also, shout out to "Hyacinth House"; I might honestly pick that as my favorite "deep cut.") I really think I understand and appreciate The Doors and their music a lot better than I used to. I'll tell you for sure, before I gained the new frame I did, I would've enjoyed this album, but at best it would've been a good 4, elevated to such by the presence of "Riders On The Storm". But coming out of this listen... Yeah, damn, it's a 5. It's a good-ass 5. The Doors were way more than the psychedelics and pretentious I'd originally pegged them with. Really, the only complaint I can think to have is the same one Abby had: that the title track should've been the opener. Seriously, just put it there in front of "The Changeling" and don't do anything else and it's perfect. But, yeah. Morrison, like every other member of the unfortunate club way too many are a part of, deserved to live longer. To have had a chance to play revisionist with his own history instead of the people like those who made his band's biopic. But as unfortunate and tragic as his passing was... Damn, if he and the rest of the band didn't leave a damn good musical legacy, and one hell of an album to close their book on. (Again, ignoring the ones the band released after Morrison passed; they don't count.)

I really miss this era of sampling. These "sampledelia" records. It's frankly incredible what people like the Bomb Squad (and the Dust Brothers on PAUL'S BOUTIQUE) could do, taking all these tiny snippets and stringing them together to make something that's not only new, but goes hard as hell. I feel like Chuck D and Flava Flav would've always been as good as they are — the former's message combined with delivery, and the latter's ability to be the hype man of hype men — but it just wouldn't be the same without the bed of samples under them. Like, goodness, who would have even thought to add a Slayer sample to the beat? It's an awe to behold. And it's not like this kinda sampling went away completely after O'Sullivan's lawsuit against Biz Markie caused the general price of samples to rise considerably. J Dilla's DONUTS exists, after all. And even using less samples, people have been able to do really good shit: look at MADVILLAINY, for instance. Besides, online mashup artists, not beholden to sample prices, have been able to do amazing things. Just look at Girl Talk, Titus Jones, The Kleptones, or Danger Mouse's THE GREY ALBUM. But still, this era of sampling was special, and I don't know if it could truly be replicated, even if price wasn't an issue. So, y'know, I cherish very much what there was. Believe the hype — this brings the noise.

In 1977 and 1978, respectively, TALKING HEADS: '77 and Q: ARE WE NOT MEN? A: WE ARE DEVO! were released. They, to me, are the definitive sounds of early New Wave: this quirky or artsy punk music... Particularly DEVO's album. Songs like "Uncontrollable Urge", "Jocko Homo", "Mongoloid" — that kinda stuff, right there. Unlike post-punk, this wasn't music that was entirely adverse to being pop hits (Talking Heads had "Psycho Killer", and Blondie's PARALLEL LINES from '78 had quite a few), but I feel like a lot of it still made an attempt to have higher artistic intentions or follow punk's ethos more than any other pop songs at the time. Early New Wave, to my mind, was the domain of punks, nerds and arty folk. It's four years after ARE WE NOT MEN?. DEVO had been bringing synths more to the forefront of their work. MTV had launched just last year. And Duran Duran has released RIO. What does New Wave sound like now? Like, OK, lemme break from my essaying for a second to make it clear that I'm no musicologist/music historian. I can't tell you the exact evolution of New Wave and where RIO fits in — or if it's even actually that important at all. Besides, New Wave's a pretty arbitrary label, anyway, let's be real. But I'll tell you this: I really thought RIO had come out later on in the '80's than just '82, 'coz looking at this album, I'm thinking it's **the** sound of New Wave everyone recognizes. I mean, obviously, I don't think that early New Wave went away overnight. DEVO, Talking Heads and Blondie were still around and having their successes. Early MTV was filled with punks, geeks and art weirdos, and a number of them, even later in the decade, would get hits on the Hot 100 — as much as that's worth. Although, I think by that point, that's when the 80's truly became the "greatest decade for one hit wonders." Heck, this list might have an album or two from them; I haven't checked lately. Then we have RIO: slickly produced, very synth heavy and way more radio friendly. These are songs with hooks destined, maybe **designed**, to be pop hits. Just listen to "Hungry Like The Wolf" — you've **probably heard** "Hungry Like The Wolf". That song alone says it all. Like, I read on this album's Wikipedia page that it's supposed to be more experimental than Duran Duran's debut, but for the life of me I can't hear it. I suppose there's, like, the bridge of "Hungry Like The Wolf", though I'd hardly even consider that "experimental" if I wasn't actively looking for examples. And I don't keep bringing up MTV for nothing, by the way. Out of the nine songs on this album, six got music videos. This was the first album to really be marketed heavily on MTV, and from what I can tell I think it helped paved the way for how image-focused the channel would become later on in the 80's. I mean, the members of Duran Duran sure didn't **look** like geeks, lemme tell you that much. Now, pop isn't a bad word to me. I don't bring any of this, necessarily, to slam the band. Heck, I like "Hungry Like The Wolf" as much as everyone else does, and the title track "bops," as the kids say (I'm 26). I even really like this "synth-pop" style of New Wave — more than a lot of the earlier, artsier New Wave I've heard, actually, even. This album so specifically scratches any itch I'd have for it, and, honestly, I kind of love it for that. I just find the difference between late-70's New Wave and early-80's New Wave interesting, with how hard it got glammed up in the mainstream not even half a decade after DEVO's debut. Blame the record execs, I guess, I'unno. This album's a big 5 in my book. It's definitive 80's British synth cheese. I'm not terribly surprised it's what really kicked the second British Invasion into gear. Obviously, if you're not a fan of this sort of sound, or you just don't have the stomach for cheese, you should avoid this album at all costs. The synth flutes on the closer will probably do you in if the sax on the opener doesn't. Me, though, I love this kind of sound a lot.

There's been quite a few albums my group has gotten where I've found myself thinking about Kurt Cobain and, more specifically, his last list of his 50 favorite albums. Pretty often, I find myself wanting to refer to it when I'm listing an album's accolades: "Not only did ROLLING STONE name this one of the 500 greatest albums of all time, but Kurt Cobain dug it enough to write it down on a list!" That sorta deal. And I find myself wondering, why **do** I keep doing that? Do I really hold Cobain's opinion in the same high regard that I apparently do ROLLING STONE? Which, even as much importance as I throw on it, I still recognize as just being a list like any other. Well, this is the first time I've thought about Cobain's favorite albums list and it's actually mattered. After all, Cobain did have Nirvana cover three songs from it during their MTV Unplugged special. They even had two of the band members join them. Like, really, consider: out of 50 minutes, Nirvana spent 1/5th of it, ten straight minutes playing the Meat Puppets' music. They must have meant something to him. And even if it weren't for that, I think I'd still always think about the Meat Puppets in relation to Nirvana. I mean, as far as I know, Nirvana's the big (or maybe only) reason why they got picked up by a major label. (Just like the Butthole Surfers — although in their case, Nirvana was absolutely the only reason.) However, this album was released **long** before Nirvana blew up, so let's just rewind the clock and allow me to ask myself the simple question: what even **is** its deal, anyway? To begin with, I wasn't expecting it to be as... Country and bluegrass as it was. Like, the three songs Nirvana covered probably should've clued me in, and it's not like I was expecting Snot, but I really did think that, on average, the tempos here would be a little bit quicker than they are, y'know? That said, though, I did like what I heard quite a bit. You can attribute that to how much I do like country music, so a lot of this clicked pretty snugly with me. Particularly on the instrumentals — which, that's another thing I didn't know there would be, but they're so nice. "I'm A Mindless Idiot" especially, goodness. And hey, most of this album being country and Americana tinged does a big favor to the songs where they **do** get louder and/or faster; they're a nice change of pace. So, hey, I suppose you can call me "pleasantly surprised" with this whole endeavor. I can't be 100% on what Kurt might've seen in it, but whatever he did, hey, I'll probably agree. (And it's actually funny I keep bringing up Kurt and his favorite albums list, 'coz as it turns out, this album isn't actually on there. Yeah, surprisingly. Public Enemy's IT TAKES A NATION OF MILLIONS is, but not the album he devoted time on his band's big MTV special to. Crazy.) But even that aside, this gets a pretty big thumbs up from me and... Aw, heck. I'll give a 5? Why not? Maybe it's just because I wanna keep my streak of 5's up, but I really can't think of anything that'd make me wanna bump it down. Maybe the lead singer's vocals if I wasn't already pretty used to that kind of tone. And I suppose it didn't exactly wow or amaze me like so many other 5's do, but, hey, I'm wanna be generous with an extra point. This music vibes, bangs... And whatever other words the kids these days use to describe music (I'm still 26). It wouldn't make **my** list of favorite albums, but it's one I'd be happy to come back to.

Y'know, I really can't imagine hating country music just **that much**. I mean, hating it so vehemently that you give an album like this a 1 on sight. I suppose I can understand taking issue with some of the more... Erm, "modern patriotic" sides of the genre, let's call it ("WE'LL PUT A BOOT IN YOUR ASS; IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY"). But classic-ass country music like this? I suppose if you just **really** hate this sound... Lucky for me, I don't. And thank goodness I don't, 'coz of the other reason I'd suppose: I'm not really sure how this is different from a lot of other country albums — specifically classic country like this — that I've heard. The arrangements, the instrumentation, the topics, the voice... It's all a sound I love, but without a loudly defining character like Johnny Cash's, I find it a bit hard to figure out why I'd pick one country album over another. And maybe Merle has one and I'm doing him a disservice by not looking into him to find it, I'unno. Like, the only thing I knew about him before today was that Cledus T. Judd mentioned him in one of his originals. In fact, that's why I'm even talking about this sort of thing. I knew early on that eventually I'd run out of things to say about albums in this genre, and... Well, after managing to actually pay attention to some of the lyrics for once, I liked the title track. I dig its melancholy, and the way it describes the narrator's situation. For sure it's a good "feelin' down" song. But then once my attention inevitably slips away from the lyrics... Yeah. So maybe it's my problem for being as melody-first as I am, I'unno. I'm willing to put that forth, at least. I get the feeling, though, that even if I wasn't, I still wouldn't hear much terribly unique about this album. That's why I'm feeling a pretty nice 4 on this. Jus', I'unno. If I didn't already like country music the way I do, I don't think it would convince me, but since I do... Yeah. At any rate, I don't think it deserves a "1" on sight. It's just a bit too harsh, y'know? Goodness.

I was feelin' pretty under the weather I listened to this album and wrote this review, so jus' keep that in mind if it doesn't end up bein', like, **super long**. Honestly, for the first three songs, I just spent a lot of time thinking about the live versions that would pop up a year later. Not that I think any of them are bad, of course. It's just, y'know, a little hard to go back to how small the original "No Woman, No Cry" is when its live performance is so perfect, down to even the bit of microphone feedback seeming completely purposeful and intentional. Then there's the rest of the album, which is also pretty good — classic Marley stuff — but none of it exactly matches up to the deeper cuts on something like EXODUS. It's another case where if I paid attention to lyrics I'd probably get more out of it all, given this one review that says this album's a big "Here's who I am, here I am" thing for Marley. This **was** his first as sole frontman of The Wailers, after all. But, y'know, me being me — even if I **didn't** have this pressure on my sinuses and a soreness in the back of my throat. Still, like all good reggae, the groove can still absolutely carry, so ultimately I don't have much to complain about. Y'know, I'll give this thing a 4. A lot of my experience listening to it probably had more to do with my sickness and how tired I felt than anything the album actually did. I'm sure if I had a clearer head I would've had a better experience. So, in all fairness, it's a 4 at least. Now hopefully what I caught can clear up before my group gets another great album, goodness.

Paul Simon's first album after he got himself detached from the guy from the funny last name, and... See, I can understand why this is supposed to be so special. Simon is, evidently, a phenomenal singer-songwriter, and his inclusion of world elements was particularly unique at the time. Ain't no American artist in those days using a cuica. However, as much as I acknowledge and accept that — and as much as I did, honestly, try to pay attention to the lyrics and stories... This album just didn't do terribly too much for me. Maybe I just feel like it's lacking a little edge? The world elements aside (and maybe some of the deeper political meanings I missed, I'unno) it just felt kind of safe and typical. I mean, jeez, at least when he was palling around Garfunkel they had those beautiful harmonies, and that was interesting enough to carry me through. By himself... Yeah, I suppose he **is** a 70's folk singer-songwriter. But I'm not gonna act impressed by that, y'know? I'unno, it's an "it's fine" 3. I can appreciate some nice guitar and some of that 70's flute sound, but other than that, there just wasn't enough to really keep me engaged. Maybe when he takes a trip down to Graceland and I can call him Al there'll be more there. In the meantime... I'unno. Me First And The Gimme Gimmes did a cover of "Me And Julio"? Check that out, I guess? Sure.

I feel like progressive rock gets a bad rap for being... Y'know, wanky. "Ooo, lookit me noodling away on my keyboard and doing whatever the hell I want for 20 minutes in this 40 minute song; I'm sooooo boundary challenging." Stuff like that. Which, mm, I'unno. I think I've listened to too much Pink Floyd and Yes to truly feel like that about prog rock, though I do understand where it's coming from. I mean, you just look at ELP performing the entirety of "Pictures At An Exhibition" and tell me that's not... And I doubt today's album would really help anyone's opinion of the genre. You just need to look at the two part title track that opens and closes the thing, particularly part one: there's no clear structure or form. It really just sounds like... Ideas, and the band's just randomly flowing between them. To ears already inclined to hate prog, this kind of experimentation is pure self-indulgence. Why would anyone wanna put themselves through this — to get to the more conventional vocal tracks on the other side or, like, at all? It's just jerking around and hiding behind experimentation and progression as an excuse. Y'know, it's not something I really like I could argue against. Or that I'd even want to; I don't write about music to argue. But... I'unno. I've probably just listened to so much of Frank Zappa's experimental work and Primus's general discography that a lot of this doesn't strike me as overly indulgent. In fact, I think it's pretty interesting to hear how it shifts and evolves. There's a portion of myself that might prefer the more conventional songs because — well, yeah. I don't think they're really as interesting, though. Sure, there's a lot of parts in them that makes me go "Ooo, that's something" but none of them are really the complete journey that part one of the album's title track are. You feel what I mean? Even if I'd come back to something like "Easy Money" on its own first. I'm pretty happy getting this a 4. Prog is a genre where, as much as I like it, I figure the deeper I go away from what's generally accepted as "the best stuff," the more and more I might understand the detractors. Never enough to point where I'd fully dislike it, but I'd probably end up with more than a few examples of lousy playing and/or structure masked as "experimentation" or overly standard shit that tries to mask itself as deep by calling itself "progressive." That general feeling is probably true about any genre, though I feel with prog it's something I hafta worry about more often than not. But if this album proves anything to me, it's that I might not have such a problem with it as I'd figure. I mostly stick to convention, but I like a lot of the experimental and Eastern influences here. And if I can listen to all of this without blinking an eye, I can handle anything. I'm not gonna call it the best prog I've ever heard — I might not even like it as much as IN THE COURT OF... — but it's a damn fine showing of the more experimental side. If you dig prog and you somehow haven't already given this a shot, well, what're you waiting for? Dig yourself larks' tongue in aspic. Whatever "aspic" is.

Gawd, this album just hits the floor running. The moment you press play, it's already going at top volume and showing you the magic. Not even an **instant** to let you prepare yourself. Which I don't think is a problem, actually. To be 100, it was my first indication I would love this album — it just kicks down the door and gets going right away. I kind of admire it for that. And, yeah, like I just said: I love this album. I don't think I've heard Britpop that aligned this well with me since... Goodness, blur's self-titled? And that makes all the sense in the world to me given how much this album reminded me of blur. It's like, instead of the experimental turns they took on that album, they got way into 70's glam and late-60's psychedelia (and more so the glam than the psychedelia). This shit rules. And I think I generally like the glam tracks better, 'coz, well — I just like glam a lot. Simple and plain. But the psych hits off pretty well, too, even if it's not done as often. (Legit, I counted how many psych songs there were to glam, and it's 1:2.) It's a real strong 5 in my book. I don't even have anything particularly complex or essay-y to say about it. This album just rocks and it rules. Turns out I shoulda checked out this band sooner after hearing its lead vocalist on a Gorillaz song.

Y'know, there was a moment listening to blur's eponymous debut album that I thought they were my favorite Britpop group. And not just because their frontman went on to co-create Noodle and the rest of Gorillaz, of course. I'm just staring at the quantity of great material they have, and how much of it is absolute quality. Heck, how much of it sounds unique from each other. Like, I don't consider blur to have "one sounds," necessarily; they kinda jus' do whatever they want, while still being able to fit under the "Britpop" label. It's great stuff, and it's interesting to hear what they're gonna do next. Versus today's subject, Oasis. While I can name a number of blur albums of note, there's really only two Oasis albums I figure are worth consideration. Maybe three if you wanna include BE HERE NOW as "the album that killed Britpop." As for their sound... Yeah, they have **a** sound: Beatlesque Britpop that's huge to the point of potentially being to blame for the Loudness War. Not really as interesting to consider as all of blur's various turns from song to song. So, obviously, in my mind blur wins the Britpop War. They're just more sonically intriguing. And that's just that, right? But then I actually fully listened to today's album, for the first time in a while. And... Y'know, there's a very good reason why Oasis was more of an international success than blur. Why, for example, people might know more Oasis songs than "Wonderwall", then they'd know more blur songs than "Song 2" (besides that blur might be too obviously British). And simply, it **is** their sound. Not just the comparisons you can make to the Beatles (which are a "plus" in my book, anyway), but their hugeness, and How anthemic they can be. They sound and feel like the biggest songs in the world, demanding to be made classics. And, hey, lookit — they did. Now, I wanna make clear, it's not **just** the bigness; the songwriting behind it plays just as important a role. If you want proof of that, just look at BE HERE NOW. In a haze of cocaine and conflict ("wibbling rivalry," even), the quality of their songwriting went straight out the window and... Well, like I said: "the album that killed Britpop." The songs there just drag on forever, largely because they just hit the same hook over and over and over again. After a while, it can get draining. And the thing is, I **do** kinda like "All Around The World" for how monstrously big it grows over its **nine minute** runtime. Even then, however, it still kinda exists in my mind as "the template for the overgrown, overstuffed and overblown mess of a song one of my characters would create in a horribly misguided attempt to make something big and important." Y'get what I mean? Whereas on this album, the songwriting is so much tighter and more focused. They can go on a little, but they never overstay their welcome, or at least they do enough new or the hooks are just that good that it's never really an issue. "Wonderwall" didn't get played as much as it did for nothing. Plus, y'know, "Some Might Say", "Don't Look Back In Anger", "Champagne Supernova"... Even the songs on here that aren't singles! Like, as much as I wanna act all "big brain" and smart and prefer blur for it's my eclectic turns, in the end, I can be a bit more simple than that. Some times, a lot of times, I turn on to big hooks, and this album has that in spades. blur, as much as I like them (and Gorillaz), they really can't compete on that front. "Woo-hoo" just don't stack. So while, thanks to this list and a compilation I've heard, I do have a lot more love for and interest in blur than I used to, I'd still probably reach for Oasis first. Oasis just tickles my "melody first" brain so much better. Of course, this Oasis album is getting the same 5 I gave the last blur album my group got, so it's not like there was really ever any competition to begin with. They're both fantastic, just for different reasons, and I'm happy they've both provided us with so many wonderful songs. Besides, neither group has Noodle as a member like Gorillaz does, and that alone means Gorillaz win in any imaginary war I'd make up. That's just fact.

I remember the first time I came out this album, some three years ago, the only thought I had was to ask myself, "How many more times **should** I hafta listen to this?" Now, obviously, I had Matt Groening's quote about the album on my mind, the one about how he had to listen to this record several times before he really "got it." And coming into this album all this time later, I still wondered: "How much time **should** I give this thing?" 'Coz I've always had the impression that this was an album you've really had to sit with for a while before you can decide if you like it or not. Which, y'know, might be kind of a dumb way to think of things? I don't think you should be forced to sit with an album — or any piece of art, really — for so long before you're allowed to decide if you like or even "get" it. It's the line about video games: "It gets really good 15 hours in." Like, OK? So it sucks for those first 15 hours, then? So why would I play it if it sucks for that long? It can apply to albums like this: why would I force myself to replay it over and over if I'm not digging it the first time around? What could I possibly gain from multiple replays except, I'unno, sunk cost fallacy? 'Coz if you're gonna spend **that long** with an album and you're not getting anything new out of your **tenth** play that you didn't already get on your **first**... Not that replaying, rewatching, rereading or re-anything-ing art is necessarily a bad thing. You can rewatch a movie, for example, and notice little details you weren't looking for the first time. Similar goes for an album. It can only help you appreciate a work more. But I figure if you're doing that, you already like the movie or the album or whatever, and not because you're trying to find reasons to justify why you've spent hours with this thing. First impressions are important, and if something doesn't give you a good reason to go any further with it... Well, that's as good a reason as any not to. TROUT MASK REPLICA lays all of its cards on the table within the first minute. Like, "Frownland", far as I can hear, is **the** sound of the album. Guitars, bass and drums seemingly playing whatever they want, in what time signature and key they want. They only barely sync. Hell, the vocals feel like they come from a different song altogether. It's the kind of sound where if you're not gawking, slack-jawed, at it now, you will be when you find out that it sounds like this **on purpose**. Like, this isn't The Shaggs amateur hour; this stuff was all specifically composed to sound like this, and they spent **weeks** **rehearsing** this material so they could record it all in one straight shot. On that level, I'm kind of impressed that Beefheart managed to carefully compose his band to sound like a bunch of first year music school dropouts playing in their garage band for the first time. I imagine if you're a music nerd, there's a lot to dig into here. Polyrhythms, polytonality... Stuff like that. Or, hell, even if you're not, maybe you just have a weird enough ear that all this stuff just clicks perfectly into place. Got some kinda special x-ray ears that can hear through the noise and find some kind of odd beauty underneath it all. And, well, clearly enough of both types agree that this thing is as acclaimed as outsider art as it is. As for me... I remember back when I first heard it, I thought it was strange to begin with. Again, "Frownland" is a hell of an opener. If you can't make it past that, you're probably not gonna do well with the rest. As I came closer and closer to the end of the album, though, my ears acclimated more to this album's way of doing things, and by the time I was done... Honestly, I was kind of disappointed? When you're able to look past the layer of weirdness covering this thing and hear what's actually going on... I'unno, it just sounds like blues music? Incredibly atypical blues, sure, like you fed an algorithm the genre (to reference a comment I saw), but... Really, once I got to "Veteran's Day Poppy", I couldn't even begin to guess what was supposed to be so special about this album. (And boy howdy, this thing being nearly 80 minutes...) And for this listen-through, with very different ears than I had those four years ago, I fell into that even sooner. Like, some moments aside, nothing terribly grabbed me. It just flowed by. Honestly, besides "Frownland", I think the only thing I'd probably remember is "The Blimp" — and that's probably mostly 'coz Weird Al quoted it in a CD bonus feature. (Also, the anecdote that Beefheart's band isn't even playing on it, but The Mothers; check the song "Charles Ives" on YOU CAN'T DO THAT ON STAGE ANYMORE, VOL. 5). So, y'know, I guess I have weird ears, but not ones that can hear this material and be too wowed by it. (And the runtime didn't bother me as much this time, but it's not like it helped this music **not** fall into the background, y'know) Frankly, I think I enjoyed SAFE AS MILK a bit more. The music there was just as strange as I expect a Beefheart record to be, but there was no expectations of it being some outsider, experimental, avant-garde, "You gotta listen to it 50 times to get it" masterpiece. It was just good-ass blues. And, like, of course I'm happy this guy got to make the exact album he wanted to make with this, but... Y'know, I can't say I agree with TROUT MASK REPLICA being the eleventh lowest rated album on the entire website, but I can understand why it is. It's not like I'd rate it that highly, either: a 3 outta 5. But to me, it's not because I think it's noise acting like it's more important than it is 'coz it slapped itself with an "experimental" label. I **can** kinda hear through to what Matt Groening might have heard his seventh time around. But I don't think I'd be willing to put in the effort to get to that seventh listen, myself. Just the two is fine enough for me. I suppose it just wasn't fast n' bulbous enough for me.

Y'know, it's not that I dislike a cappella music. That one album by The Bobs I heard, that arrangement of Richard Cheese's "Gimme That Nutt" cover, the CRASH TWINSANITY soundtrack, that version of Lil Nas X's "MONTERO"... Those are all goofy, quirky examples, yeah — maybe not the best frame to go into a serious, artsy Björk album with — but still: I can and do tolerate mouth music. So, if I have any problem with this album; if there's any reason I kept hesitating between putting on the next side, it's not its concept, experiment and/or gimmick, but more the fact that I largely think the music's pretty boring, actually. There's exceptions, naturally; I rather dug the dancier tracks, like "Where Is The Line", "Who Is It", "Triumph Of A Heart"... Y'know, the ones with the beatbox behind them. But the rest... Ehh, it might all just be a bit too serious and artsy for my taste. I'm really not much one for solemnly considering music, and that's probably why all of my previous a cappella experiences are so quirky. Like, goodness, at least VULNICURA had those gorgeous, transcendental strings to pull me through. I do think the human voice can be very pretty, but moments of that for me are few and far between here. "Sonnets / Unrealities XI", maybe "Ancestors"... Those are really the only two I can think of. Like, I don't wanna be too hard on this thing and call the experiment a complete failure. There's a small handful of tunes here I can say I dug, which automatically disqualifies it from a 2 or lower. But on the whole, I just wish my group could've gotten something more engaging for our 300th album generated. Well, I can always hope for #400.

For the longest time, I actually avoided listening to KID A. Not that it was necessarily difficult for me to avoid or anything like that, but I didn't wanna listen to it, for one simple reason: I wasn't sure if it would live up to the hype. After all, this thing has been praised to the moon and back several times over. I'd heard so many times, over and over again, that it was the greatest album of the 2000's — of the entire decade, if not the millenium. Rolling Stone included it at 67 on their 2012 500 list, and it was the last album on there released past 1999. Heck, on their later list focusing on just the 2000's, it was number one with a bullet. It inspired that one guy over on Pitchfork to write that... Whatever the hell about watching stillborn babies playing in the afterlife on IMAX. These are just the examples that're important to me, and I could go on with more, but you get my point. KID A is a big, big deal. I mean, it lost Album Of The Year to a Steely Dan album barely anyone remembers, but still. It's perhaps the single most famous left turn in music history, let alone alternative rock. And, like, it's hard to hear all of that and not have expectations to the heavens and beyond. Like, this album must really be something if it'd garnered **this level** of universal acclaim. What exactly **is** this thing's secret sauce? And that's where we come to the reason why I didn't wanna listen to this thing for so long: what if I couldn't find it? Or what if I did and I didn't like what it was? Or even if I did, and I didn't like it as much as the hype led me to believe I should? In any situation, I figure because of the expectations I had I would've been much harder on the album than if I hadn't had any. And I just... Didn't want that, y'know? I didn't wanna be let down by an album I'd heard so many good things about — or, worse, become someone willing to crow about how it's "overrated." Generally, I'd rather avoid being like that. And it's not like I could just throw away all of my expectations and listen to the album simply for its own merits. Frankly, it's impossible to go into anything without preconceptions, no matter how big or small they are, or how conscious you are of them... And having ones like I had... Jeez, it simply wouldn't be fair to the album. So, I avoided it. Better to just not find out at all how I'd react, I figured. And again, it's not like it's hard to. Ignorance was bliss for me for the longest time. Eventually, though, I did check it out. I can't recall exactly when, but I know I've listened to it a few more times since then. Even as recently as earlier this year, during the same work night where I listened to the other album that lost Album Of The Year to Steely Dan, THE MARSHALL MATHERS LP. And I can't tell you what I thought of the album back when I first heard it; it's been too long and I simply can't remember. But as for how I'm feeling about it now, here, in 2024... If there's any reason I wouldn't go so far as to call this "the greatest album of the 2000's," it's because I'm not sure if I have enough experience with that decade to make that call. Besides, there are albums that resonate way more personally with me than this does — Weird Al's STRAIGHT OUTTA LYNWOOD, for instance, to use a really personal example. Heck, for my tastes, THE MARSHALL MATHERS LP might've even been my pick for Album Of The Year. But that doesn't stop KID A from making an incredibly convincing argument in its favor. For one, KID A sounds like it could've been made now. Even as painfully aware as I am that this album is from October 2000, there's not a single note I'm hearing in here that ties it specifically to the 2000's. It could have come out, exactly as it is, last week, and even though it might not have had the same impact, the music still would sound as good as ever. And that's all while still being recognizably Radiohead. Before I put on this album, I listened to two cuts from OK COMPUTER ("Paranoid Android" and "No Surprises"), and, sure, yeah, there's big differences between the two of them, but I wouldn't mistake either of them for another band's music. Which, yeah, it's probably largely Thom Yorke's voice. I don't think you hear much of it anywhere else, generally, save for his solo material or stuff he features or guests on. But it still anchors the music to this band and it keeps it unique to them. And even without it, I don't think I could hear another band making exactly this kind of stuff. And to talk about the stuff itself — the music — directly... Me being me, I think I'd probably listen to OK COMPUTER more for its alt.-rock-ness. And for what's on here, of course I gravitate the most towards the Eno-y "beautiful ambient" stuff as my favorites. As a whole, however — gawd, lemme use the word "unique" if I haven't before, and also throw "interesting" as well. Or "intriguing," if that's a stronger word. They're such fascinating soundscapes, without ever being too harsh. I'd say maybe the "most" moment for that is the horns on "The National Anthem", and they're really not even that bad. I wouldn't call any of this "commercial" since it clearly wasn't their goal — you wouldn't switch styles like this after something as big as OK COMPUTER if you wanted commercial potential — but the word "accessible" still comes to mind. Nothing here would necessarily alienate me if I was a fan of OK COMPUTER in the 90's and I then came into this. And even if I did think the style switch-up was strange at first, I'd like to think I'd still quickly click into what it's doing. It's amazingly good stuff, regardless of whatever expectations and preconceptions I might have had. I can totally hear why it's as highly praised as it is. Sure, of course, though, my tastes and conceptions might keep me from being rapturous about it on that scale — and certainly not to that point of that Pitchfork guy — but I think I'd be a fool to not still sing its praises. To reference the way-too-short I wrote for OK COMPUTER: "KID A? More like 'KID A-OK with me.'"

I don't pretend to know how the Randomizer works. I mean, yeah, to be completely literal, of course I do: it's RNG. But how it works in, like, a **cosmic** sense... **That's** what I'm completely in the dark about, 'coz I'm not sure why exactly my group would be given this album before AT FOLSOM PRISON. In fact, I'm not really sure why this album is here when FOLSOM PRISON is as well. Even looking at them from the outside, I couldn't really figure out the difference between them aside from the track listing and where they were recorded. I understand that's the appeal of its original release, at least from the label's perspective: "you liked the first time Johnny Cash played a prison, so here it is again!" As for this list, though, we already have AT FOLSOM PRISON for that, which also happens to be Cash's best **and** most famous album. His biopic ends with the album's recording, for goodness sake. So, what exactly does this bring to the table that the other one doesn't — again, aside from different songs? Not much. However, honestly, despite how much of a stink I made about it in the previous paragraph, I don't really care **that** much. It's still Cash playing to a prison audience, and it's incredibly clear how much he loves doing it. I mean, there's a reason there's **four** albums of Cash playing to prisons. And that's another defense of live albums being here, alongside all the others I made. Most live albums are here because they capture a sound that a band just can't replicate in the studio — The Who, Thin Lizzy, Big Brother & The Holding Company, and so on. But the ones where the artist has such a rapport with the audience... They're not as common — I can't even think of any others, besides B.B. King's own prison live album — but, oh, they're so great. I mean, I'unno who else would play the same song twice in a row just because the audience wanted them to. It's stuff I kinda didn't wanna talk about here, 'coz I still needa have some things to say about AT FOLSOM PRISON whenever my group gets it, but whatever. And, I mean, between those two albums, I'd still recommend you listen to that one first. You even get way more songs than this one does (only ten songs feels like the record company being like "Eh, they like the concept so much anyway, we don't hafta put too many on there"). Still, there's no reason why I wouldn't give this thing the same 5 I'd give AT FOLSOM PRISON. Johnny Cash never sounded better than when he was playing for inmates, and that's a fact.

This album is a coin. Two sides n' all that, y'know? Heads: I'm honestly surprised by this album. I went into this thing expecting nothing but boring-ass loud noise. Y'know, just because they put the volume and reverb all the way to 11, I'm apparently supposed to consider this "good" because it's "not mainstream." But then there's actually a number of tracks where, through the reverb (was this thing recorded in the Grand Canyon?), I actually think it's kinda pretty? It's these '60's pop group melodies where, like, if these songs had been recorded conventionally, this might as well be bubblegum. And of course, those ended up being my favorite. Besides the reverb, I feel like the worst thing I can say about them is I maybe would've liked a different vocalist. Something that actually fits that '60s pop aesthetic instead of... Well... Tails: I'm honestly not surprised by this album. I went into this thing expecting nothing but boring-ass loud noise. Y'know, just because they put the volume and reverb all the way to 11, I'm apparently supposed to consider this "good" because it's "not mainstream." And yep — that's what it is alright. Harsh buzzsaw guitars and faceless post-punk vocals, all slopped into a mushy mush thanks to a way-too-thick level of reverb. The reverb's really just a step away from how it sounded on Stan Freberg's parody of "Heartbreak Hotel", and only a small one at that. Like, I can't even really think of any specifics to comment on because the reverb makes it just that hard to. Although, hey, I'm pretty sure if you **did** get rid of it there still wouldn't be anything to talk about. Like, "Ah, cool, more post-punk nonsense — my **faaaavoriiite**~." Of course, this album isn't exactly a coin flip. It's "tails" more often than its not, unfortunately. Even when it **is** "heads," I don't find myself really thinking that I'd wanna return to these songs. In fact, being 100 with y'all: I didn't even finish this. Yes, I listened to the first side (the first seven songs), then I tapped out. I just couldn't fathom what I'd gain listening to the other seven tracks. Like, how could this album possibly different in the back half that'd make me go, "Oh, no it's actually **genius** and I **love** having noise blared at me." Look, maybe I have baby ears that are just too used to pop and traditional production methods. I recognize fully that I was never gonna be in the audience for noise music like this. But I gotta rate this how I feel, and... Oh, I so wanted to be generous and give this thing a 2. Like, just on the merit of those couple of '60s melodies I liked so much. However, given the fact that it actually caused me to stop listening halfway through... Yeah, no. On that alone I have to give this thing a 1. Even albums I was feeling less generous towards, I could still get through to the end. Hell, I finished shit like DEVIL WITHOUT A CAUSE and MAXINQUAYE. Not here, though. I'm tired and I don't wanna yawn my way through more solid walls of noise. "Poetry-noise?" I suppose. It's just not worth my time to make heads or tails of it.

It kinda bums me a bit that electronica has ended up being such a low rated genre for me. I mean, before yesterday, before I gave PSYCHOCANDY a 1, it was number three in my bottom three genres. Only post-punk and (surprisingly) world music beat it out. And it just gets me because that's not even remotely close to how I feel about electronic music. I love it a lot, actually! Like, yeah, of course there's Daft Punk, but I also have a good love for Moog music and a lot of synthesizer work and electronic ambient soundscapes... I'm all for all of that kinda stuff. I suppose I've just been getting too many bad draws: those drum n' bass albums, MAXINQUAYE, FEVER RAY, KALA... All boring albums (or annoying, in KALA's case) that I couldn't help but give a 2 or lower, really bringing the average down against the fewer 5's I've given to Fatboy Slim and AUTOBAHN... I just don't find it entirely fair to 'em, y'know? So, y'know, I thank the powers above that this album isn't another bad draw. This album consists of long, ambient, space-y excursions, and oh, I mess with it so hard. Just lying back on this soft bed of stars and letting these beautiful sounds carry me across the cosmos to wherever they may. Believe me, it's absolutely not for people who want things to... Y'know, happen. To my ears, it's an album for relaxing. Letting these sounds fill up your mind, pushing out all the bad stuff in the process. Close your eyes and don't even think. Just let the sound envelope you; wrap you up tight. And more new age meditation jumbo like that. But you get what I'm talking about — that's just what this album means to and does for me. It's music I'd put on to calm down or focus. And in that lane, jeez, not since I heard the music Brian Eno did for airports. So, hooray, another 5 for an electronica album. The average goes back up and the genre gets further away from where it doesn't belong. Not that placement or averages really matter, anyway. Like I said, they don't reflect how I truly feel about electronica. And certainly, the 3.47 it currently has doesn't reflect how I feel about this album at all. All I need to do is turn off my mind, relax, and float down stream. 'Coz these numbers — they're all in the mind, y'know. They're nothing to get hung about, and nothing's gonna change my views about electronic music. (Lotta random Beatles quotes at the end there, goodness. Point is: this is a 5. Big recommendation if you're like me and love ambient music. I'd've maybe hoped for a spookier album to end October with, but, hey, I can't complain about what my group was given.)

As much as I like ELIMINATOR, I wouldn't exactly call it **the** ZZ Top album. I mean, ELIMINATOR gets placed 398 on the 2012 edition of the Rolling Stone 500, whereas this album only gets 490? Sure, ELIMINATOR has "Sharp Dressed Man" and "Legs" — undeniable hits and great songs, both of them — but if I were in charge of things, their positions would be reversed. See, the thing about ELIMINATOR is that it's just got this... 80's sheen about it. I'm not even just talking about the synths; it's just... The vibe coming off of the whole thing. That step away from what I choose to know 'em best for and more towards more typical hard rock. Which, yeah, I'll stress: it still rocks. I gave it a 4, after all. I just don't find it definitive is all. For that, we have TRES HOMBRES, and **the** sound of the band, in my ears: Southern-fried Texas boogie blues, blasting from just north of the Mexican border. It's the kind of album I could legitimately cook a steak to. Or, I'unno, fajitas, if I ate those. It's the kind of music you'd hear coming from the local tough guy biker bar. In my head, I kinda compare the material on this album to AC/DC or Motörhead. Y'know, this isn't complex material; you're not gonna break yourself in half tryna figure it out. Sure, if you really dig hard enough you could find something, and that's one part of a reason why I wouldn't call it "simple," but it just doesn't try to be anything more than what it is. And when it comes to being what it is — oh, goodness, it's so good at it. So incredibly good. Really, I can't think of any reason why or how someone could hate this unless Texas boogie blues just gives them a **really** bad taste. Which, at that point, I think they more have a problem with the genre itself than this specific album. It's just a good rockin' time. That's all you could ever ask of it, and that's all it ever provides. On those merits, I could give this thing a 5, for delivering so well on what it promises. But in the grand scheme of things — the grand tapestry of life — I think a 4 better fits its position. It's never not a fun spin, but it won't blow your mind. Regardless, of course, it's still a hard recommendation from me. Put this album on, fire up the grill and cook that shit well done. Or however you like it. Me, I prefer my meat juicy (and, actually, I like pork chops more than steak), but, hey, you do you.

DJ Premier's got the chill, funky beats. Guru's got the smooth flow... And yeah. That's about the size of it — or at least as much as I can see. I'unno, it was just a really nice album to come to and put on after a long day out and about. It might be my favorite East coast album I've heard so far, and it didn't even hafta do much. I'm perfectly happy giving this thing a 4. I'm sure on a worse day I woulda harder on this album for not being engaging, but yeah. Not bad from an MC I'd never heard of before.

OK, so, to begin with — so we're clear — I only listened to the songs that were included on the original 1956 LP, in the order they were presented in. It's not that I didn't have time or want to hear the complete concert. Much like The Who and LIVE AT LEEDS, I wanted to hear the album as it was originally released (as much as I could, anyway),so... Here we are. And for my second "to begin with," let it be known that all of the material here is amazing. This band is just superb and tight as hell. Hearing these concert recordings specifically instead of the studio versions makes it all the better; knowing that they were doing this stuff live in one go in front of a crowd. I mean, hey, that's part of the magic of live albums, innit? And in terms of jazz live albums, goodness, this big band stuff is so much more my shit to listen to than that "Sunday at the Village Vanguard" album by some trio I can't remember the name of. Seriously, them horns and that drummer. It'd make me wanna watch WHIPLASH again if that movie wasn't so much... A **lot**, y'know? But that's off-point; simply put, none of the material here is worth missing. Now, of course, I say all that because... Goodness, "Diminuendo And Crescendo In Blue". I can't imagine anything else being the climax of the album. It's— wow, what a showstopper. Especially knowing that the solo Gonsalves played was apparently so exciting that the entire audience couldn't help but get up and cause a big ruckus dancing to it. That, and that one Gonsalves finished his solo he **collapsed**. On its own, without this extra context, it still would've been an awe-inspiring solo. With that extra info, though... Yeah, goodness, I can hear why this performance is so legendary, even without hearing all of it. Needless to say, I'm a big 5 on this album. Goodness me. I really gotta return and hear this thing in full sooner than later, I swear. A masterwork, pure and simple.

On the one hand, I imagine this might be a bit of an odd Willie Nelson album to start with. I don't know him for much (mostly "On The Road Again"), but if there's anything I would expect... It wouldn't be pop standards. "Georgia On My Mind" and "Unchained Melody"... Heck, it's even the return of the Gershwins, which my group last tangoed with when Ella Fitzgerald spent three hours covering their entire songbook. And as I said in that review, I do quite love me some pop standards. When they're interpreted right, they can be amazing. It's just that I imagine for someone like Willie Nelson, you'd wanna hear more of his traditional outlaw country to start with. Get a sense of what he's more and mostly known for, y'know? That said, consider the other hand: I'm actually really glad that this was my first Willie Nelson album. I feel like it was a good chance to experience Willie as a musician first before considering him as a country artist, and, well... To put it in short: oh, these were all interpreted so right. These are just incredibly beautiful, plain and simple. So much credit has to go to Booker T. Jones, of Booker T. & The MG's fame, for producing and arranging these. I just... Had such a big, happy, peaceful smile on my face. And of course, Willie sings these beautifully — and really, the fact that he defied the expectations of his record label to record this, and it came out as beautifully as it did... Jeez, I have nothing but respect. And I can't give this album anything less than a 5. Jus'... Damn.

===< PART 1/2: SPEAKERBOXXX >=== It's hard to not feel bad for the Garfunkels of the world. You know what I mean: the second bananas. The other half of the duo that just don't get no respect — or at least not as much as the guy up front. Of course there's Art Garfunkel, but there's also John Oates, Kyle Gass, Meg White, Luigi Mario, TV's Frank... And lots more I can't even think of right now. They're people whose impact and importance to the group isn't to be undervalued, don't get me wrong. It's just that it's hard to escape shadows as large as the ones they live in. Big Boi is another such person who finds himself in this situation, and it's not hard to see why. Like, Andre 3000 is just... Out there. So much wilder in the stuff he releases. I mean, goodness, just the other year he released an instrumental flute album and everyone went nuts over it. Simply, his stuff is just generally more interesting than Big Boi's, who I've always viewed as the more "traditional rapper" of the group. The guy who brings Andre's energy down to a more reasonable level. An important role, naturally, but not one that's gonna get many eyes on you. So when Big Boi and Andre 3000 dropped their debut solo albums on the same day, I don't think it was a surprise that Big Boi's went pretty overshadowed. His didn't have a pop hit like "Hey Ya!" or "Roses", after all. But, still, let's put that aside and take this thing seriously. On his own, what did Big Boi create? As it turns out: I think calling Big Boi the "traditional rapper of the group" kind of undersells him a little. I don't believe that assessment is entirely wrong; it's certainly way more straight hip hop than I imagine Andre's would be. But this album, if nothing else, makes it clear to me that Big Boi is not just the "grounding factor" of OutKast. At every turn on this album, there's always something interesting going on. The hooks, the beats, the flows, the lyrics... No song sounds too similar to each other, and they're all a blast. All these groovy, funky-ass tunes... Seriously, I can't think of a track here I can say I didn't like. Not all of it blew me away, but more than a fair share of it did, particularly "The Rooster", "War" and "Church". Like, damn. This is some good-ass shit. And it was actually between "The Rooster" and "War" that I realized: this doesn't sound too terribly off from an OutKast record. Some of the odder edges that a true OutKast album would have aren't here, yeah, but a lot of the time I didn't think any of this would sound out of place on one, even with Andre largely being absent. On an initial listen, I'm really feeling a 5 here. Sure, I imagine on subsequent listens, as I get more familiar with it, I'll think I was being too generous and that I shoulda given it a 4, but I'unno, I'm just really impressed here. Without a doubt, it proves my line of thought that Big Boi is just as important to the duo as his partner. Which, I probably didn't really **need** proof of this, and I could've just always assumed this from the beginning, but... Yeah. It's just nice to have proof anyway. And what fine proof it is, goodness. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( * ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ===< PART 1/2: THE LOVE BELOW >=== If there's any reason I feel like I keep coming back to OutKast, it's Andre 3000. For some reason, I've always subconsciously attributed everything I like about the group's music to him. To the point where, honestly, in my mind Big Boi can kinda come off like a feature on his own group's songs. Just take "B.O.B." for instance. Andre's verse is masterful, front to back. Flow, energy, wordplay... Mmm, it's so good. Compared to Big Boi's verse, which, like, still has a lot of the flow, but I also consider, like... Kind of weaker overall? Y'know? And I can't even remember what Big Boi did on "Ms. Jackson", to bring up another hit from the same album. And it doesn't help that I also attribute the beats to Andre, too, even if I'm sure someone else actually produced them (as I'm writing this I don't feel like looking it up). Y'know, in short: Andre's the pop maverick; the auteur. And Big Boi's also there. Like, I don't wanna completely undermine him; I get what he adds to the duo. He's the grounding factor that keeps Andre from going fully off the rails. I mean, goodness, you leave him to his own devices for long enough and eventually he'll put out an instrumental flute album after years of nothing. But that's **compelling**, y'know? That's the kinda stuff that really grabs my attention. So, an album that's strictly Andre 3000 should be right up my alley, right? He dropped his solo debut on the same day as Big Boi, and of course Andre's was the bigger hit. It had "Hey Ya!" after all, with all of its wackadoo pop stylings. A pretty depressing song masked as one of the grooviest things of the summer — "Y'all don't wanna hear, you jus' wanna dance" and so on. But I've actually never heard the album in full before now. Like, as much as I like "Hey Ya!" and the stuff he did with OutKast, I guess I was just never enough of a fan to actually wanna check it out in full. Of course, though, that changes today. Let's see what Andre put together when left entirely to his own devices. As it turns out: Prince. I saw a review mentioning that this album sounds a lot like Prince and... I don't think it's 100% accurate (it goes back and forth a bit if I could hear him play it or not), but, yeah, I think that's the quickest way to put it. The album is all of these excursions into psychedelia, progressive soul, jazz, funk... Sometimes multiple at the same time. Sometimes it's smooth, sometimes it's sensual, sometimes it's dance-y, sometimes it's beautiful... It's fascinating. Every new track that comes on is like, "What's he gonna do next?" (I know **I** wasn't expecting a breakbeat take on "My Favorite Things".) It's a selection of songs and sounds where if you're not down to follow Andre wherever he wants to go, you're probably not gonna have a good time. Especially with how some of these run on maybe a bit more than they should? But, hey, I'm happy to let the beat ride sometimes if I'm enjoying myself. And believe me: I was. Y'know, going into this album, I had the thought I'd come out the other side thinking Andre 3000 was a self-indulgent jerk. It seems like having him knocked down a peg would have been a natural arc ending given what I was coming into this with. I mean, I try not to think too highly of "auteurs" these days... But no, no. If anything, my preconceptions are reaffirmed. I don't think I'd go so far as to call him an out-and-out "genius," but damn, if he don't make some good and interesting shit. It's an absolute 5 from me. Downright ice cold music — y'feel me, right? Right? Alright. Alright. Alright. Alright alright alri— ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( * ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ===< EPILOGUE >=== Of all of the reviews I'm gonna write for this website, I can't imagine any of them are going to be harder than this one. Which, yeah, it's largely my fault for taking the angle I did: writing reviews of both halves of the album as if they weren't released together and I hadn't heard the other. That's for sure way more work than I really **needed** to put in. Besides, I can just imagine someone going through these reviews and thinking to themselves, "Both of these reviews bring up and repeat points between each other. Like, why did you even bother if they both weren't going to be more different?" And I'm not gonna act like I'm a master writer who pulled this off flawlessly, but simply put: I'm interested in how those points change depending on the perspective they're viewed from. On the one, you got Big Boi and SPEAKERBOXXX as "the other guy in the group"; and on the other, you have Andre 3000 and THE LOVE BELOW as "the maverick auteur." I took this album as a chance for me to hear what each member brings to the duo by listening to what they made when largely separated from each other. On that front, for sure I succeeded. I've a much greater appreciation now for what Big Boi brings to the table, and... Well, jeez, I might actually check out Andre 3000's flute album, let's put it like that. As for if I succeeded in writing good reviews of each album... That's up for you to decide. Either way, the whole album package gets a 5, honestly. I can completely see how, like... These two maybe didn't need to be released together like this? But in pairing them up, it leads to such an engaging and iconic two hours of music that I can't even really complain. I don't think I'd really say it's a better album than STANKONIA — but then, that's an OutKast album. This release is a Big Boi album and an Andre 3000 album. And on that front, as showcases of what they can do... Goodness, I can't imagine it getting better than this.

Before I even started writing this review, I realized I wasn't gonna be in the state of mind to give a review of a length I'd find fitting. Which is a shame; this really feels like an album where I should be able to produce a long review. But, ah, well, it happens. To put it in short, then: I thought this was a very pretty album, verging on and even passing into "beautiful" in some spots. Thanks to my state of mind, outside of a few spots I'm not sure exactly how much this album's sound varies over time to really justify the whole "varied instrumentation" thing, but, eh, I don't mind either way. As someone who digs stuff like PET SOUNDS and THE SOFT BULLETIN... I don't believe I'd say it's an album of either of those calibers, or if those are even apt comparisons, but still, this album's up my alley. If I were a state (and didn't just have one of mind), I'd be proud to have an album like this about me. It'd a pretty good 4 from me.

From the onset, this seemed like an album I would not really enjoy. I mean, "martial industrial?" The "military industrial-music complex," as I call it. That just sounded like... Not a very fun time at all. Even before this year's U.S. election I would've thought, but living in the aftermath of who actually won? "Solvenians yelling at me in German over dark, military-inspired industrial beats sounds" like the last thing I would have wanted. Which makes it all the funnier, then, that I actually did kind of enjoy this a lot. Like, one more thing to begin with, you also gotta understand my conception of industrial music. Whenever I hear the term, I always imagine music that's loud and harsh. Music that's abrasive for the sake of it, though not enough to actually cross over into noise. Now, don't ask me where I got that perception from, I have no idea. But if I don't imagine that, usually I picture something just... Like, clanky and boring. In short, I have a bit of a predisposition to disliking industrial music. And that's not even to get into what I feel about the military. Let's not even get into it, for the sake of keeping things focused if nothing else. So color me surprised that this album isn't loud, harsh or abrasive. It's actually a lot of trumpets (I imagine trumpet synths) over these marching beats. I'd had this assumption they'd be slower than they are, and maybe they are still slow, but they're not so slow as to be a boring crawl to my ears. And with a little mix of guitar in there sometimes... Honestly, this sound kind of kicks ass? I would have never seeked this out on my own if not for this Randomizer, not in a million years, but... Yeah, no. I can really dig this. That title track and "The Great Seal" especially — oh, gawd, those triumphant horns. Oh, I love it. I absolutely love it. It actually reminds me a lot of RAMMSTEIN. Sure, yeah, it's partially just because these guys are largely singing/speaking in German, but I feel like if you added some heavier guitar riffs and sped up the tempo a little it wouldn't be too far off. I don't think you'd even need to change the lyrics. (For the record, by the way, I didn't translate. That's bad practice, I know, but besides the fact that it's been, like, a decade since my last high school German class... I'unno, I haven't translated any other foreign-language album my group has gotten, so why would I start now, y'know?) Y'know, besides the optics of getting this album when my group did, my biggest worry, honestly, would be that I'd hafta give this album a 2 or, goodness forbid, a 1 and plunge Metal right out of my top three genres. Like, I'd finally gotten it back in there after stupid DEVIL WITHOUT A CAUSE caused it to be out of there for so long... And I wouldn't even actually call it "Metal," but regardless, it makes me really happy to give this thing a 4. I even almost wanna give it a 5 just for how surprised I was that I actually liked it as much as I did, though let's not get **too** excited here. And, yeah, still, the optics of my group getting this album when we did aren't great. It only could've been worse if we'd gotten this thing yesterday, right after the American election. And, yeah, any "ironic" use of Nazi iconography in the lyrics isn't... Good? I mean, I don't give the Sex Pistols a pass for that shit, so I don't know why I would anyone else. Once again: bad practice that I didn't do my diligence to translate the lyrics and find any of it. But all I know is that from what I **did** understand... Aw, heck, I enjoyed this thing a lot. I'll even give it the highest compliment I can give an industrial album that isn't by Nine Inch Nails: I'll probably listen to some of this stuff again. Goodness, you don't even know how much that means...

The last time I reviewed a Simon & Garfunkel album, It was PARSLEY, SAGE,ROSEMARY & THYME, and I gave it a short review and a 3. Simply: as much as I appreciated the work they put into their orchestrations, I didn't think the music was any much more than just fine. Maybe it was just a bit too folk for my taste; I didn't go back and check that album for this review. Now, I also said at the end of the album that I'd probably like their other ones more. So, did I? I have no idea what changed in the intervening four years between that album and this, but goodness. Goodness. This album is actually incredible. Beautiful in some parts, like with the title track; fun in others, like with "Baby Driver"... Mostly, though, it's pretty beautiful. Jus', goodness me. And, like, besides these songs just being written and arranged amazingly, if I could attribute anything to that, it's the fact that... Well, this was their last album. Much like something like ABBEY ROAD, it just hangs over the whole record until the end, where it finally can't ignore it anymore. I mean, the last two songs, "Bye Bye Love" and "Song Of Asking", are basically the two of them saying goodbye to each other and extending an olive branch if they ever wanted to get back together (or at least Paul is). Which, I don't think they ever did, given that Wikipedia still lists this as their last album, but still. The fact that the album ended like this is sweet. And this is coming from someone who hardly cares about Simon & Garfunkel outside of "The Sound Of Silence", so, hey, if this album's able to pull off making me feel like that... It's a hard 5 from me, and a heavy recommendation. I'm happy they were able to go out on top with something like this. And, hey, this album has the song that provided the title for my second-or-third favorite Edgar Wright movie, so that's worth something at least.

This is actually another album I didn't listen to in full — fun fact! Like, I tried to give this thing a fair, full shot, I really did. Honestly. I don't **want** to only listen to half an album and act like I know everything about it. That's just bad practice right there, 'coz for all I know, there could be something in the second half that redeems the first half, and it's my due diligence to see if it's there or not. At the very least, it's only fair to the artist. But, like, I started listening to the second half of the album, "Hunting Song", and, jus'... Oh, goodness, I was so interminably bored. I legitimately could not stand how boring I found this music. I mean, seriously, you hafta understand: most music I find boring just kinda fades into the background. Y'know, it's wallpaper, whatever. Not interesting in the slightest, but I guess it keeps the ears occupied. But this was a weird kind of boring, where... Y'know, I swear it was on the verge of something. This light renaissance faire thing, I could be down with it — if it ever went anywhere! Like, if they went whole hog with it, that'd be one thing, but note: "LIGHT renaissance faire thing." They found one, soft, turgid pace and are determined to stay there the whole time. With these vocals that're, like... OK, in parts they remind of Church Of The Cosmic Skull, and if the music behind them was more exciting, I'd be really into that. But again: it's not! And from the moment the lady on the first track went "la-da-dee-da" or whatever, I was already annoyed by them. Maybe the problem is they're taking themselves too seriously? Maybe if they loosened up a little and picked up the damn tempo or volume sometimes, they could have something. Like, I'm just frustrated, mostly, honestly. I can hear potential in this! I can hear something where, y'know, I'm not in **love** with it, but goodness, it's something I could stand to listen to for its entire runtime! Frustration and disappointment. Maybe the worst two feelings you can have with an album. Goodness. Like, I'm giving this thing a 2 'coz I didn't **hate it** like, say, DEVIL WITHOUT A CAUSE, but understand how much worse this 2 is than that album's 1. 'Coz I never had any expectations for Kid Rock. At most, I figured he'd suck, and what a surprise, he did. Now, I didn't have any expectations for this album either — in fact, Wikipedia giving it the label "folk jazz" had me already feeling predisposed to not liking it — but... It teased me with an idea of what it could do. And it never did. Jus'... Urgh. It's boring and it sucks. Another day, another 60's folk album. Who cares?

Y'know, I'm just taken by the fact that this album was apparently held in the vault for 20 years after it was recorded because Cooke's label thought this show was too raw and would damage his pop image. And I just gotta wonder: are they stupid? Like, maybe I'm missing something about how Cooke was publicly perceived at the time. Before now, I'd only heard one Sam Cooke song, on the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, VOL. 2 soundtrack, and it honestly took me a second to remember that. And I especially don't know anything about the landscape in 1963, over 60 years ago, so, yeah, for all I know, maybe it would have hurt his pop image. But at the same time: who C-A-R-E-S about his "pop image?" This is the single most exciting and electrifying live performance I've heard in a hot second. Cooke is **amazing**, the band behind him doesn't miss a beat, and the audience... Oh, goodness, I kinda wish I coulda listened to the version where the crowd sounds were louder? I can only imagine how this thing woulda felt if it had crowd mixing like James Brown's LIVE AT THE APOLLO. OK, maybe not **that** extreme, but still. I can't even really think of any specifics to gush about. It was just an incredibly entertaining 30 minutes, and I feel like it was such a crime to keep this from the world until **1985**. And if you couldn't tell, this is a huge 5 from me. Another notch in my "live albums deserve to be here as much as any other" argument. Seriously, I can't imagine how anyone could listen to this and not get into it, goodness. Expect me to spin it more than a few times more after today.

I really wanted to like this more than I did. Like, in my mind, this is **the** blues album, y'know? Not even just Chicago blues; blues in general. It inspired everyone from Led Zeppelin to Jimi Hendrix. It's an important album, and from everything I've heard, maybe Muddy's best. Only his first greatest hits album might pass it. And to be clear: I don't **have** to like it just for those reasons. After all, I'm sure I've disliked plenty of albums that're just as important to their genres as this one is. That's to say nothing about common critic consensus. And of course, I recognize as well: it's high expectations. I shouldn't be coming into any album with expectations that high, but, hey, it's not like I can easily stop having them once I get them, so... Y'know, if there's a short answer to why I feel the way I do, it's just that I expect a different kind of energy from blues than this album provides. I'll admit: maybe I was spoiled by having my first Muddy Waters album be HARD AGAIN. The blues on that album is loud and hard as hell; the kind that'd blow up your speakers without even needing to turn it up too high. Meanwhile, this album's a lot more, y'know, laid back. It's quieter, the tempos are lower... Neither really picks up 'til they play "I've Got My Mojo Workin'" twice in a row. That's when the album peaks for me, and the energy carries after that, but it's so late in the album by that point that it hardly matters. Of course, I realize that there's probably a lot of nuances I'm missing, from how they're playing to Muddy's charisma and personality. And I wanna emphasize, I hardly think this is bad at all. It's still Muddy Waters, and he does a damn fine blues tune. On top of that, its context as part of the Newport festival, where I believe this was the last show played before the other two days got canceled, does add a narrative weight to the whole thing that I rather enjoy. Ultimately, however... Eh, it's largely just not what I really look for in the blues, y'know? Still, I wouldn't feel right to give it less than a 4. I suppose you could chalk it up just to how much I liked "I've Got My Mojo Workin'" and that otherwise it'd be a 3 — Muddy didn't work his mojo to the point of complete exhaustion, after all — but I'unno. I still think it's worthy of a 4, even if it's not exactly what I want from the blues. I still had a good time with it, and that's what matters.

Of all of the rap albums I've heard so far from this list, this might have some of the best damn beats. So many shout-outs to the producers Ghostface got for this thing — up to and including MF DOOM and J Dilla! Which, yeah, true, their contributions came from previously released albums (DOOM's SPECIAL HERBS series and Dilla's DONUTS, respectively), but still, they're good-ass beats, and regardless I'm glad they still get to be on this list in some small way. So that's me complimenting what I mostly get out of rap albums: the beats. What about the actual rapping, though? Well, to begin with, compared to the last Wu MC we got, I like Ghostface better than GZA. I like his voice better, I think his flow and lyricism is more interesting... All of that. I actually wanted to pay attention to him, unlike GZA. Now, my problem with the album: its subject matter can get a little tiresome to my ears. Like, yeah, it's a concept album with an organized crime theme, and I've heard that that's Ghostface's thing, so it's not like I wasn't expecting it. It's just that, after an **hour** of it... I'unno, I jus' got a little bored by it. There's only so much you can say about dealing drugs before I begin to lose interest. But I don't think it's really a huge problem, honestly. The beats and the way the vocals interact with them were enough to carry me through, even after I stopped paying attention to the lyrics. And I **did** last longer than I thought I would, so... Hey, y'know? Still, however, I feel like it's enough to ding this album down to a 4. It really was almost there, but... Ahh. Blame my usual preference towards albums under 60 minutes, I guess. At any rate, I'm just glad I got to hear these DOOM and Dilla beats. I wish they coulda been on this list proper instead of being relegated to this album, but, eh, whatever. I'll take what I get, and what I got is pretty dang good. Of all of the rap albums I've heard so far from this list, this might have some of the best damn beats. So many shout-outs to the producers Ghostface got for this thing — up to and including MF DOOM and J Dilla! Which, yeah, true, their contributions came from previously released albums (DOOM's SPECIAL HERBS series and Dilla's DONUTS, respectively), but still, they're good-ass beats, and regardless I'm glad they still get to be on this list in some small way. So that's me complimenting what I mostly get out of rap albums: the beats. What about the actual rapping, though? Well, to begin with, compared to the last Wu MC we got, I like Ghostface better than GZA. I like his voice better, I think his flow and lyricism is more interesting... All of that. I actually wanted to pay attention to him, unlike GZA. Now, my problem with the album: its subject matter can get a little tiresome to my ears. Like, yeah, it's a concept album with an organized crime theme, and I've heard that that's Ghostface's thing, so it's not like I wasn't expecting it. It's just that, after an **hour** of it... I'unno, I jus' got a little bored by it. There's only so much you can say about dealing drugs before I begin to lose interest. But I don't think it's really a huge problem, honestly. The beats and the way the vocals interact with them were enough to carry me through, even after I stopped paying attention to the lyrics. And I **did** last longer than I thought I would, so... Hey, y'know? Still, however, I feel like it's enough to ding this album down to a 4. It really was almost there, but... Ahh. Blame my usual preference towards albums under 60 minutes, I guess. At any rate, I'm just glad I got to hear these DOOM and Dilla beats. I wish they coulda been on this list proper instead of being relegated to this album, but, eh, whatever. I'll take what I get, and what I got is pretty dang good.

Well, the album opens strong at least. "Karma Chameleon" is a stone classic, and without a doubt the best song here. That harmonica line it has does so much for me, whether it's fake or not. As for the rest of the album, though... I wouldn't go so far as to call it bad — the 1's and 2's I've seen people give it are a bit too harsh — I wouldn't exactly day I was all that interested in it, either. Over the rest of its runtime, I found it very easy to space out and let my mind drift elsewhere. And unlike other albums, where I feel very bad about doing that sort of thing... Not here. Besides "Karma Chameleon" and "Victims" (which I managed to rejoin the album in time for; I think it's a nice ballad), nothing here sounds terribly special to me. Like, jeez, at least RIO had hooks, y'know? I'm at a 3 with this. I don't think it deserves lower. Like, maybe without "Karma Chameleon" to kick down the door... But still, nothing here's that offensive to my sensibilities, so... Yeah. I like y'wears at least, Boy George. Y'did real good with y'did there.

I feel like the Randomizer's just being cruel at this point. Seriously, this is the third solo album from a Wu Tang member my group's gotten now. First LIQUID SWORDS, then FISHSCALE, and now this, only two days later. It's just incredible how many of these we're getting before we've even gotten 36 CHAMBERS. It's like watching THE MANDOLORIAN before A NEW HOPE,y'know? Obviously it's not bad, but I feel like you'd appreciate it more after seeing the original. Which, I feel like I have more to say about that than the album itself. Like, I'm not gonna say it's bad, or that I didn't enjoy it, but until it hit me in the face with the "I Will Survive" interpolation on "Release Yo' Delf", I really didn't have much to latch onto. The beats are fine, Method Man's raps are fine... It's all nothing that really inspires me to wanna say much. Honestly, part of me can't help but compare it to FISHSCALE album my group got two days ago. That had some incredible beats, and in general I found Ghostface Killah to be a more interesting MC. It jus' kinda... Pales a little. And maybe if I'd been allowed to have more space in-betweenI wouldn't be thinking that, but since the Randomzier decided that I needed to hear it **now**... And I don't have much else I really wanna say about it. It's a perfectly fine 3. I just hope the Randomizer decides to give us 36 CHAMBERS sooner than later — though, watch, we're gonna get ONLY BUILT 4 CUBAN LINX... tomorrow, I guarantee...

Y'know, first of all, besides how good of an album I think this is, I gotta say, it does make me pretty happy just that the Randomizer finally gave my group a samba album that has nothing to do with Getz or Gilberto. Seriously, as much as I liked them (except BEACH SAMBA, honestly), it's just nice to move outside of the 1960's, y'know? And, yeah, like I said: I think this is a good album. I mean, it was good enough for Rod Stewart to rip off for "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy?". As it's one of those "world" albums (as in, "it's not from America or Europe"), I'm not really sure what the lyrics are about. The top review of the album on this website tells me it's some pretty important stuff, although I don't think it really matters if you actually know the lyrics or not. Like, sure, it's probably better if you don't pull the "Y'all don't wanna hear me; you jus' wanna dance," but as just an album to dance to, absolutely, it's great. Like, sure, I don't think any of the songs really evolve once they get started, but I don't think that's a problem. As long as you can lock into its groove, that's all that matters — and fortunately, I can, especially because of its samba and MPB rhythms. It's a pretty solid 4 for me. And, uh, I don't know what else to say that I haven't already. It's just good, funky samba music — and, again, it's not BEACH SAMBA. I can't think of anything else I would've asked of this album.

This is just Oasis. Like, this — that's all this is. It's just Oasis. And I feel like normally I wouldn't have a problem with that sorta thing; if I like a sound, I'm generally not gonna complain about it. But this time around, I'unno. Maybe it just caught me in a bad mood, but I had a lot less tolerance for this album. Like, we already have an Oasis album on here, and it's MORNING GLORY. "Wonderwall", "Don't Look Back In Anger", "Some Might Say", "Champagne Supernova"... After including an album with as many classics as that, what in the world could this one possibly add? And not to mention, I'm pretty sure DEFINITELY MAYBE is also on here, so we already have a second Oasis album anyway. I'm probably missing some context here in the relationship between this band and Oasis. I mean, The Charlatans actually pre-dated Oasis by, like, four years. It's entirely possible possible I should be getting on Oasis's shit for ripping off **these guys** — not that there seems to have been any bad blood, given that The Charlatans played the support slot for Oasis at Knebworth. Like, consider: the biggest show in Oasis's career, and these guys were right there with them. Crazy. And the thing is, I don't even think this album's that. Sure, it sounds like "Oasis at home," but The Charlatans don't do a bad job at it. It's just, living in the shadow of MORNING GLORY, I find it hard to really think of any of this as that special. Now, sure, there's a few songs here where they break away from that, and I think those songs are much better, but I know that's not what I'm gonna remember this thing for. It's a "me problem," for sure, but it's still a problem for me, so... I'unno. After listening to this, I think all of the people giving this a 2 or lower are being a bit harsh, although I wouldn't rank it much higher. I'm giving this a 3. Like, I was thinking about giving this a 2 — for the fact that it's "hip hop soul," if nothing else — but ultimately, I'm not actually that offended by this. At worst, I'd return to Oasis a million times before I'd ever come back to this, if at all.

From the onset, I didn't think this album had a terribly good dance to win with me.. Even before the website goofed up and allowed me to think about The Monkees today, seeing Wikipedia label this album as "dark wave," "experimental," "avant-pop..." "POST-PUNK..." Yeah, not a prayer I'd give it higher than 2 at most, far as I could see. I figured at best it'd just be a thing I'd hafta get out of the way before I got to what I actually wanted to do. Color me surprised, then, that I actually liked it a lot more than that. I'unno if I've explained this before, but for some context, whenever I see something labeled "experimental," I'm typically expecting, like... Y'know, noise and atonal nonsense, that I'm supposed to be impressed with because it's "art." Similar feelings go for post-punk — it wasn't my lowest rated genre for as long as it was for no reason, after all. It made me all the more surprised to actually hear convention in here. Beats, melodies, guitar and key parts... Stuff I could actually latch on to Sure, none of this would land on the Hot 100; it's too odd and minimal for that, but I was actually getting engaged in some of these songs. Someone else in my group compared it to early Gorillaz, and, honestly, I can hear it. Really, my biggest problem with the album is that the songs can be a bit too long. Even as much as I enjoyed them, I don't know if they generally do enough to really justify each song having an average length of, like, five minutes. I suppose the point might've been to lose yourself in the atmosphere — and it's not like that's something I can't accomplish — but for some reason here I wasn't really able to. I guess I just clicked with this album too late for that? I'unno. Either way, honestly, I'm feeling a 4 with this thing. I never would've guessed that's where I'd end up, and I might look back on this and think I was too generous, but for the right now, I really was just that pleasantly surprised. So, hey, good on TV On The Radio for that. Now — hey-hey, it's onto Monkee business! Woo!

It's interesting to me how much of The Monkees and their legacy is based around the fact that they were created as a prefabricated band for a sitcom. Like, before this album, they basically had no control over their own direction. The songs were all written by pros, they were all played by session musicians, their producer had complete control over track listings... And, heck, if one of them hadn't put their first clean through a wall, they well could've been the ones to have recorded "Sugar, Sugar". The four of them were trapped in a black box, with nothing to do but smoke in-between flopping around on camera. I can only imagine how crazy that would drive someone. Like, sure, if this were the 1950's and they were Elvis, singing other people's songs wouldn't really be such a bad lot. But unfortunately, this was the late-60's — where, funny enough, Elvis found himself in the same spot as The Monkees. I mean, The Beatles were the entire reason The Monkees were created in the first place, and they set the standard for bands writing their own songs. The Rolling Stones had moved to penning their own material, Brian Wilson was crafting masterworks, Bob Dylan... And yet, here these guys were, faking songs for a teen-age audience that didn't care about the artifice. They had hits upon hits — but what does it matter if none of them were theirs? That's where HEADQUARTERS comes in. See, their next single was supposed to feature a compromise: the A-side would have the group singing on one of their producer Don Krisher's tracks, and the B-side would feature something the boys had written and performed themselves. Krisher had seemingly agreed to this — until the next single came out and it featured two Krisher tracks. It caught everyone off-guard: not just The Monkees, but also the show producers and the **label executives**. Needless to say, the move wasn't exactly worth it. Krishner was out, and finally, **finally**, The Monkees were able to record an album under their own direction. So, after all of that preamble — how does the album itself actually play out? See, I don't wanna front and say that the surrounding context isn't a big reason why I'm as much a fan of the album as I am. It's a great story of fighting for freedom and achieving it. Honestly, there's some part of me that tends more towards the prefab artifice of their previous two albums. I mean, come on, **the hits**: their TV theme song, "Last Train To Clarksville", "(I'm Not Your) Steppin' Stone", "I'm A Believer"... It's all bubblegum, factory-made and everything, but if it ain't fun to chew, y'know?, they can be so **garage**, I love it. I'm not sure if there's a song here that really matches up to any of those — or even their later hits, like "Daydream Believer". But that's speaking on a song-by-song basis. As an **album**, absolutely, this is the band's greatest achievement. 'Coz, look, as much as their debut and MORE OF THE MONKEES had great singles, and some amazing garage-type rock, as a complete experience... Well, there were some notable low points, to be sure. There's some part of me that gets a kick out of shit like "I Wanna Be Free" and "The Day We Fall In Love" in spite of themselves, but I can't act like they're not... Y'know, **good**. That's not even to mention the stuff that just feels tossed off, like, "Eh, this episode needs another song, sure." HEADQUARTERS is a more consistent experience. The highs might be lower, but the lows are higher, and it all balances out pretty nicely. It's just... A really good listen, y'know? Which I feel is all it needed to be, to prove they could make it on their own. At the very least, I've put this on more than I have the previous two, and not out of any sort of "this is the one where they gained autonomy" obligation. Goodness, there was one night this year or last last where, for some reason, I listened to the first side of this record, like, three times in a row. If that doesn't tell you how I feel about this album, I don't know what else will. Oh, and if I can quickly name the best song on this album before I move on: "Randy Scouse Git". Just, 100%, it's "Randy Scouse Git". It even went all the way to no.2 as a single in the UK — with the alternate title, uhm, "Alternate Title",'coz... Well, you look at what it's more commonly known as. Following this album, The Monkees would meditate once more on being a prefabricated band, with the movie/freak-out trip HEAD. That movie's a whole extended essay unto itself, so I'll refrain from going on about it. Just to say that, hey, The Monkees wouldn't have been able to try and kill off The Monkees if this album and its success allowed them the freedom to do that. For that alone, it's their most important, and thank goodness it had the tunes to back that up. I mean, if this had turned out to be the 60's NICK OF TIME... I mean, goodness, I don't even know. For me, this album's a solid 4. Honestly, I'm not sure if The Monkees were ever capable of making a straight 5/5 album, but as the best they've ever done by themselves... It coulda been worse, y'know? Plus, hey, they had Frank Zappa's approval, and in my eyes that counts for a lot.

To me, 70's Yes is, like, "ur-prog." Y'know, the prog that's just... Always been around, always. The first sound you think of when you think of prog; the genre at perhaps its basest level. I'd call it timeless, too, but... Ehh, naaaah. It's still pretty pinnable to the 1970's. Which is just as well; if the 70's ain't prog's decade, then no other is. FRAGILE lands itself smack in the middle of what are, in my eyes, **the** Yes albums — ten months after (funnily enough) THE YES ALBUM, and ten months before CLOSE TO THE EDGE. And, like, it's crazy, you know? There's not too many other bands I can think of who can pull off something like this. Of course, in the case of FRAGILE, it helps that there's really only 4 "main songs." Now, that's not to put down the other five songs here, which are each composed individually by the five band members. They're all fun, and give a good sense as to what they bring to the group. I even really dig "Cans And Brahms", even if, for stupid contract reasons, it's just an arrangement of a classical piece. I guess my problem is just that... I'unno, as much as I like 'em, they make the album feel shorter than it actually is? Like, FRAGILE is only a minute shorter than THE YES ALBUM and three longer than CLOSER TO THE EDGE, but because 5/9 tracks jus' kinda breeze by, it makes it feel like there's so much less there on the whole. But, hey, despite that, the four "main songs" are still as good as ever, particularly "Roundabout". I mean, putting aside that one anime whose name slips my mind, it's not as iconic as it is for nothing. A sick bass line, virtuoso keys, great vocal harmonies... Across the board, it's simply incredible. Much the same goes for the rest, with a special highlight to "Heart Of The Sunrise". Goodness. **The** second song I tend to think of from this album. So, hey, it's all good stuff. However, ultimately, I think when you put these two halves of songs together... Honestly, as a whole package, it could be stronger. Like, my favorite Yes album is CLOSE TO THE EDGE, and that one wastes no time. It's simply three of the best songs the band would ever make, with not a second wasted, as far as I can hear — lot more beautiful vocal parts and harmonies, too. FRAGILE, on the other hand... Like I said, the solo composed tracks just do weird things to the pacing to me. That's my big problem here. If the album was weighted more towards the main songs than the solo fragments, sure, but as it stands... Yeeeeaaah. Still, I can't give it less than a 4 at minimum. It's still Yes in the middle of their best period, and I don't think they deserve much less. This is referencing the wrong album, but despite some of my misgivings, I can still get up **and** get down with this. (Now hopefully it's not, like, what, ten months until we get **that** album? Or more, goodness. I hope not!)

And just like with yesterday's album, my group returns to an artist we got very, very early on in our journey. The seventh album we'd ever gotten was Neil Young's RUST NEVER SLEEPS, a live album he did with Crazy Horse. I'd written a very short 3/5 review for it, which I can reiterate in its entirety here: "Well, I hope I'm more into any of the other six Neil Young albums on this list." As you can see, it's not very insightful. Back then, I guess I just didn't have the words to explain how much I wasn't into Young getting his Dylan on. Well anyway, it's taken 317 albums, but, hey, here's another one of those six. His most acclaimed, to boot — 72 on the most recent Rolling Stone 500. So... Was I actually more into this than RUST NEVER SLEEPS? Absolutely. This is a great album, comprised mostly of what I've taken to calling "country comfort." Y'know, to me most country music evokes late evenings, porches and bottles of beer. A whole "the modern man unwinds" kinda thing. This album also evokes unwinding to me, but it's not just confined to the porch — it's out there, on the ranch or in the prairies. There's this larger scope to it all that I really dug. It's just top-notch music, all around. And, sure, maybe a few lyrics on here are a bit too depressing to fit that "country comfort" vibe exactly, but, look, I can't just not imagine sitting on a horse, looking out over the canyons, or just resting on the fence watching the sunset. It's that vibe that does this whole thing so well. Which just makes it all the odder when I get randomly interrupted by another album. Like, OK, let's talk about the London Symphony Orchestra songs. To begin with, I'm not opposed to the orchestra being here. Hell, I love a bit of orchestral accompaniment. You should see how much I love Metallica's S&M, or even those Royal Philharmonic Orchestra albums where they RPO all over Elvis and Beach Boys songs. And if they were accompanying Young on, like, "Old Man" or "Alabama", that'd be one thing... (And can you imagine Skynyrd calling out the London Symphony Orchestra alongside Young? Goodness.) But like I said, the songs they're on both sound like they come from different albums. They're so grand and sweeping, and I like them, but they're just at such odds with the rest of the package. Especially because there's only **two** of them, one on each side. Like, maybe I'd understand it more if the LSO was on half of the tracks, or all of them, or if they just weren't here at all... I'unno, it's like taking Aerosmith's ROCKS and throwing two "I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing"s on each half. Y'get me? And I **like** "I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing"! Like, the country comfort stuff by itself would've been a 4 verging on a 5, but with the LSO tracks, as much as I did enjoy them... Yeah, it pulls the whole thing down to a 4 solid. Good stuff, of course, just... Could've been the slightest bit more cohesive. Alright, well, that leaves five more Neil Young albums left to get through. Fingers crossed it doesn't take **this long** 'til my group sees another one — and, hopefully, I dig it as much as this.

Y'know, I never woulda been able to guess what I'd get from a Frank Black solo album. Heck, before this album I didn't even know this album existed — or who Frank Black was, for that matter. For real, I'd known about the Pixies and I at least knew the name Kim Deal, but it turns out I had no idea who Frank Black was. So, learning that this guy fronted the Pixies, I suppose my initial expectation going into this was that, like... It'd be more? And exactly "more" as in "more of the same," but like "a more extreme version; more concentrated." Which, to be clear, I liked the two Pixies albums I heard. I didn't **love** them; I still think I generally enjoy Weird Al's pastiche more, but I did enjoy my time with them. So, there was a small part of me that wasn't really looking forward to hearing a more concentrated Pixies. But goodness me, I never woulda guessed that **this** is what the frontman for the Pixies would've made. Like, it's way popper than I would've guessed. I mean, I suppose this **is** indie rock, whereas I'd always pegged the Pixies as alternative and punk. (And, yeah, genre definitions are loose, so the Pixies are also indie, but you get what I mean, right?) It's catchy stuff. It also reminds me so much of a specific band which, for the life of me, I can't think of the name of, but I know it's one I like, so it's still a good thing anyway. So many key and synth parts I liked, goodness. I think what surprised me most is how much I actually paid attention to the lyrics. I normally don't do that the first time with an album; not even with the Pixies albums. But here, they jus' kinda captivated me. LIke, there's songs about PONG and the aqueduct. I'd never heard the word "aqueduct" outside of a Monty Python. movie. It's just interesting stuff — kinda quirky and specific, which I guess just captures me way more than conventional and broad. But together with the music especially — goodness, it's great stuff. Honestly, I'd be pretty happy to give this thing a 5. It worked for me just that well — and it's a higher rating than I've given to any Pixies album, even. So, hey, good on you, Frankie. And big congrats on that Teenager Of The Year award, by the way. I'unno how **you** got it, but, hey, maybe the judges were working off of "casting for a high school drama" logic. Y'know, I never woulda been able to guess what I'd get from a Frank Black solo album. Heck, before this album I didn't even know this album existed — or who Frank Black was, for that matter. For real, I'd known about the Pixies and I at least knew the name Kim Deal, but it turns out I had no idea who Frank Black was. So, learning that this guy fronted the Pixies, I suppose my initial expectation going into this was that, like... It'd be more? And exactly "more" as in "more of the same," but like "a more extreme version; more concentrated." Which, to be clear, I liked the two Pixies albums I heard. I didn't **love** them; I still think I generally enjoy Weird Al's pastiche more, but I did enjoy my time with them. So, there was a small part of me that wasn't really looking forward to hearing a more concentrated Pixies. But goodness me, I never woulda guessed that **this** is what the frontman for the Pixies would've made. Like, it's way popper than I would've guessed. I mean, I suppose this **is** indie rock, whereas I'd always pegged the Pixies as alternative and punk. (And, yeah, genre definitions are loose, so the Pixies are also indie, but you get what I mean, right?) It's catchy stuff. It also reminds me so much of a specific band which, for the life of me, I can't think of the name of, but I know it's one I like, so it's still a good thing anyway. So many key and synth parts I liked, goodness. I think what surprised me most is how much I actually paid attention to the lyrics. I normally don't do that the first time with an album; not even with the Pixies albums. But here, they jus' kinda captivated me. LIke, there's songs about PONG and the aqueduct. I'd never heard the word "aqueduct" outside of a Monty Python. movie. It's just interesting stuff — kinda quirky and specific, which I guess just captures me way more than conventional and broad. But together with the music especially — goodness, it's great stuff. Honestly, I'd be pretty happy to give this thing a 5. It worked for me just that well — and it's a higher rating than I've given to any Pixies album, even. So, hey, good on you, Frankie. And big congrats on that Teenager Of The Year award, by the way. I'unno how **you** got it, but, hey, maybe the judges were working off of "casting for a high school drama" logic.

Oof. Got caught up yesterday and couldn't find the time to listen to this album before another one got generated. Forgive me, then, if I rush this a litte; I have a MAGGOT BRAIN on the other side of this that I wanna get to. So, like, from the words "alternative country," combined with that pop emo-ass cover and **especially** that runtime, I wasn't looking forward to this. Now, I've liked plenty of country music just fine, but something about putting "alternative" in front... Actually, I don't know why it rattled me so much. I guess maybe I was thinking this'd be some kind of ultra-hipster country music? The stuff I "should" be listening to if I wanna understand mainstream country. But y'wanna know what this actually sounded like to me, honestly? OK, so one of the songs on here, "The Rescue Blues", was used on an episode of SCRUBS, right? Reading that before I listened to the album, I just shrugged and went, "OK." Matters to me about as much as another song getting used in BRIDESMAIDS. But then once I listen to the album, and especially once I get to "The Rescue Blues", it all clicks for me. 'Coz, y'see, so much of this album reminds me of "Superman" by Lazlo Bane, the song SCRUBS used as a theme song. And I **love** "Superman", so getting to listen to a whole album in that sonic vein... Which, I mean, I probably shoulda listened to that Lazlo Bane album first, but still, I dug this so much. Especially coming after all the stuff I got caught up on, too: it was a nice album to just unwind to. Now, of course, I still have a problem with this thing's runtime. As much as I sympathize with Ryan for the fact that his label forced him to chop off the last five songs... Like this thing needed to be any longer. Over 70-some minutes, goodness. This absolutely could've been cut down **more**, possibly. As much as I don't like saying I agree with meddling with his artistic vision... I mean, it's not like I actually listened to those last five songs this listen around, y'know? And as for the lyrics, I didn't really pay attention to them, of course (typical of me), but if they're really anything like what groupmate Gutseh was saying... Goodness. And I didn't not like "Nobody Girl", for as long as it was, it could've been more of a "Champagne Supernova" overdeal like he said. Overall, y'know, both my group mates gave this thing a 4 rounded up from a 3.5... And I feel like I'm at a 4 solid? If not just in the same boat, honestly. Like, I'm pleasantly surprised by this, but I'm not head over about it like I was that Frank Black album where I had similar expectations. It's just a really nice time, sonically. At the most basic level, there's not much more I could ask. And somehow I wrote 500+ words, including these. Hm. Well, I hope I can match for MAGGOT BRAIN. Goodness, what a solo...

This album has a real 2112 thing about it. Which, what I mean by that is that while the whole package is a great, 5/5 time, it's kinda hard for me to not place all my focus on the title track. "2112" and "Maggot Brain" are both the first tracks on and centerpieces of their respective albums; are both one of, if not **the** most famous things these groups ever did; and are, in their own ways, absolute tour de forces. In the presence of these songs, the others just can't help but fall under the "and also" category. Like, "Maggot Brain" is just... Soul-rending. The most emotional guitar solo I've ever heard since Frank Zappa's "Watermelon In Easter Hay". Even if you don't know the famous story where Eddie Hazel was told to play like he was just told his mom had died, you can still feel what this song is about in every note, tone, flange and wah. It sounds like the world's ending. Seriously, if this song caught me at just the right or wrong time... As for the rest of the album... Well, I'm not sure if it's as consistently strong as 2112's "rest of the album," but all the same, there's nothing here that'd make me dock the album a point. Not even "Wars Of Armageddon" and the actual fart sound effects it has over halfway through. The grooves and guitar playing are just that strong throughout. Especially "Super Stupid", which I'm picking as my "deep cut favorite." Pitchfork's absolutely right in their analysis; it really **does** sound like a tune Black Sabbath would be proud of. And with this kind of guitar playing, too — oof, my goodness. It's absolutely the hardest yet I've ever heard Funkadelic go. And, like, I kind of don't like to place so much focus on the guitar playing over everything else. The vocals, the lyrics, the grooves — y'know, all the other members of the band... They're all doing great work, too; I don't wanna undersell them. But, knowing about how George Clinton deliberately de-emphasized the other members on "Maggot Brain"... Like, they're there, and they're important to keeping the beat and melody. Eddie Hazel's guitar playing would be incredible even if it was just screaming all by itself, completely freeform. With that steady beat and melody underneath it, though... Well, it's just even better. But again: the other members were deliberately de-emphasized on that song. And it can be hard for me to not apply that to the rest of the album. But regardless, MAGGOT BRAIN as a complete package is a 5. The title track alone grants it that, and thankfully the rest of the album supports that. Y'know, I'm just thinking back to the first review I ever did with my group, which was also of a Funkadelic album, ONE NATION UNDER A GROOVE. Even as far back as that album, I was praising MAGGOT BRAIN's title track... And it's also really a contrast in how I've grown in regards to talking about music. That review was only just one above 30 words, versus here, where I'm already at 524. And in under 11 months, too — goodness. I'll say as well, I think I like this album better than ONE NATION. ONE NATION was more about, well, the grooves and vibes, whereas this had more focused songs. I can dig a good vibe, but at the same time, hey, y'know, gimme some good focus So, yeah, as a homecoming to the group where this whole journey started for me... Well, I don't think there woulda been any other options, but regardless, I'm happy it's with an album as great as this one. Big R.I.P. to Eddie Hazel: April 10, 1950 to December 23, 1992.

Y'know what I just love ? Y'know, what I really fancy myself a bit of sometimes? Overproduction. Now that's typically a bad word in talking about music, but for my own money... Oh, goodness, there's just nothing like it. When you take what coulda been normal, average songs and just pump them up with so much until they become larger than life, and then some. That's why I like OUT OF THE BLUE as much as I do. Front-to-back, every song sounds like a grand adventure. Even the shorter or more lowkey ones, it doesn't sound like there could be anything bigger. Like, it hardly matters to me if these songs are "soulless" or if there's way too much cribbed from The Beatles or whatever. The mere fact that for a while there I would put on the third side of the record, "Concerto For A Rainy Day," every time I woke up to find it was raining outside should tell you how much I don't mind either of those things. Besides, it's not like I have a problem with bands wearing their influences on their sleeve; as long as they can still sound unique in spite of that, it's all good. And, well, even acknowledging the fact that Jeff Lynne would go on to produce two Beatles songs 20-some years later, I don't think I'd mistake ELO for another band, y'know? It doesn't even matter to me that this album is as long as it is. It's one of those 60+ minute albums where I feel like it truly justifies its runtime. The songs, to me, are really just that consistently solid and carry the pace so well that it hardly even feels like it's that long. Accepting the "Concerto" as a different, mini-album in the middle of this album helps, too. Honestly, if there's anything I'm down on, it's the fact that I was kinda, like... Extra-tired today when I heard this? Which gets to me, 'coz this is an album I wanted to pay the fullest of attention to. And I feel like I paid enough, don't get me wrong, but... Ehh, I just had this feeling of "tired" behind my eyes ever since I woke up two hours later than I wanted to, I'unno. But that's besides the point, and hardly impacts my enjoyment of this album. For me, it's a full 5. Jus', goodness me, so many great songs and moments. Like, that rapid-fire breakdown in "Turn To Stone"? Goodness me. All the way to the grand closer of "Wild West Hero". Which is actually how I closed my 2023, by the way, after the album had also opened that year. (Huge shout-outs as well to the "PLEASE TURN ME OVER" at the end of "Mr. Blue Sky". I've always loved that. Really, the whole outro of that song... Goodness.) Now, I'll be 100 and admit that it's not actually an album I've put on too often. Like, outside of the "Concerto," I think I've only played this album in full four times (contrat with the **53 times** I've played the "Concerto"). If there's any commitment I wanna make after this review, though, it's to listen to this album way more. It really, truly deserves it. It's a masterwork of 70's overproduced pop — which, yeah, is absolutely not for everyone. But if no one else, it's for me. Jus'... Goodness. I don't even know what else to say. Go listen to "Mr. Blue Sky" — I mean, chances are you already have, but go listen to it again. You hear how happy it is? That's me when I play this album. Nothing but clear, blue skies and sunshine as far as the eye can see.

This album sounds like "hold music?" Y'know, I don't very much like to make commentary on other people's reviews. I mean, I don't think anyone's here for that, and I'd rather focus on trying to express my own opinions than spend my time having a one-sided debate or argument with someone else's. Absolutely, honestly, it'd be a waste of review to do that. But, like... The top-rated review of this album is a 2-outta-5 calling it hold music. And enough people, who knows how many, agreed with it to make it the top-rated review. Frankly, I don't know what insurance companies these people are getting stuck on hold with if anything on this album sounds like hold music. Not a single instance that reminded me of Kenny G, anywhere. I mean, most hold music isn't made to be anything more than pleasant-enough background music to keep your ear occupied while you wait six hours. To suggest that this album is as mild and unadventurous as that is an insult — in fact, it seems to land on exactly the opposite of this album's mission. Now, look, I was negative years old in 1969. Heck, **my parents** weren't even born yet, I'm sure. I can't exactly remark on the controversy this album stirred up in the jazz scene, but just knowing that it was controversial... I mean, I can't say I can't hear it. This is some adventurous jazz fusion. I mean, electric piano like this? I can't recall the last time I heard something like that on a jazz album — and it's great. Especially on "In A Silent Way"; that song's downright pretty. And the thing is, these are long songs — this album's two long, and they both approach 20 minutes — but they're never boring songs. Really, they both fit into the two ways I figure makes a perfect jazz album. These songs are a journey-and-a-half hearing where they go next, so, hey, if you're into listening to jazz for its complexities, it's no THE SHAPE OF JAZZ TO COME, but it'll still be right up your alley. By that same token, they're, yes, pleasant to listen to; to get lost in — so if you're into jazz for a good atmosphere, absolutely, you'll love this. I mean, there's no shame in that sort of thing — let's just not add on the extra disqualifier that they're meant to be ignored, because they absolutely aren't. The album's a big ol' 5 from me. Like, put aside any rebuttals I have against randos for their opinions — which, let's be clear, are absolutely valid, no matter what I think. It's just an incredible work. I'm thinking back to every instrumental jazz album I've heard before, from Frank Zappa's to the stuff I've discovered on this list, and I can't think of one I liked better than this. Maybe ELLINGTON AT NEWPORT for "Diminuendo And Crescendo In Blue", but even there I'd call it a pretty close tie. It's just... Oof, way. Immaculate. And not even in a very loud way. Goodness. I mean, seriously, if I called the bank and they served me up either of these songs as hold music... Well, it'd probably sound like ass comin' out of whatever machine they play hold music on, but still, y'know? I'd hardly complain.

Y'know, if I were the Randomizer, I would not have given my group this album **after** BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER. Or, goodness, at the very least, not within the same **month**. 'Coz in the debate over whether this or BRIDGE is the group's best album... Well, I can't lie and say I'm exactly in the former's camp, that's for sure. As usual with statements like that, I must make clear: I **like** this album. You saw the score before you saw that first line; you know for a fact I think this is good. But even removing the power BRIDGE gets from being the duo's last album — or at least, trying the best I can to — yeah, I think BOOKENDS gets outshone a bit. And in light of removing that "last album" power, I don't think there's anything specific I'd point to, honestly. I suppose generally BRIDGE has an overall grander feel to it, whereas BOOKENDS, while certainly leagues and such ahead of the first album my group got from the duo, just doesn't hit me in the same way. As a complete package, it doesn't exactly strike that chord where I'm nodding along like, "Yes, yes is the good stuff." Maybe if it committed more to either half of itself. 'Coz, it must be realized, this is basically two half albums glued onto each other. The first half is a concept album about life and aging, bookended (fitting) by the album's theme. The second half, meanwhile, is a collection of out-takes from THE GRADUATE and also an in-take, "Mrs. Robinson". And keep in mind as well: this is a **short** album, just barely under 30 minutes. So, on the one hand, these are nice, bite-sized mini-albums that you don't hafta break your back listening to. On the other, though, neither really go on long enough to develop into much. I might fall more into the latter. I mean, this ain't no 2112 situation. Of these two halves, by the way, I think side two's the more interesting one. Yeah, the one with all the left-overs. Side one's good, but overall it doesn't really grab me. Meanwhile, from the opening seconds of "Fakin' It", I was hooked in. Like, even if you removed "Mrs. Robinson" from the line-up (the stone-cold classic that it is) this side would still hit harder. Honestly, for my tastes, side one might just be a bit too... I'unno, a bit too serious? Not too much that it's a slog or whatever, but still, y'know? If I were to rank the two halves of this album separately... Side one would get a 3 and side two would get a 5. Put 'em together, divide, that's a 4 overall. Good stuff overall; I just prefer one half to the other. And seriously, y'know, if I were the Randomizer I would not have given my group this album **after** BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER.

Honestly, I kind of struggled to figure out what I wanted to say about this album. And not for lack of a hook or perspective; by everything I've written, this is commonly considered the original psychedelic rock album. Heck, "Eight Mile High" is apparently, according to a lot of folk, **the** first psych rock song ever written. Which, y'know, I take claims like that with a bit of "If it hadn't been that, it would've been something else" — but still, it can be hard sometimes not to marvel at the thing that started it all. And yet, here? I'unno. I didn't dislike this album as I heard it, but after taking a few minutes before starting this review... I can't recall a lot of it; nothing specific I can bring up for this review. Like, sure, after one listen I'm not gonna have the whole thing completely memorized, but still, I should be able to come up with **something**. As I sit here, though, my mind keeps flashing through a bunch of other songs I heard today — "Savoy Truffle", Peter Griffin singing "Memories" — but not really anything from **this** album. At most, I suppose, there's "2-4-2 Fox Trot", which is kind of an odd closer. I mean, I understand the concept and I don't really fault its execution, but I imagine it's a song that would've improved with better stereo mixing. I mean, take out an earphone: y'wanna hear the band, or jet whining and someone talking over a radio? All the while the band stands in the cockpit chanting "I WANNA RIDE A LEARJET." Second time I've heard about these things in a song, and this ain't no "Money". I'unno. I can appreciate this thing's place in history, and in the moment it's good, but... Mm, I'unno. During the album I was feeling a 4, but just for the fact that I forgot so much and that it's not exactly compelling me to give it a second listen... 3. It's an "it's fine" 3. Jus', I'unno. That's just how it is. Maybe if there **had** been another Bob Dylan cover, who knows?

It's never a good sign when I see an album pop and my immediate gut reaction is "Who the hell is this guy?" Now, that's never a reaction I **want** to have, y'know? I feel like I'm just immediately dismissing an artist out of hand just because I'm not aware of them. 'Coz I know, there's so much great music in the world that comes from people you've never heard of. And I feel like that's kind of half the purpose of a book like this; to place some light on more obscure releases by putting them right alongside more famous albums. Sure, it could also be the result of just needing to fill space, 'coz let's not forget that 1,001 albums is a **lot** of albums, but I choose to believe that there's more than that. And it's not like this album doesn't have any credentials; it **did** win the Mercury Award in 2000. There's a bunch of albums on here who've also won that award, and I've even agreed with some of those wins. Even if I, or most people, haven't ever heard of it, clearly there's **something** that resonated with enough people, y'know? I don't get it. I tried — I really did — but I don't get it. I mean, OK, sure, it's baroque indie folk. It's catnip to critics who wanna have big, important, refined tastes in music. I won't say I really dislike it; there's a few melodies around here I really enjoy. But as a complete experience, it's just... Honestly, it's kind of really boring. All the songs just mush into each other, and none of them are engaging enough to where I'd wanna try telling them apart. This boy, badly drawn as he is, just plonks away on his guitar for an hour. Sometimes there's chimes or whatever; sometimes there's strings... Whatever. I can't bring myself to care. And I promise you, it's not because I don't know who he is; it's not a knock against critics for "snobby taste"; and it's not even a dig at the book's writer for his tendency towards including nondescript British albums. There's songs I like in this style, but for an hour, and across eighteen songs? No, not really. I wanted to be generous with this album and give it a 3 at least, 'coz, again, there's melodies I like, and I do honestly dig the song "Disillusion". But I can't give the whole thing a pass just because I liked one song and some spare change. The whole thing honestly feels like a 2 to me. Big "ehhh" energy. I can't be surprised that this is one of the albums that got tossed out of later editions of the book in favor of newer entries. I'unno. Maybe draw your boy better next time. And, seriously, PARACHUTES by Coldplay lost to this? Goodness, if this ain't another Mercury Award winner I disagree with...

Y'know, it never struck me before now that The Verve is a one-hit wonder, but they totally are. Before I started this list, there wasn't a single song I knew from them besides "Bitter Sweet Symphony". In the public consciousness, everything else may as well not exist. Todd In The Shadows could totally cover this group if he wanted to. And even after my group had gotten the Verve album before this one, A NORTHERN SOUL, a couple of months ago... Yeah, no, I still only care to know one song from them. And thing is, that goes for this album, too. I don't figure it's ever a very good sign when a one-hit wonder has their one hit open their album. Of course, there was no way they ever coulda known, but still, goodness. It's right there at the top of the pile; you don't even hafta dig for it. And, I mean, "Bitter Sweet Symphony" isn't their one hit for nothing. That orchestral riff, taken from a Rolling Stones song or not, is incredible, and the vocal melody placed on top of it... It's so unique in Britpop. Seriously, I can't think of another song in this genre that sounds like this. It's a great one hit to have. The rest... Well, as I might've implied, the risk you run when your one hit is placed at the top is that it might all be downhill from there. That was the case with Chumbawamba's TUBTHUMPING, for instance, but it managed to prove it was a great album even besides that. URBAN HYMNS, meanwhile... Doesn't. I'm not gonna say it's bad, necessarily, 'coz I do like Britpop, especially in the Oasis mold, but... That's it. That's all there is to the rest of the album. It's just pretty-alright Britpop; nothing terribly unique about it. It all jus' kinda ran together and faded into the background. And, like, I feel bad about that sorta thing, but... That's just how it is, y'know? This is my group's tenth Britpop, and honestly, I'm just wondering how this band got **one** album on this list, let alone **two**. Besides "Bitter Sweet Symphony", what else is there? All that said... The presence of "Bitter Sweet Symphony" alone keeps this thing at a 3. I really wanna say that if it wasn't here that this album could still be a 3, but... Honestly, would it even be on this list if not for that song? So, this album gets a pass from me, but really only barely. I guess I can only hope that the rest of the Britpop albums (or one-hit wonder albums, for that matter) can do more to prove themselves.

The Clash: "The Only Band That Matters." Are they now, huh? Living in 2024, well past the heyday of The Clash, I'm not 100 on how much I'd agree with that or not — speaking just for my own tastes, anyway. I mean, there are a lot of bands that matter to me, from The Beatles to the one backing up Weird Al. So "the only band?" I probably just had to be there at the time. At any rate, I can agree that they're a pretty damn good band. And, at the very least, a better one than the Sex Pistols. Yeah, it's kind of unavoidable for me to compare The Clash to the Sex Pistols, as it seems to be for a lot of people. They're both 70's British punk bands who ended up being huge sources of inspiration for nearly every one that came out afterwards. Heck, The Clash even opened for the Sex Pistols on a tour, and it was a negative review they got during that that inspired them to write "Garageland". And, like, look, I have my problems with the Sex Pistols: as people, as musicians, and in regards to their formation, politics, and unintentional impact. Even though I like a fair bit of their music, there's a part of me these days that considers them a punk boy band that relied on shock value, between songs like "God Save The Queen" and the fact that they put the word "bollocks" in their album title. I mean, I'm not gonna come out here and say I hate them and their impact just because "Bodies" exists or that it's really their fault the Dead Kennedys had to write "Nazi Punks Fuck Off", but... I'unno. It's just harder for me to enjoy their bashing and thrashing as much as I used to when I was 13 or 14. So then we come to The Clash — one of the bands I've logged away in my head as "really left," alongside Rage Against The Machine and Chumbawamba. And lemme shut this down off the bat: that's not the reason why I like any of those bands. It helps, sure, to be able to nod along to those songs and go "I agree with them," but there's just as many bands and artists I like that I don't. No, of course, it's their musicianship. Rage making kickass rap rock. Chumbawamba mastering their way through punk, dance and folk. And of course, The Clash, doing some of the best punk I've ever heard. Like, besides any nonsense regarding "politics," if there are any strong reasons why I like The Clash over the Sex Pistols, it's that I think The Clash are better musicians — and, at that, more relatable. I mean, The Clash could play "Anarchy In The U.K.", but I don't think the Sex Pistols could play, say, "Police & Thieves". And in regards to their subject matter, honestly, thinking back on it, the Sex Pistols were a little broad? Which was probably the point, but I don't think it hits as well as The Clash writing specifically about being a youth in 1970's London, from the more serious stuff in "White Riot" and "Career Opportunities", to smaller things like "Protex Blue" and "London's Burning". Mixed with Strummer's vocals and Jones's guitar and the slight edge of pop that's in there... Woof, goodness. And I wanna rewind to "Police & Thieves" for a second: the intersection of punk and reggae. For the longest time there, I never got why these two crossed over so often. Why did punk bands do reggae so often? Why did Bob Marley write "Punky Reggae Party"? What **was** the deal? As it turns out, I was thinking too aesthetically, and not thinking about the thematic elements. They have a lot in common, and "Police & Thieves", in that light, fits really well here. I mean, just earlier on the album The Clash were expressing dislike for the police and calling out civil bureaucrats. So a song like this... Yeah, it's perfect. And it helps that The Clash do reggae pretty dang well here. And I've read that they apparently do it **better** on later albums? I'm not gonna say they're on the same level as, say, The Wailers, but still, goodness. Taking it all in total, while the Sex Pistols still probably have **the** punk album of punk albums, The Clash, for sure, have the best. I've never qualms whatsoever about giving it a 5. It's just that good. And I didn't even get around to mentioning the rock n' roll influence. If you've somehow stumbled across this review and haven't heard it yet, well, get yourself on it. LONDON CALLING, too, for that matter, but, y'know, I'll get there when I get there... "The Only Band That Matters?" I'm still not 100, but damn if they don't make a good case for bein' one of the big ones.

Y'know, I can't remember why I thought this would be worse. I suppose between the fact that I'm still not 100% on what "krautrock" is and that I read "noise rock" and "sound collage" on Faust's Wikipedia page... Maybe I was just worried I'd get that kind of experimental music that's loud and noisy just for the sake of it. And while there **are** moments that lean into that... It's not as bad as that would imply? Like, there's two kinds of songs on this album: cosmic, ambient instrumental music, and The Mothers Of Invention. And I don't think I'm as into either kind of song as I am elsewhere (that Tangerine Dream album my group got and, y'know, any MOI album), I don't think it's nearly as bad or as boring as that average 2.77 score would imply. Frankly, I'd give this thing a 4. I'm not gonna act like I'm **that** crazy about it, or that I'd revisit any time soon, but for surpassing my expectations... Yeah, it's got me feeling pretty generous about this whole thing. "Für mich war das ein unterhaltsames Album" or something.

I tried. I really did. I tried not to let my thoughts on Morrissey as a person overly impact my thoughts on the work. 'Coz while that sort of thing is unavoidable, I don't wanna fall into rating the person and not the music. I mean, if I can give a Kanye West album a 4 despite hating him as much as I do, then anything's possible. But we all have our limits — especially if the music itself can't make up for the awful human being at the center of it. Just look at Koffi Olomide, for instance. The samba music he made was so boring and "commercial for a Caribbean cruise line" grade, I felt no guilt ripping into him for being a convicted sexual predator. Similar goes for Kid Rock, the poser and grifter he is. And what's funny about all that is that I actually like a fair bit of the music on here. Like, I gave the last Morrissey album my group got a 3 'coz it was all, like, chill, atmospheric New Wave, and I liked it, but in the months since then, I'unno how much I'm clamoring to hear it again. Versus this album, which is full of energy and a nice bit of pop. If anyone else was singing anything else over this, I'd be close to giving this a 4 or, heck, a 5. I like it just that much. But I'll repeat: "if anyone else was singing anything else." I made the mistake of actually following along with the lyrics this time, and... Oh my fuckin' goodness, I can't stand this fuckin' man. Shut your fuckin' mouth, you pretentious ass. I can't even really begin to describe it, but I've just never had lyrics get under my skin as badly as this. Jus', this pompous fuckin' dick wants to lecture **me** about how America sucks? Buddy, in 2024, I know that already — and like I'd want **you** to tell me anyway. That, and the shit like "Wahhh-wahhh, I'm so alone" and "Ohhhh, no one can understand how **I** feel" and "Everyone **else** is just **so boring**" and "the press wuz mean 2 me :(." I don't need this shitheel's whining or pseudo-intellectual musings about the state of the world. Seriously, he's lucky I like the actual instrumentals as much as I do, 'coz that's literally the only reason why this thing's getting a 2 and not a 1. Muh'fucker this he's so fuckin' cool, posing on the album cover with a tommygun. He's a fuckwit is what he is, and he doesn't deserve instrumentals like these. If "First Of The Gang To Die", the only song I liked here, could've been sung by anyone else...! I don't even know if I want the one last Morrissey album on this list to show up soon so I can give it over with or later so I don't hafta deal with him again for a while. Either way, besides any Smiths album my group gets, I'll be happy to never have to deal with him again. Goodness me, I can't even...

I tried here as well. I really did, honestly. You gotta understand the thought I was going into this album with: "I thought Arcade Fire only had one — sorry, **two** albums." Legitimately, before this popped up, I'd completely forgotten this band existed outside of THE SUBURBS and, like, FUNERAL, and even that second one took me a moment to recall. 'Coz they've really never meant much to my life other than "one of their albums was widely named Album Of The Year, and that's a random fact I have stored away." I'd know their name if I saw them, but I couldn't tell you what they sounded like, and I was never particularly compelled to find out. And, heck, even after this Randomizer actually had me listen to THE SUBURBS I still couldn't and wasn't. So, here we go with another one. Their second, actually; the one they released between FUNERAL and THE SUBURBS. And if there's a metaphor I wanna use to describe this album, it's based on one that was used for this album: the ocean. Generally, so says Win, it's used here to represent a "loss of control." And you might think I'd use the ocean as a metaphor for the album's expanse, depth and beauty. But, no, no. See, my mind's stuck on the opener, "Black Mirror", which describes an black ocean on a moonless night. And something about that evokes how I feel about this album where I'm trying, honestly, to focus on the water cresting, but it's so hard to and everything jus' kind of melts into each other. It just ain't the kind of water I enjoy lookin' at, y'know? Like, sure, when I do catch something, it's fine — and when the big, bright boat that is "No Cars Go" passes by, I'm all eyes — but for most of the time I'm spending with it, there's just other bodies of water I'd rather deal with. And maybe that metaphor makes sense or maybe it doesn't, I'unno. I found out during the course of the album that I was more tired than I thought I was, and that's no fault of the album, but it sure didn't help any. Even if I wasn't, though... Yeah, I still don't think I'd think much of it. I'll be generous and give it a 3, 'coz I really did like "No Cars Go" just that much, but otherwise... I still can't tell you what Arcade Fire sounds like and I'm still not particularly interested to find out.

Even though I've been aware for years that the Bee Gees weren't always a white disco band, it's still kind of a surprise to hear what they sounded like four years before "Jive Talkin'". 'Cuz that's just who they are in popular culture, y'know? High voices going "AH-HA-HA-HAH" over a four-to-the-floor beat. So to fall back in time and hear an album's worth of Beatles-y soft rock in decidedly normal voices... Most people, I don't think, would've ever guessed this was the same band who'd later light the world on fire with "Stayin' Alive". And, hey, wouldn't you know — I actually really like this. What can I say? I'm a sucker for soft rock cheese every now and then, and this is, mm, such good cheese. I mean, you hear these orchestrations? Goodness me. Like, I say this is Beatles-y, but really, this specifically sounds to me way more like a softer, subdued Electric Light Orchestra. That's a kind of comparison that's a big plus in my book, given how much I loved OUT OF THE BLUE when my group got it. I guess the worst thing I can say is that the Gibbs' normal voices are maybe a little wonky, but it was never a bigger problem to me than just going "Huh." Honestly, there's not even much more I wanna say about this album. I just think it's good stuff, y'know? I really enjoyed it. Not enough, I don't think, that I'm chomping to give it a 5, but I wouldn't go less than a 4. Like, I can tell why this sound isn't as iconic as their disco stuff, but, aw, heck. I'm happy to hear it. (Boy, and if you wanna talk about the Bee Gees and The Beatles... The SGT. PEPPER'S movie is a trip and a half; I'll say that much. Goodness.)

I don't think I would have ever guessed that an album by a band called "The Flying Burrito Brothers" would've been another chapter in the great Gram Parson "Cosmic American Music" saga. Honestly, I would've expected something more like The Electric Prunes — but here we are. The last album my group got from Gram Parson was, well, his last album: GRIEVOUS ANGEL. Despite the 4 I gave it, I said in my review that I didn't really get why it was so important; that it just sounded to me like 70's country music. I recognize, that probably means I'm missing something about the history and evolution of country music through the 70's, but... Look, honestly, it's the same here. I think this is really good late 60's/early 70's country music, but I'm not sure beyond that why it's supposedly so important. Heck, I'm still not even sure what "Cosmic American Music" is really supposed to be. Is it, like, those fuzzed out guitars in "Hot Burrito #2"? Either way, regardless, I like it a lot, but... Honestly, I feel like this mostly comes down to the fact that I already like country music as much as I do. Maybe I just have low standards, I'unno, but I've never felt like being that hard on any I've ever heard. So, if I don't "get" this album in the grand history of country music... Well, I'm still willing to give it a 4, anyway. Honestly, I can't even imagine what a country album I'd give lower than a 3 would sound like — unless you wanna count DEVIL WITHOUT A CAUSE, but I really don't, so... At the very least, I know it won't come from Gram Parsons, that's for sure.

As I sit down to write to review... Honestly, I have no idea what I wanna say, exactly. Like, to be crystal clear: on a thematic level, I agree with it. Obviously, of course; I'm not an asshole. But to be 100: I don't think I'm really... Y'know, equipped to discuss any of it. For a lot of reasons — none of which I feel like I'm able to discuss either. Please realize, I'm not trying to avoid any conversations I don't want to have or that make me uncomfortable. At most, I'm jus' tryna avoid saying anything I'd heavily regret later. And maybe I'm gonna regret all this, too, I'unno. So let's talk how I feel about the music n' melodies, since those're always what I'm not interested in anyway. I actually had some high hopes for this album, given the way some people in my group were talking about it. And, like, come on, it's soul, R&B, funk — I've loved plenty of albums in all three of those genres. I couldn't imagine why I wouldn't like this. And once I listened to it... Well, I'll admit that at a point I kinda lost focus on the album? Although, I'd probably chalk that up more to me fixating on some art I was doing and not listening to it by record sides like I normally do, 'cuz listening back to samples now, this is all very good soul. It's not the kind of soul I prefer; I'm more into 70's Stevie Wonder stuff... But as someone who doesn't listen to a lot of modern music, let alone modern soul — yeah, I can dig this. I don't think it exactly lived up to the high hopes I had, but I also wouldn't argue that it shouldn't be here like I did with CHEMTRAILS OVER THE COUNTRY, and that's a really good thing, believe me. Coming out of this album, I was honestly feeling a 3 at best, but after listening to these clips... Yeah, I'll give it a 4. Big thumbs up from me. It's good soul music, and I really can't imagine why anyone would like it unless they have... Y'know, other issues. But let's not get into that either.

OK, OK, OK. So, when this album popped up, it finally occurred to me what my problem with Arcade Fire is. Like, beyond the fact that I only knew them as some "Album Of The Year" winners and nothing else. To put it in short, before now, before I decided to partake in this randomizer, I've never been faced with a situation where I had to take them seriously. Before now, honestly, this band existed in my mind solely as a punchline — **the** band a stand-up comedian will bring up when they're making fun of hipsters and their flannel and beards and overpriced artisan coffee. Because of that, I suppose I've been inclined to be a little harsher on them when they don't live up to the "GREATEST ALBUM OF 2010" or "THE ENTIRE 2000'S" hype I've heard so much about. And of that latter hype — y'know, I remember making a big deal in my KID A review about worrying over hype backlash, but honestly, I don't think it's that big of an issue with me. At worst, I might be kinda disappointed; not so much "AUGH, GRRGH, I HATE THIS ALBUM FOR BEING OVER-HYPED." And when it comes to 2000's, I can't think of an album besides KID A more hyped as "THE GREATEST" than this one. Like, literally, it's regularly number two on a lot of those big "best of the decade" critics lists. There is **something** for it to live up to. And yet, recognizing my biases, my preconceptions, and that "hype backlash" isn't really an issue for me... At the end of it all, frankly, I'm just not into this sound. I don't **hate it**; I've given both previous albums 3's, and there's moments across all three Arcade Fire albums I can say I like. But beyond moments and maybe one or two songs — these compositions, these soundscapes, these lyrics, these vocals... I really don't care. Listening to it, I can't imagine hearing it for fun outside of the context of this list. I can't picture myself putting it on as I'm reading or washing dishes or working or playing a video game or writing or making art or, heck, just listening to music for the sake of it. Once I'm past "this thing was on a list of music someone thinks I should hear before I die," it doesn't really have much of a purpose for me. There are so many albums that have come out in the 2000's, and, heck, 2004 alone, that I'd go to before and consider greater than this one. I mean, come on, the SHREK 2 and SPONGEBOB MOVIE soundtracks alone~... Still, ehh, I'll stick with the rule of thirds and give this a 3, too. I can't say it's bad, but it's just really not for me. Like, I don't think I'd hafta be a hipster or a big important music critic to get into this. My tastes just skew too hard elsewhere. I mean, I just brought up the SPONGEBOB MOVIE soundtrack as a 2004 album I'd consider greater and not, like, I'unno, AMERICAN IDIOT. What does **that** tell you? So, yeah — unless there's another Arcade Fire album on this list I don't know about, I guess that's all of them dealt with. They can go back to being just a punchline in my eye. Like, it's kind of unfortunate they didn't do anything to convince me otherwise, but them's the breaks I guess. I'unno, I guess I've just been to better funerals, y'know?

One of my absolute, all-time favorite punk albums, full stop. Honestly, it's probably the punkest punk album I love. 'Coz, like, I think about all of the other punk bands who have an album I love — Green Day, the Ramones, The Clash, Bad Religion — and they have a pop sheen to them, to one extent or another. Which, pop isn't a bad word to me, but you compare any of those band's albums to this and it's a massive gulf. With its massive surf rock influence and the elements of horror and humour throughout, and with how damn fast they play some of those songs, there's really not a single punk album I've heard that goes harder. Maybe a Snot album, but I haven't heard one of those in full. And it just does not let up. It's 30 minutes, front-to-back, of all-cylinders-firing killer and not a second of filler. From the big notable songs like "California Über Alles" and "Holiday In Cambodia", down to stuff like "Stealing People's Mail", "I Kill Children", "Drug Me" and "Chemical Warfare", it's all amazing. I don't even need to give any deep, faux-essay reasons why — which I easily could, given how I consider Dead Kennedys near Rage Against The Machine and Chumbawamba in how left they are. You just need to listen to them play — incredible, right? (Many shout outs to the "Viva Las Vegas" cover they end the album with, too, by the way. Even besides my being an Elvis fan, I just love how wild it is. Goodness.) In case you couldn't tell: instant 5 from me. It's one of those albums I honestly could have written a review of months before my group got it 'coz I love it just that much. So, yeah, I'unno what else to say. Go dig this album if you somehow found this review without having done so already. POL POT

For me tryna discuss this album, there's two obvious questions I needa ask. First: "What, exactly, **is** acid house?" And second: "**Why** is acid house?" To answer that first question, it turns out it's very simple: house music with basslines from this one specific synthesizer, the Roland TB-303. There's more to it, of course, but that's basically its big defining characteristic. And, like, somehow I expected more? Like, I'unno, I figure if a genre's gonna get its own name, there'd be more going for it than that (again acknowledging that I'm simplifying a lot here). As for the "Why" — really more a "How"... Well, "Da Funk" was always my favorite song on Daft Punk's HOMEWORK, anyway, so no doubt that's why I had as little trouble with this album as I did. Like, I won't say I can't understand why someone would feel like this music would only be good at a rave or when you're on drugs or when you're on drugs and at a rave, but, like, I'unno, sometimes I like a good electronic groove to jive to. This album provides one of those, so, hey, I can't really complain. So... Yeah, I can give this thing a 4. I've got no heavy complaints about it. I mean, I don't listen to HOMEWORK as much as I do DISCOVERY or RANDOM ACCESS MEMORIES, so that's generally more the kind of dance, electronic and house I'm into, but y'know. It was a nice way to spend a bit under 40 minutes. And this was released in '89, too? Goodness.

Mm, I'unno about this one. I was excited to get into this 'coz I really liked "I Think I'm Paranoid", the big single from their next album, but listening to their debut here... It's just not doing it for me, honestly? A bit more of it than I like just kinda flew by me. I've been tryna pin down what it is. Well, I've seen this album labelled as dance-rock... Maybe this is the wrong kind of dance music for me? 'Coz I've loved my fair share across its many different flavors. But here, it can be a little too... "Trip hop" for my tastes? A little chill and trance-like; not the kind of thing that regularly grabs my attention. Really, it doesn't surprise me that my favorite tracks ("Only Happy When It Rains", "Stupid Girl" — of course I gravitate towards the singles) sounded way more rockin' to my ears — an', heck, from what I read, "I Think I'm Paranoid" isn't even dance-rock, so what does **that** tell yah, eh? Frankly, it's those two songs that're pulling this thing up to a 3. It's just not my thing. Like, I was really comin' in here thinkin' I was gonna be the trash man, eatin' up Garbage — and for a couple songs, sure. But on the whole, I'm good.

Back when I talked about BAND ON THE RUN, I made a point to try and separate it from the Beatles legacy and look at its legacy as one of the greatest albums of the 1970's. As much as I'd like to do the same for this album — and it might be an even greater album, let's be 100 — I feel like it's a lot harder to separate this album from the band the man who made it used to be a part of. Not just because of its proximity in time (I believe this was one of the first Beatles solo albums to come out), but because of where a lot of its material came from. Looking back on The Beatles in 2024, George Harrison comes across as the unfairly sidelined songwriter of the group. Like, sure, he did contribute a **lot** of great stuff, from "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" to "Something", and while his number of contributions aren't as small as Ringo's, they're still kind of dwarfed when put next to the beast that is Lennon-McCartney. Which, yeah, they were amazing songwriters, let's not kid ourselves — but you gotta imagine how insane it would drive someone to have all these songs, and yet only be allowed two on the record at most. Maybe three if you wanna help ghostwrite Ringo's. So, we come to the line about ALL THINGS MUST PASS that I've always heard: that these are the songs George decided to hoard for himself. And, boy — he saved himself quite a few. Like, I wanna address this real quick: the fact that this is, at its core, a double album. (I mean, it's actually a **triple** album, and the first of its kind, but I'll get to that later.) If there aren't the songs to justify the length, the whole thing can come off as pretty egotistical. The whole sort of "All my ideas are so good, I can't afford to cut **any of them**" mentality that'd only get worse when CDs are introduced and record companies don't hafta pay that for a second disc, or even that much more. I mean, heck, even George Martin has been quoted saying that the Beatles' White Album maybe should've been a single disc. So, on that face already, ALL THINGS MUST PASS has an uphill battle for most people. "Did you really hafta drop **all** the songs you had saved **at once**?" Yep. Absolutely. These songs totally justify this being a double album. I mean, y'know how good the two songs George gave to ABBEY ROAD were? Yeah, "Here Comes The Sun" and "Something"? Imagine they're a bit more Allman Brothers-y, and imagine there's two discs worth of them. That's what we're dealing with here. If there's a reason why the "George was an unfairly sidelined songwriter" thought exists, it's this album, 100%. You're tellin' me that any Beatles album could have had **more** of these? Goodness. And there's a lot of songs I could focus on, draw attention to. Throw a dart; you're bound to hit something incredible. But I wanna focus on... Y'know, what's maybe the obvious choice: "My Sweet Lord". Does it plagiarize a Chiffons song? Honestly, I don't even care — for reasons mostly beyond how much I like it, but let's just keep focus on that for now. I'm not a very spiritual or religious person. Not that I don't, won't or can't believe; I just don't feel the need to align myself with any one belief. "My Sweet Lord", then, is the closest I've ever come to complete religious bliss. It's a chorus; a hymn to a higher power that grows bigger and more joyous and, like, really feels like it could go on forever. I've heard it more than any other solo Beatles song. Nothing else compares. I wanna shout out "What Is Life", too. That's my other favorite song on the album. I mean, hey, anything good enough for Weird Al to cover has to be high up on my list. And with just how driving it is, too — goodness. That's not even to mention how nuts "Art Of Dying" goes. Or how pretty "Behind That Locked Door" can be. Or, goodness, that horn line on "Run Of The Mill". Or what a nice tribute to the fans "Apple Scruffs" is. Or how hard "Wah-Wah" plays (as a song dissing Paul, by the way). And it's like that across the board. All this folks-y, Allmans-y rock, played just perfectly by a band including Ringo, Billy Preston, Klaus Voormann, Eric Clapton (anyone else hear the "Layla" riff?)... An', heck, I even gotta give sum' up for noted murderer and producer Phil Spector. I can't say his production doesn't add on to how good this whole thing is, even if I did listen to the 2020 mix that removes a lot of his Spectorisms. Jus'... Wonderful all around. It's incredible I haven't listened to this album as much as I really should have. So, now that we've got the feature presentation out of the way, let's talk a bit about that third disc. Like, yes, as I said, this is a triple album, and the first of its kind. I give it all the credit for that. However, at the same time... Y'know, to me it's like, if this is a triple album, then SONGS IN THE KEY OF LIFE is as well 'coz it happens to come with the A SOMETHING EXTRA EP. In other words, I've never thought of the third disc, titled APPLE JAMS, as anything but an extra little bonus. I mean, the whole disc is just some jams they recorded, and I'd honestly never heard them before today. Like, if I were to complain about the album's length in any way, it'd just be that including this disc seems, y'know, a little excessive ("Out Of The Blue" specifically). It's not even like any of them are all that bad; they're just not entirely necessary to the ALL THINGS MUST PASS experience. Still, I can't give ALL THINGS MUST PASS as a whole less than a 5. Like, maybe if I didn't consider APPLE JAMS a bonus I could maybe bring it down to... I'unno, a 4.5? But I still round it up a 5 regardless. It's just remarkable that on his solo, non-soundtrack debut, Harrison managed to put out **two albums** worth of amazing material, proving to everyone that he deserved to be considered on the same level as Lennon and McCartney. And it says something as well that even with those two later putting out masterworks like PLASTIC ONO BAND, IMAGINE, RAM and BAND ON THE RUN, ALL THINGS MUST PASS still manages to be in good conversation for the best Beatles solo album ever released. Heck, among Beatles albums **period**. I listened to it **three times in a row** today (minus APPLE JAMS the latter two times around) and I never got sick of it once. If that don't tell yah how I feel... Not, hey, bad for the Beatle who'd previously been considered the quiet one, Harrison. Seems like you got the last word after all.

From the top, I'm inclined to like Little Simz. Oh, and not because SOMETIMES I MIGHT BE INTROVERT was such a highly acclaimed album, bo; I haven't even heard it. No, it's actually 'coz she already has the "Gorillaz feature" seal of approval. I figure, hey, if I like her there, I'm probably bound to dig her on her own shit. Which, I mean, that isn't a **100%** rule (Martina Topley-Bird was on a Gorillaz song and I didn't like MAXINQUAYE at all, even if it hasn't **her** album), but I get the feeling following it will land more hits than misses. And, hey — I'd consider this another hit. Like, as someone who's melody first, this thing has some damn good beats. "Offence", for real? Dang. "101FM", too. I just hadda groove to it in my seat. On that front alone, it gets good marks from me. Then there's Little Simz as a rapper — a British rapper, specifically. Now, sure, there's a lot of points over the album where I thought to myself, "Is this the only tone of voice she's gonna have the whole album? Everything, in this one tone of voice? Goodness." On a lesser album, that sort of thing would've dropped the whole project down a few points — "Try a bit more variety," y'know? "Try being **interesting**." But, I'unno, matched with these beats and the topics I was able to catch... I'unno, it kept me engaged. It all just worked. You back her up with a few stellar features (including, hey, someone else with the Gorillaz seal, Little Dragon), and... Ahh, goodness. It's all so good. (The entire thing's not even 40 minutes, too, so, dang, this thing goes down pretty easy, I think.) So, this album did the best thing it really could have: make me actually wanna go and check out SOMETIMES I MIGHT BE INTROVERT. "If Little Simz is this good here, imagine if **that** lives up the hype!" On the fact of that alone I could give this a 4. But judging it on its own merits — heck, I'll bump it to a 5. Honestly, I really did enjoy it that much. No "grey area" for me. (I mean, is it cheesy to shove in the album title like that as a closing line? I'unno. But I'm tellin' yah: the Gorillaz seal of approval works.)

Y'know, I've liked a lot of the traditional country music my group has gotten, but I'd never been particularly "WOW"ed by any of it. There's a place for it in my heart, but when you put it next to country music from the 90's... Traditional country music just doesn't seem to have as much going on. Like, I'm a sucker for that kind of over-production and high pop-ish energy. So all this spare guitar strumming and close harmony vocals just doesn't hit **as** well for me — unless you're Johnny Cash, but that's the typical exception. So here along comes an album which... Honestly, for the longest time, I'd kind of avoided listening to? Specifically because its opening track, "Big Iron", was such a big meme. Which, that sort of thing isn't unique to this album, by the way; there's a lot of stuff I've been turned off to 'coz I encountered the memes of it first. Look at Scott The Woz, for instance. And it's not even like I'd heard any of the "Big Iron" edits, by the way. I just saw the thumbnails with the album cover all mangled up and I was like, "No thanks." Unsurprisingly, I had nothing to worry about. This isn't just good country; I'd go so far as to call it **classically** good country. The bedrock kind of country music so much afterwards is built on; the kind of country music you think of when you think "traditional country music." And it's all about the story-telling — and I don't know if the stories here are really any more or less interesting than the ones I've heard on other country albums, but whatever the reason, I got pulled into this one way more. And, like, I'm not sure if I can even go into any more detail than that. It's just really good playing and singing, relaying good stories that are easy to follow along with. (And if there's anything **I** need, it's stories that are easy to follow, goodness.) I can give it a 5, easy. Maybe I'll look back and think I'm too generous, but, hey, all the last few traditional country albums my group got could give me were "good beer on the porch songs." I'm happy to get anything with a little more depth to it than that. And, hey, if the "Big Iron" memes helped introduce people to this music, then I can hardly be too mad at it, now can I? (Especially since I never even heard any. Goodness, my occasional inclination to dislike popular things, I swear...)

More often than not, parody and satire can be a hard tightrope to walk. Unless the satire's broad enough or you're incredibly obvious about it being parodic, a lot of people can and will naturally assume you're being completely legit in the views that're being expressed. Like, believe me, there are people who very easily miss the point of the movie STARSHIP TROOPERS. By that same token, however, how different, really, is expressing a view ironically from expressing it sincerely? I mean, to even give it air, no matter what your intention... To reference a Todd In The Shadows video: even hitting your hand with a hammer ironically still hurts. So, should one not be held accountable for things they say, even under the veneer of "satirism?" (Especially if you have someone trying to claim innocence by saying they were being "satirical," although that's not really relevant to this discussion.) 'Coz here's the thing you hafta keep in mind about this album: it's a joke. In large portions of the album, the Beastie Boys are playing caricatures of stupid, dumb "PARTY HARD" frat boys who don't respect women. Like, in its conception, "(You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Party!)" was meant as a parody of meathead "attitude" rock songs like "Smokin' In The Boys Room". You are absolutely not meant to take this as a serious portrayal of who they are as people. And yet, of course, people did. A large part of their audience became the dumb frat boys they were trying to take the piss out of, and as a result they swerved hard away from this sound on their follow-up, PAUL'S BOUTIQUE. And, well, I can't exactly blame the general public for believing the Boys were being genuine about all of this; this **was** their debut, after all. What other information did they have to go off of? Just as well, I wouldn't blame someone these days, aware of the satire or not, for criticising this album for a lot of its dated, sexist lyricism. I know that's not who the Boys are, but even despite that, "Girls" still might not've played that well back in the 80's. And if it didn't back then, then in 2024 — woof. All the same, however, LICENSED TO ILL is still considered one of the greatest debuts in hip hop history. Given what I just said, I'm sure you could have a long, analytical look into why that is. For me, though, I actually wanna briefly bring it back to STARSHIP TROOPERS for a second. The film is a satire of fascism, and, in my mind, not exactly a subtle one in parts — you look at Neil Patrick Harris dressed as a Nazi and tell me otherwise, eh? However, there are some people who see the film as just a fun, dumb sci-fi action movie, and, frankly, honestly? That's completely valid. 'Coz it is fun, even if I recognize what it's actually supposed to be saying. I don't think someone's dumb if they don't really see anything more in the film than that. A similar sorta thing goes for LICENSED TO ILL. At its core, beneath its satirizing of frat boys, it's just a fun album. The Boys would get better about their flows, hand-offs and lyricism on their later albums, but they still have the energy here where it's an entertaining time to hear them do their thing. Like, there's a reason why songs like "(You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Party!)" have endured despite the Boys' own disowning and distancing from it. It rocks, pure and simple And, like, I wanna take a second here to mention "No Sleep 'Til Brooklyn" all on its own. To this day, it's still maybe one of the all-time greatest rap rock songs of all time. It kicks so much ass, and I love it every time I hear it. On this listen-through alone, I went out of my way to hear it twice before moving on. And can you believe the Boys didn't like the Kerry King guitar solo on it? Goodness, that's an amazingly wild solo. I feel like there's a lot of things in general you could rightfully criticize Rick Rubin for, but choices like that on this album aren't one of them. So, yeah, I really like LICENSED TO ILL. I don't know if I say I **love** it, 'coz I do prefer the sampledelia of PAUL'S BOUTIQUE, and there can be a bit of that "beats too simple for its own good" problem that Run-D.M.C.'s RAISING HELL ran into... But on the whole, I think it deserves the reputation it has, for good and for ill. I can give it... Aw, heck. I'll give it a 5. 'Coz, absolutely, it's worth taking them to task for a few of the worse lyrics on here, but I don't think it's anything you should be thinking too hard about, ultimately. Just slap on "No Sleep 'Til Brooklyn", and you'll be having nothing but a good time. (Also, kinda weird I kept bringing up STARSHIP TROOPERS in this review? As if I didn't have a second example of satire to bring up. I'unno, jus' the contrast in their targets is all — y'know?)

I... Can't think of anything to say about this, weirdly. 'Coz it's not in a way like, "Oh, I like this so much that the words just aren't coming to me." No, it's honestly more like... I'm just kind of apathetic to this album? I don't think the instrumentals are bad, I'm sure the lyrics are fine, and I don't even necessarily dislike Joni Mitchell's voice. It was just so easy for me to tune this out while I was listening to it, and then when I started writing the review I hardly remembered anything about it. Even listening to short clips after the fact I couldn't think of anything to say. Jus'... I'unno. I really tried to write a proper review, with a through-line and actually talking about the music, but I've really got nothing. I guess I can give this thing a 3 'cuz this a, y'know, fine enough listen while it was on — and "Raised By Robbery" has a neat instrumental, actually — but yeah. Sorry. Hopefully the one my group gets tomorrow will inspire me to say more.

This album kicks ass. I mean, you're tellin' me, not only does this album give me some of that hardcore sound I like, but also that heavy metal sound I love? With some of the hardest, rippinest guitar I've heard from one of these 1001 albums in a hot second? (Also, apparently "rippinest" is a word according to Google Docs.) Sign me up; sign me all the way the hell up. And it really doesn't get any more complicated for me than that. I could say all the words I want and pad this out, but, yeah, the long n' short of it is this album rocks and is awesome. I'll tell you, too: even though I wouldn't point to necessarily anything here as the definition of "hardcore punk" (I still have "Deadfall" by Snot for that), I can't recall any album I've heard before that's made me wanna check out the genre as much as this has. I mean, if this is the kind of stuff they're putting out when they're branching out to touch on other genres, I can only wonder what they sound like when they're pure hardcore. For what this album's worth, though, in case you couldn't already tell: it's a hard 5. I've said I'll put a lot of albums on again, but legitimately, I will probably spin this thing again whenever I'm in the mood for this kind of punk and shreddery. Again: this album just kicks ass. And, honestly, most of the time, that's kind of all I want. (Also, between "Deadfall" and one of the songs on this album ("Re-Ignition"), I wanna play GUITAR HERO: WARRIORS OF ROCK again. Goodness, I gotta go dig the ol' hunk of plastic out...)

I'd always figured I was gonna like Jurassic 5. Even back when my sole experience with the group was Charli 2na playing Neil deGrasse Tyson in an Epic Rap Battle, from his voice alone I figured I'd be down for them. What ended up surprising me, then, was exactly **how much** I liked this album and Jurassic 5. Let's get out of the way the thing I always notice first: the beats. Phenomenal, front to back. All the props in the world to Cut Chemist and DJ Nu-Mark. These smooth n' fresh jazz rap beats, next to these hard knockin' boom bap beats — and me being me, I feel like I might tend towards the latter more, but either way both are great. The flows these rappers are doin' on top of these beats, too — goodness. I can't remember the last time I heard beats and flows work together this well. And seriously, what a voice on 2na, I swear. Then there's the lyrics. Normally, I'd give this album high marks on the beats alone with paying too much mind to the lyrics — which, to be 100, isn't really my choice; as I've said in many other reviews, I'm melody-first and find it hard to pay attention to lyrics on initial listens. That's just how I am. But with this album, for whatever reason, either because I was trying a new thing where I played TETRIS DX at the same time, or because they're honestly that good... I found myself really interested in the lyrics here. To the point where I noticed a lot of the subjects and stories, where usually I'd only be able to grab one or two lines at best. And from that, I can tell that this is the kind of album that has a lot of serious things to say, but while also keeping it a fun and enjoyable listen. Seriously, you could throw this stuff on just to jam to and you wouldn't hafta worry about the whole "Y'all don't wanna hear, you just wanna dance" effect. And I didn't even see the twist coming on "Remember His Name", goodness. Great flow, great beats, great lyrics... Yeah, that sounds like a 5 to me. I feel like this is the most positive I've been in a long time towards a rap album I haven't heard before. Which, y'know, nothing against none of those, but this album really is just that fun and engaging. Heck, I might even hafta go check out the rest of their discography at some point. Not bad for a group I'm only aware of thanks to Epic Rap Battles — where, no joke, I originally thought Tay Zonday was playing Neil deGrasse Tyson. That's what a lack of knowledge of Jurassic 5 will lead you to, I guess.

Look. Let me be extremely blunt here: THE WHITE ALBUM is a mess. That extends all the way from the state of the band at the time, to the album's conception, to its recording, to the final product itself being a double album. As I expressed over in my review of ALL THINGS MUST PASS: if they don't have the tunes to back them up, double albums, more often than not, can run the risk of coming off as the ultimate ego trip from an artist, with the idea that everything they made is so good they can't afford to cut even one. I said in that same review, too, that even George Martin had famously said years later that he thought this should've just been a single album. And from the onset, ALL THINGS MUST PASS seems to have one clear advantage over THE WHITE ALBUM: cohesion. ALL THINGS MUST PASS was constructed from all the songs Harrison had hoarded for himself while the band was still together. THE WHITE ALBUM, on the other hand, is considerably more patchwork; stitched together from songs from four different songwriters all going in different directions and trying different things. All THINGS MUST PASS roots itself in folksy rock, while nearly everything seems to have a seat at the table in THE WHITE ALBUM. Hard rock and ballads; proto-metal and baroque pop; dirty blues and clean orchestration; goofy songs and serious songs; happy, upbeat tunes and sad, downbeat ones; sappy sincerity and bitter irony... Heck, there's even eight straight minutes of musique concrete courtesy of the infamous "Revolution 9". It can almost play like an unorganized playlist of various artists, the way you're thrown from genre to genre and soundscape to soundscape. It's not surprising that, inspired by Martin's comment, nearly everyone has tried to reorganize this beast into a more cohesive single disc. Of course, all of that is what's so beautiful about this album. 'Coz let's not act like patchwork can't be art in and of itself; that just because something's stitched together from various sources makes it any less art than a pristine painting. I mean, you just need to look at the poster included with the album: a hodgepodge scrapbook of random photos, drawings, film strips and whatever else could be added. That poster, pretty much, is this album. And I hafta commend the band, too, for just **going for it**. They assembled all these desperate ideas and slapped them together under a pure white cover and no name besides their own, pretty much saying, "This is us, separate and together, for better and for worse, the good and the bad — make whatever you want out of it." And people have. Like, are you aware of the Instagram account "We Buy White Albums"? It's an account whose whole purpose is to, well, buy other people's copies of THE WHITE ALBUM and display them for the world. You can see, people have taken that blank, white cover as a canvas. For their own art, for notes to themselves or others... Even the smallest scuffs make each copy unique, reflecting everyone's experiences with it. 'Cuz, of course, no one's going to like every song on it — "Revolution 9" makes sure of it. And, sure, some people have used THE WHITE ALBUM for, well, let's just "less than savory" things — hello, Charlie. But whatever songs you end up latching onto; whatever experiences you have with it; whatever you make of it... That's all unique to you. Even people's own single album constructions, even if track listings line up exactly, the exact reasons will always be different. And that's a beautiful thing to consider. It helps, too, that the music is generally amazing. Like, put aside any essay pontificating about "what this album means to me"; it's The Beatles in my favorite stretch of their career. Even if it's that weird transition point from SGT. PEPPER'S to ABBEY ROAD, and even if they all kind of don't like each other too much, the songs themselves are still phenomenal. I could just list off a bunch of my favorites, and even without explanation, you could still get it. From the 1-2 whombo of an opener "Back In The U.S.S.R." and "Dear Prudence"; to the wild ride through meta references "Glass Onion"; to two of George's best songs ever, "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Long, Long, Long"; to the hard n' heavy rockers like "Helter Skelter" and "Yer Blues"; the smaller moments like "I Will", "Julia" and "Blackbird"... And others I can't think of descriptions for: "Sexy Sadie", "Happiness Is A Warm Gun", "Revolution 1", "Everybody's Got Something Except Me And My Monkey", "Honey Pie", "Why Don't We Do It In The Road?", "Rocky Raccoon", "Mother Nature's Son", "Birthday", "Cry Baby Cry"... Even the much maligned "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da". Heck, I can't even picture this album without "Revolution 9", the ultimate mingle-mangle (check my **thesaurus use**). It just wouldn't be the same if it wasn't there. So... Yeah, that's about the size of it, I think. To be honest, I haven't come back to THE WHITE ALBUM as a whole very often. This listen-through is maybe only the second time recently I've travelled all the way through it, and the first time was part of a general Beatles marathon. But: "as a whole." As I'm sure I've made clear, I don't find the whole to be the point. Whatever you get out of it, **that's** what's important. Which, sure, maybe that kind of take isn't unique to this album — I think I also came to about the same conclusion with 69 LOVE SONGS, and I pretty much feel that way about the SMiLE sessions — but this is the album where I feel the strongest about it. Oh, and if you couldn't tell — it's a 5. So, if you've come across this review and somehow haven't heard this album already, go ahead. Go find your own WHITE ALBUM, whatever it may be. And if you don't want to, or if you just don't like it, well, to quote Paul McCartney: "It's great, it sold, it's the bloody Beatles WHITE ALBUM. Shut up!"

For this album, I tried something a little different. When I went to listen to it, I turned off all the lights in my bedroom, laid on my bed, closed my eyes and — in that near sensory-deprivation — let the music take me wherever it may. To that end, I ended up imagining off the top of my head some kind of plot about a cult who worshipped the tubular bell object on the cover, someone who escaped that cult, and the summoning of a fallen angel associated with that object. Honestly, I dipped in and out of it a bit, so I can't give you a full plot summary... And you're not here for that anyway. Speaking on the music itself, well, put me in the camp of people who're impressed by the fact that this was all performed by one person. A 19-year old, no less. I mean, this is a complex, nearly 50 minute suite that only gets broken up because of the limitations of vinyl. In fact, that's part of why I listened to this album — this piece, really — the way I did; considering it more in the realm of classical music than anything else. And I'm not even someone who listens to much classical music, if any. Through that lens, though, I think it's very good. I'll say, I'm not nutso about it — the New Age-iness about it is probably why I dipped in and out of my imaginary movie every now and then. Y'can't imagine to something if you're not focused on it, y'know? Plus, y'know, extended instrumental music like this just normally isn't my thing. Blame my undiagnosed ADHD, which is the other, larger reason why I listened to this piece the way I did. Honestly, though, if I were to have this on as background music, soundtracking whatever I'm doing instead of dictating my imagination... I'd be perfectly happy with it, yeah. It's tryna focus on the intricacies that can be a problem for me, y'know? Which is kind of strange given how much of a big deal I've made over the fact that I'm "melody first," though that usually applies to shorter songs. Under normal circumstances, I'm probably more likely to concentrate on "Nuclear" than this piece. All that said, however, I'm perfectly happy to give this thing a 4. It's not its fault I have trouble with longform composition like it, and from what I did pick up, I liked what I heard. And, hey, it did allow me to pull an extended FANTASIA segment completely out of thin air, so for prompting that alone... Worse music wouldn't have, is what I'm thinking. Not gonna lay on my back like that for any other albums going forward, though. Gwoof, you should feel how I've felt typing this up. My neck and the taste in my mouth mostly... So odd. Though I suppose I always could've felt worse. Eh, Regan?

Look around reviews of this album on this website, everyone harps on the one singer's voice. Everyone, whether they liked the album or not — and most of them didn't — feels the need to bring it up. Shall I, too, find myself throwing my weight into that thoroughly-covered topic? Yeah, sure, why not? 'Coz tryna talk about this thing on an instrumental level... Eh, it's fine. Perfectly fine. If this album were completely stripped of its vocals, it would have been an alright piece of background music. Which, of course, I don't mean as an insult; wallpaper can be as much art as anything in a frame. Besides, it can be better than staring at an empty wall, huh? On a vocal level, though, I actually have something to add. See, I've actually heard these vocals before. 'Coz it's Sparks. That's what these vocals are. They're a shot at how Russell Mael of Sparks sings. And believe me, I love Sparks. Watch me gush about KIMOMO MY HOUSE whenever my group gets it. As well, there's NO.1 IN HEAVEN and LIL' BEETHOVEN and a whole variety of scattered songs. I'm actually incredibly used to these kinds of vocals, and I kinda like them. That said, though, they **do** feel kind of off here. Not in a way where I actively dislike them, but, like... OK, hear me out. One of the things that makes the music of Sparks so great is how they apply a layer of theatrical unseriousness to nearly everything they do. Like, of course they take the compositions seriously, but there's always this cheeky edge present — a surprisingly British one for an American band. That's what helps make their music so fun, whether they're doing glam, electronic dance or minimalist chamber music, and Russell's singing and androgynous falsetto plays a huge factor in that. PLus, it's just a really good falsetto, so that helps. Listen to anything from KIMONO MY HOUSE, or at least just "This Town Ain't Big Enough For The Both Of Us". You'll get what I mean. Versus the falsetto on this album, where I never got the sense that this music was supposed to be cheeky or fun. No, I'm supposed to take this completely seriously. And even as much as my experience from Sparks keeps me from hating this kind of singing... At the same time, it kinda makes me wish I was listening to Sparks. Y'know, there's maybe a bit too much pretension towards making something **IMPORTANT AND MEANINGFUL** here, versus anything Sparks has ever written. Like I'm supposed to look back on this as a touchstone in my life or something, when all it'll really be is "that album I delayed watched THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS a bit to listen to 'coz I was late hearing it." And then the other guy, the one who doesn't do a falsetto, starts singing and there's nothing to say 'coz... He's just a guy? Goodness, at least the other one lets me babble on about Sparks like it's actually **that** relevant (I mean, I think it is, anyway). (And this is another album that, from what I hear, it's a good thing I don't focus too hard on the lyrics. Goodness.) So... Yeah. For "wild beasts," they sound pretty damn tame. It's a big fat 3. It's fine straight down the line, and not too terribly interesting to me for that. I mean, goodness, if I end up spending a good chunk of my review talking about Sparks instead, there's gotta be something at least a **little** wrong. Speaking of Sparks, by the way, I hope my group gets KIMONO MY HOUSE soon. What an album, I swear...

It's weird. When I first heard this album, what, three or four years ago, I really loved it. Jus', goodness, the harmonies. I'd heard tell of them, and they lived up to every expectation; they were beautiful. I can't even remember anything about it other than that — which, hey, that alone was enough to get me excited to hear this again. So, yeah, it's three or four years later now. Fittingly, I was expecting to have a sense of déjà vu in regards to my reaction. And yet... I don't know. I'll say that, absolutely, this is a great album. These four men are great writers and composers. They play great, and their singing, especially their harmonizing, can be incredible. (And, yes, I don't have a problem with Young's. It's different, but it's fine.) I do believe it deserves the acclaim and accolades it gets. However — and maybe it was because the way I was trying to listen to it (on my back with my eyes closed) didn't really work as well as it did the last time I tried it — I wasn't exactly as wowed by it as I was before? I can't really put my finger on it, or what could've changed since I first heard it... Or if it just caught me on a bad day, who can say? Whatever the case, I kind of found it a little bit tricky to really engage with the album like I wanted to. The best I can figure is that, well, I've heard a lot of new music in the interim. I've especially heard a lot this year, thanks to this Randomizer. With my expanded palette, maybe this album just doesn't sound as special to me as it used to? There were certainly a lot of spots where, despite my praise for their harmonies — and I do still believe it, despite what I'm about to say — I ended up thinking, "These just sound like 70's harmonies. Put on another random record from the decade, I'm sure I'll hear something else like it." I didn't think that often enough to find it a problem, but I think it's still relevant to how I engaged I ended up being. And I'll tell you, I really didn't expect there to be as many rockers as there are. Even if there's only two, it sure goes against my perception that this group only does varities of acoustic folk. Like, goodness, this arrangement of "Woodstock"? And what do you mean this arrangement was originally meant for Jimi Hendrix? And that they actually pull it off? Crazy, man. And here I thought they were just "Carry On" ("Suite: Judy Blue Eyes" without Young). Big points for rocking, I suppose. But on whole... I wanna say, if I thought I would've had the time to write this review tomorrow, I absolutely would have. It's entirely likely that tomorrow I would've been in a better state of mind to focus on and actually talk about this album. And certainly, I'll tell you, if I was asked to rate and review this album all that time ago, I would've given this a 5 straight. However, I can only talk about what I got out of this album today, and today... Eh, it's still a 4. I don't believe it really deserves to go any lower. But, yeah, I'unno. I'm probably gonna look back on this review and regret writing it the way I did, but, hey, that's just how it breaks down sometimes. At least Weird Al's pastiche "Mission Statement" remains one of my top three originals from him. Great stuff if you haven't heard it before, goodness.

I wanna be honest about me and the early years of Pink Floyd. 'Coz, look, I have nothing but respect for Syd Barrett. Being aware of his story and the impact even his absence would have on the band, it's impossible not to. I mean, he inspired over half minutes of my favorite Pink Floyd album, WISH YOU WERE HERE. With how much the band clearly respected him, why wouldn't I? Not to mention, this is the only Pink Floyd album he'd have direct influence on. On the following album he'd only have two songs, and after that, well... You'd only have a harder time tryna **not** talk about Syd Barrett if you were reviewing his solo album THE MADCAP LAUGHS. So, coming into this album, I felt like talking about Syd was unavoidable, and not something I wanted to take lightly. That's part of why I've honestly had a bit of trouble tryna write this review; it's making sure I've been taking him as seriously as I feel he should be taken. But here's the other part of that trouble, and honestly kind of a bigger one. When it comes to me and Pink Floyd, as much as they're one of my favorite bands, I hardly pay much mind to their early years. When it comes to stuff before THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON, there's MEDDLE and sometimes ATOM HEART MOTHER and that's about it. Beyond that, I usually experience this era of Pink Floyd through whatever ends up on compilation albums — and that's typically just "See Emily Play". As a result, I don't really have much of a connection to this album; not in the same way I do with something like WISH YOU WERE HERE. Frankly, I don't tend to think about this album too much outside of it being "their only true psychedelic rock record." It's just not where my tastes lie. Which isn't to say I don't like this album — and I'll get to **finally** talking about the dang music on this thing in a second — but, y'know, you understand why I've been struggling with this review, right? I'm the kinda person who wants to essay it up about albums and discuss the context surrounding them. I wanna discuss Syd with the importance I feel he deserves, 'coz Syd is the single most important context here. I mean, we wouldn't even have Pink Floyd if it wasn't for him. It's just hard to talk about him the way I'd want to when I don't really have much attachment to the big album he was involved in. So, yeah. That's what I had to reconcile with before I even thought I could talk about the music. Essentially, all of that was my preemptive apology for not being able to do the good job I wanted to do. (And in fact, lemme apologize in advance for my MADCAP LAUGHS review. If **this** was a hard one, then hoo boy...) But, some 500 words in, let's finally get down to what we're actually here for: the music. Taken in 2024, how does it hold up? Well, you're never gonna be able to mistake it for another decade, that's for sure. This is 60's psychedelic rock through and through, from the soundscapes down to that sweet 60's panning — hell yeah, drums entirely in my left ear! Although, hey, this **is** 1967, so it's not as bad as it could be on other, earlier records. Besides, they do some neat stuff with the panning over on "Interstellar Overdrive". And in regards to 60's psych rock, hey, this is maybe — no, probably — no, actually some of the best and most unique I've ever heard. Of every psych album this Randomizer has had me hear, and it's had me hear a **lot**, I can't think of another that sounds like this. Maybe in the future there'll be something (there **are** a **lot** left), but I know I'll compare them first to this. I also just can't think of psych albums with topics like these. Songs about scarecrows and gnomes, next to one that just directly reads from the I CHING... And then there's whatever "Bike" is about. It's a ride in any case, with how it randomly shifts tempos every verse. This feels like one of those albums where if you wanted to give it a deep reading in light of what happened, you maybe could. None of this is "Jugband Blues" to my ears, though; this album is just legitimately that innocent. I even feel like I could go so far as to call its innocence childlike. Those are just the vibes I get from this thing. And, really, I do appreciate that this album can get really "underground weird" in spots. Of course you got the poppier stuff (and the original American release just straight-up included "See Emily Play"), but then you have what I'm pretty sure is the album's centerpiece, "Interstellar Overdrive". Now this is a song that's not concerned at all with appealing to the masses. All it wants to be, and what it successeeds handily in being, is a complete and total freak-out. It's one of those songs you'd swear you'd hafta be on LSD to enjoy, but take it from someone who would never take substances: it's still damn good when you're sober. In fact, I tell you, when I was younger I probably would've disliked this song for being as long and strange as it is, but these days, I really dig it. Seriously, I just love that part where it's made to sound like the band is rapidly spinning around you; it's great. I'm not even sure if I have any complaints about this album. At most, there's just the fact that, like I said, psych rock just typically isn't my taste. I could go long into why that is, but just to say, I know I'd listen to "Time", "Wish You Were Here" or "Comfortably Numb". And of course, that's not even the fault of this album. So... Yeah, I think I've talked myself into a 5 here. It's never what I'd spring to first — and, honestly, I wouldn't recommend anyone who wants to get into Pink Floyd should start here — but it's hard to deny it as a masterpiece of psych rock. Syd Barrett really did know to make this stuff, and I can only imagine what Pink Floyd could've sounded like if he'd been able to have more direct influence over the rest of their discography. Of course, the cruel truth is that if Syd had managed to stick around, we wouldn't have gotten some of the band's greatest works: DARK SIDE, ANIMALS, THE WALL... We wouldn't have even gotten WISH YOU WERE HERE. Or at least, we might not have gotten them in the way we got them in this timeline. We can only speculate. But me, I'd rather just appreciate what Syd managed to give us. In the grand scheme of Floyd's career, it wasn't much... But dang, they just wouldn't be the same without it. Bless you, Syd. And I hope I can talk about you good again whenever THE MADCAP LAUGHS comes around. I mean, jeez, with what happened around that one — again, if I thought talking about **this one** was hard... Goodness.

Well, consider me a fan of this era of Genesis. Seriously, it's incredible I've never listened to this stuff before. I mean, I've always been aware that it's been pretty damn quality, but, for some reason, prior to today I've only ever listened to one of their songs, "Land Of Confusion". Which, hey, that's not a bad one song to be stuck on; it wasn't a world conquering single for nothing. But actually diving into something from Gabriel's tenure in the band — and not even one of the more well-known ones, at that... Oh, wow. Wow. Woooow. This is amazing. Simply amazing. I'm struggling to put a word to exactly how this sounds to me, but goodness me, I love how it sounds. This kind of, y'know, vibe and tone. I'm comparing this to some of the other 70's prog bands I've heard, like King Crimson and Yes, and unlike critics' comparisons at the time, I'm actually **favoring** Genesis. And don't get me wrong, of course; Yes is great, and I've really liked what I heard from King Crimson. Genesis, though... This sound that they got just really appeals to me. I think the best I can describe it is that it's the most "uplifting 70's rock" prog I've ever heard. Seriously, I can't even begin to describe how this scratches an itch I didn't even know I had. As soon as possible, I'm really gonna hafta check out some of the other more well-known Genesis albums, like FOXTROT and THE LAMB LIES DOWN ON BROADWAY, goodness. And... Yeah, on an initial listen, tryna describe my initial reaction, that's really all I hafta say. From one album alone, Genesis might've already become my second favorite prog rock band, only beaten out by how much Pink Floyd is truly a part of me. It's a hard 5 from me, no question about it. It's a new benchmark for judging prog albums I haven't heard before. So, y'know, good luck tryna match up... I'unno. CRIME OF THE CENTURY? Do ELP have an album here? Yeah, they probably wouldn't stand up too well.

Boy, the Randomizer could barely wait, huh? It was only just a few days when my group got DÉJÀ VU, the seminal and (to put it mildly) commercially successful album by Crosby, Stills, Nash & sometimes Young. Seriously, that thing sold damn **numbers**. From what I've read, to this day it's still the highest selling album of any of the individual member's careers. Which, I mean, hey, from what I've heard about C, S and N, that makes sense. But Y? I coulda sworn Y would've had at least one more popular, given his levels of acclaim. Speaking of Y, album sales and acclaim, DÉJÀ VU was such a hit record, that when each member released a solo album afterwards, they all enjoyed increased success just by proximity and association. And of course, none of them were bigger than good ol' Neil Young's. So, yeah, only three days later my group gets to consider Neil Young's follow-up to the biggest album of his career — and I'm also pretty sure this is his third biggest overall behind HARVEST, although for all I know AMERICAN DREAM could actually be number three. It's not about the sales numbers, anyway; it's about the music. So how does that stand up to me? Honestly, I think it's very lovely. Instrumentally, I mean — putting aside the few songs that rock too much. It's the kind of album where I'm sure if I actually registered the lyrics I'd realize it's too serious or too much of a downer to be considered "lovely," but since I don't normally perceive most lyrics a first go around, and since a first listen is what I nearly always go off of... Yeah, this is just lovely instrumentation. Very pretty stuff. I wanna lean back in my chair and just smile. It's really times like these that I'm glad I'm not bothered by Young's voice. Like, believe me, I can absolutely get it. Young has one of the more... Y'know, unique voices in popular/critically acclaimed music. Like a... High warble with a little bit of frog. But I've never found it annoying. I absolutely know what that sounds like to my ears, and Young's just ain't it. It's — it can be amusing, y'know? One of those voices that can be fun to imitate, though not to the same extent as someone like, say, Dylan's. And, like, if he had a more generic folk singer voice, I don't think this music would land like it does. Shout-outs to "Southern Man", too, for being the other song that pissed Lynyrd Skynyrd off enough to write "Sweet Home Alabama". I like all of these songs, for the record, but it's just funny to me that one of Skynyrd's biggest hits ever is an angry response to Neil Young — and a bad one, I'm sure, if you actually take the time to look at its lyrics. Lucky for them, I haven't yet, so like Neil's voice, it don't bother me at all — which is how they feel about Watergate, funny enough. So, yeah, that's off-topic. Lemme pull it back to the point: honestly, I'm feelin' a... 5 on this? Yeah, a 5. There's a small part of me that feels like I've been too generous lately with the 5's, but honestly, I did like this instrumentation enough to justify that. Plus, hey, I'm sure I'll like the lyrics once I'm actually able to take them in, so I may as well give it that as well. Pretty good for the **fourth** Neil Young album my group has gotten, I'd say. Looks like I'm still living up to my RUST NEVER SLEEPS review: "Well, I hope I'm more into any of the other six Neil Young albums on this list."

Look, I get why hair metal gets a bad rap. Or at least, I can imagine the general perception of hair metal. To a lot of people, not just headbangers and metal purists, it can be a joke to even call these groups "metal" in the first place. Bands like Poison are a lot closer to 'NSYNC than they are to something like Metallica. I mean, you listen to "Unskinny Bop" — you call that a "metal" riff? It's not even heavy! And, y'know, they got all these upbeat "nuthin' but a good time" drinkin' n' partyin' fun times songs about girls, girls, girls... And it's like, unless you're Guns N' Roses, there's rarely any danger or edge to this kinda music. You could play this stuff to your grandma, and at most she might ask about how much hairspray they inhale. It's never been a very respected genre, in short. Sure, the Sunset Strip might've brought in the big bucks, but they were always gonna be a punchline next to acts like Venom and Slayer. And as much as I can understand that, frankly, I don't care. To me, hair metal was never about how real or heavy or dangerous they are — it's just fun music. That's all I ask from them, so I really can't complain, can I? I mean, goodness, I'm the kinda person who unironically enjoys the ROCK OF AGES movie soundtrack, 'coz I enjoy the genre (and GLEE-style theater kid Broadway covers, I guess) that much. (And, y'know, in light of what I said above, it's funny that the movie ROCK OF AGES wants to act like ending up in a pop boy band is such a terrible fate — worse than a stripper! — but that's completely off-topic...) One of the bands covered in the show and on the soundtrack is — hey, hey, I get to tie back in with the review topic: Bon Jovi! Which... Actually, it's funny. Despite my pre-amble, I don't... Entirely consider Bon Jovi to be hair metal? No, honestly, I've kind of always slotted them in more alongside arena rock. Journey and all that. Which is another genre widely derided, labelled "corporate rock..." And, y'know, I don't care about that perception either. Look, lemme jus' cut to the chase: I love this album. A lot. Wall to wall, it's fun, upbeat, and poppy. The chorus of "You Give Love A Bad Name"? So much fun to sing and shout along to. The whole vibe of "Wanted Dead Or Alive"? So badass. The talkbox riff on "Livin' On A Prayer"? Iconic, and also a blast to try and imitate. And that's not even bringing up the **key change**. Abrupt? Oh, for sure; it comes straight damn outta nowhere. But at the same time, it's **amazing**. The way Jon goes for that "WOOOOAAAH-OOOOOAH!!!!!" is... Like, gosh, it's cheesy in the greatest possible way. I mean, there's a damn good reason these songs have stuck around for as long as they have; they're straight-up classics, full stop. It's impossible to not wanna crank these up as loud as you can. But those are just the singles. They're monsters, in and out of the context of the album. How do the rest of the songs hold up? OK, so this might sound like a back-handed compliment, but I mean this in the nicest, most-positive way possible: they're good enough that they don't bring the rest of the album down.'Cuz of course, they were always gonna be "lows" in comparison, but that's just because the album's hits tower so highly in general. These deeper cuts are still a lot of fun on their own, and keep the energy up. I can't imagine any song other than "Let It Rock" kicking things off. "Social Disease" has, y'know, **an opening**, but damn if I don't dig those horns. "Without Love" and **especially** "Never Say Goodbye" are as good of hair ballads as you can get. And "Wild In The Street" — now **that's** the best non-single on the album, honestly. Burner of an album closer. Honestly, in regards to these songs, I feel like the worst thing I can say about this album is that it's front-loaded. All of the singles, the best songs on the album, are on the first side. I'll stand by the deeper cuts, of course, but I can't blame people for never playing side two. (Also, "I'd Die For You" is probably the weakest song here, but I can give it a pass.) All n' all and all around, I think from my tone you've already assumed that this album is a 5. It's just a blast, front to back. Any complaints I have, they're outweighed tenfold by how much I enjoy listening to this. I mean, that's just hair metal for you, as long as you're not thinking too hard about it. This was an incredibly fun one to get on Christmas Eve, and I can only hope the one my group gets tomorrow can match up. (And seriously — that boy band parody is actually the best song from the ROCK OF AGES movie? Seriously, it rules.)

As I'm writing this, Christmas is pretty much over. In two-and-a-half hours, it'll be Boxing Day and 364 days 'til the most wonderful time of the year comes around again. So, I guess this can be taken as my farewell to the season. And, y'know, Christmas music gets a lot of flack — rightfully so, in most cases. After all, it's either yet another cover of the same handful of songs that've existed as far back as the 1930's (keeping the boomer's Christmas memory alive and well!) or it's some tossed off piece of whatever, whether it's attempting to become the next Christmas standard or not. Yet, despite my awareness of that fact... I mean, I do genuinely love the season, even if these days I generally end up getting more excited for Halloween. So, hey, why not get ready for the season by listening to a small selection of the abundance of Christmas music there is? It just doesn't surprise me too much that what I end up listening to is either old classics like Elvis's Christmas album or extreme novelties like Richard Cheese's SILENT NIGHTCLUB. And if A CHRISTMAS GIFT FOR YOU FROM PHIL SPECTOR isn't part of that line-up... Well, believe it or not, it has nothing to do with the fact that I refer to him as a murderer first and a producer second. Like, don't get me wrong, he deserves all the shit he got and more, but... I'unno. Maybe it's just because Phil Spector's brand of "Wall Of Sound" mono mixes are just way before my time, but it's not like I can't listen to "Be My Baby" without thinking "OH, HE'S A MURDERER." Not in the same way there's such a vile vibe for me coming off, say, I'unno, the shit Kanye West produces these days. Really, the only reason why A CHRISTMAS GIFT FOR YOU isn't in my Christmas album rotation is just because... I guess I figure I have enough? I already have THE BEACH BOYS' CHRISTMAS ALBUM in there, and that's essentially Brian's attempt to do this album for himself, so it'd maybe be a little redundant to have both. Let me be fair, though — at least as fair as we can be to a man who died in prison for murder. How does it actually sound? Should I be giving it more of a chance in my rotation? My immediate conclusion, even from track one, is that I can understand why this would be the only Christmas album someone would listen to. This is classically Christmas; the kind of overproduced Christmas music all other overproduced Christmas music compares itself to. It's fun, lush, grand and **huge**, despite it being in mono. Only the original originals can really beat this out in being the ur-sound of Christmas. 'Coz, look, Phil Spector as a person sucks to hell and back; no one's gonna argue that. And, sure, not every production decision he made was... Y'know, **great**; LET IT BE... NAKED and the recent remix of ALL THINGS MUST PASS exist for a reason. But the man could overproduce like no one else. There's a reason why Brian Wilson made such attempts to be like him, and why a lot of the songs Spector produced are among the greatest of all time. Goodness, just "Be My Baby" alone would be enough. And as much as I wanna keep "yeah, but"-ing myself and covering my ass with the "he's a murderer first" thing, that's just the truth. Sometimes the shittiest of people are just that good at what they do. And Spector is just that good. I do suspect that at the very least we should be giving just as much credit, if not maybe a little more, to all of the people who actually performed on the damn record. Like, yeah, Spector can produce and mix, but without the compendium of master session musicians The Wrecking Crew to pull off these arrangements, and without vocalists like Darlene Love, The Ronettes and Crystals to sing the damn thing, where would he even be? Let's not "auteur" "great man" Spector too much here. Like, really thinking about it, there's something not terribly great about the fact that a box set of Phil Spector's production work gets to be 358 spots higher on the 2003 ROLLING STONE 500 than The Ronettes debut — the one with "Be My Baby" — y'know? For whatever the RS500 lists are worth, anyway. Regardless of all that, though... Yeah, for better or for worse, this is an absolute Christmas classic. One I should probably try to work in my Christmas rotation more, between the Jackson 5 Christmas album and the midwestern emo cover of "The Christmas Shoes". I mean, it's not gonna top A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS as my favorite Christmas record of all time, but in any case, it's a 5, for sure. I'm very happy that the Randomizer was likely rigged to let me, my group, and anyone else who partakes in this spend their Christmas with it — or to end it off, specifically, in my case. I suppose the only question now is "What on Earth is my group gonna get **next Christmas?**" 'Coz I'm pretty sure this is the only Christmas album on this list. Well, I guess we'll just hafta wait 364 more days to find out. And whatever it is, maybe I can spend a little less time "yeah, but"-ing myself. Goodness.

Y'know, I feel like the title "DESTROY ROCK & ROLL" might set people up with the wrong expectations. Certainly, it set me up with a neat zinger if it turned out this album was bad actually: "DESTROY ROCK & ROLL? How are you gonna do that when you can't even kill a beat?" Har-de-harr. For me, an album calling itself "DESTROY ROCK & ROLL" sounds like it should be setting itself up for some hard hitting stuff. Real "bangers," so the kids call 'em. And while I do think this album has those, they also tend to be a little... "Boppish," as well? I mean, I wasn't expecting this album to be adjacent to IDM or harder genres of electronica like that, but... Yeah, no, this is actually electropop. Mostly sampled from radio-friendly soft rock, as it happens. I'm not sure if I'd call it terribly special, nor something I **needed** to listen to before I died, but unlike a lot of reviews I see that amend that thought to their 1/5's... Hey, I think it's a fun piece of background music. And as I stress when I praise something for being background music: there's nothing wrong with. It has as much right to exist as everything else. Sure, it doesn't go anything good for the album's longevity unless the artist who made it is just **that** notable (see Brian Eno's ambient album). For what it is, though, I feel like I have hardly anything to complain about. In fact, I actually enjoy how a lot of it is sampled from soft rock. For the record, too, by the way, it turns out the title "DESTROY ROCK & ROLL" comes from a Chrisitian fundamentalist sermon sampled on the title track, which mispronounces several artists names, including "Weird Al" Yankovich[sic]. So, really, I can only assume, then, that the use of "destroy rock and roll" is supposed to be ironic — that "rock and roll" is meant to refer to all music, really, and that the album is in favor of **not** doing that. So it's nice to know we're on the same side here. All in all... Y'know, honestly, I am kinda feeling a 5 on this. Part of me was hesitant to do so, since I have been wondering lately if I've been too generous in handing those out.... But honestly, "Emotion 98.6" did actually convince me to go all the way. I really did the track, and the end of it specifically, just that much. Unlike other albums I give 5's, I'm not sure if I'm gonna come back to it too frequently, if at all, but for the time I had with it... Yeah, it turns out this guy can actually kill a beat after all. Go figure.

Coming into this album, I figured it'd have a similar issue to 2112 or MAGGOT BRAIN. Y'know, those are albums where their opening title tracks are so great and massively famous that no matter how the rest of the album stacks up, it can't help but be dwarfed in comparison. And it's not like I think that those title tracks don't deserve the acclaim they've gotten; I love them as much as anyone else. It's just that, at the same time, I can feel for songs like "Something For Nothing" getting a bit lost, y'know? And don't get me wrong here either: "Let's Stay Together" is as incredible as I've heard that it is. I can absolutely hear why it's as big as it's become, from every performance on it, but particularly Al Green's. He's so soulfully smooth, my goodness. I'm just thinking, it's such a good thing for the rest of the album that it carries itself as well as it does. I'm not sure if I'd say any of it is on exactly the same level as the title track, but let me say: if that's an 11/10, then everything else is an 8 or 9/10. They're really not that far off — especially that Bee Gees cover. A part of me was already inclined to love it, 'coz I do enjoy it whenever I see someone cover a Bee Gees song that didn't soundtrack John Travolta, and thankfully it lived up to my expectations beyond that. And "Judy" right after it? Like, wow, I just needa shout out those strings, I swear. A++ performances all around, my goodness. I'll admit, this is one of those albums where I wish I had more to say about it, but dang it, sometimes an album is just that simply good that you don't need too many words to describe it. This is classical soul, pure and simple, shared with any of the best by Otis Redding. I'll end a third paragraph in a row with this: my goodness. Unsurprisingly, I'm at a 5. My seventh in a row, even! Part of me feels like I've been too generous with those lately, and that I'm probably gonna look back on a few of these and figure I should've dropped a point at least (checking you, DESTROY ROCK & ROLL). This one, though? Nah, no chance. I'm gonna let this one stay, you can bet.

I really wasn't expecting to get this album as quickly as I did. Like, this isn't my first encounter with Tom Waits, to be clear. This is, as it happens, the second time I'm talking about an artist I first heard through the SHREK 2 soundtrack, after David Bowie. "Little Drop Of Poison" was one of my favorites, 'coz the arrangement was stranger than anything else on there and Tom Waits just had this uniquely gravelly voice, like nothing I'd ever heard before (it'd be a few years before I'd hear Captain Beefheart). It was also one of the two "piano bar" songs on the album, along with "People Ain't No Good" by Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds — and somehow, I always thought this album would be more like that. I'unno, the album cover just always gave me the vibe that it'd be really "sad piano ballad-y," and potentially a little boring as a result if I wasn't in the mood for that sorta thing. Like, this album **did** come out 20 years before SHREK 2; I thought maybe that's just Tom Waits was doing way back then. Nope. Unsurprisingly, I was wrong. Within the first couple seconds of the opening track, I got the sound of this album immediately — one half of its sound, at least. This is clearly the kinda shit that inspired bands like That Handsome Devil and Primus, with these unconventional arrangements and lyrics about strange, odd people. I was especially reminded of That Handsome Devil with these vocals. And, like, goodness, if I thought Waits had unique vocals before, I swear, there are so many times where it sounds less like he's singing, or even yelling, and more like he's just... **Vomiting** the words. Some kinda Bruce Springsteen who went way too hard on the liquor and cigarettes. It's kind of amazing, honestly. These are the kind of songs where I can tell why someone wouldn't like this album; it might just sound strange for the sake of it. But believe me, once you've got an ear attuned to it; if you've heard as much SAILING THE SEAS OF CHEESE and A CITY DRESSED IN DYNAMITE as i have, it's great stuff. And that's half the album, probably actually a majority of it. As for the rest, it turns out there is actually a small selection of songs that play into that "sad piano ballad" thing I was somehow expecting from this album. I wanna highlight "Hang Your Head Down" and "Blind Love" specifically, where I was honestly taken a little off-guard by the emotion he was able to wring out of his vocal style. And actually managing to pull off those vocal melodies — honestly, they maybe hafta be my favorite moments on the album. What an album it is, goodness. Not even the fact that it approaches an hour is really an issue to me. It breezes by, and I'm loving it the entire time. It's another hard 5 from me — my eighth in a row now! Just outstanding music, my goodness. So that's another win for the "SHREK 2 soundtrack seal of approval," I guess. Which, I'm already aware it doesn't have a 100% success rate — lookin' at you, Dashboard Confessional — but dang if it ain't have a good track record so far.

And just as I was wondering how long my 5/5 streak was gonna go on for, here comes a post-punk album, guaranteeing I won't be able to give it a 5! I mean, to be fair, this album isn't **just** post-punk; Wikipeia classifies it as synth-pop as well. But, boy, if there's anything that would make me not look forward to an album, labelling it as "post-punk" would be it. And, look, I kinda don't like to be this unfair to any genre. There's always gotta be something I like about each and every one — at least **one small thing**, at minimum. It's just that I have had the least amount of luck figuring out what that thing is with post-punk, let alone what its appeal is supposed to be. Goodness, even with jungle and drum n' bass can have some nice piano lines every now and then. I mean, if you were to ask me to define what I thought post-punk was supposed to be, I'd honestly probably say something like "It's uncommercial hoo-hah that I'm supposed to applaud at just because it's uncommercial." Y'know, I started bad with METAL BOX, and it hasn't gotten any better for me since. So, this album, then. What's its deal? Well, for one, I feel like I can attribute everything I like about it to the "synth-pop" label, that being the instrumentals, mostly. They're pretty good, honestly, even if they're not exactly mind-blowing. If this album were just those, I could see myself giving it a 4 at most — and not just because I've been wondering if I've been too generous lately with my 5's. As you've seen, though, I've given this album a 3, thanks entirely to one thing: this guy's vocals. I read a review on this website comparing this vocalist to a bootleg David Bowie, and, yeah, that's really the vibe I get. He's doing all this whooping and caterwauling 'coz, y'see, that's what vocalists on **important, artsy music** are **supposed** to sound like — I guess. It just didn't do anything for me, or at least anything positive. And I get the feeling that on any other album I might not have minded this too much, but you combine the fact that I thought of these guys as "post-punk" first with the whole "Who the hell are these guys?" kind of reaction... Yeah. Yeah, no. This guy just sounds like he's trying too hard to sound important, and it's a detriment to everything. I mean, jeez, I read a review that compared these vocals to Russel Mael of Sparks, and... No? No, not at all? Not even close? So, yeah. Big ol' 3. It's fine, but coulda been better. Part of me's happy my group got this, though more as a reminder that I **can** rate stuff less than a 5 than because of anything that's actually on this album. If I had a choice of listening to any other 80's album today, believe me, I absolutely would have.

OK, so... Indulge me for a second here... ==< [...] >== It was a dark and stormy night — and one with a particularly strong emphasis on the "dark" part. No matter how closely you move your hand to your face, you just can't make it out. In fact, if you were to mose it any closer, you'd be covering your face. Not that that would matter. Besides the occasional crash of lightning trying to pierce through the thick forest covering to light your surroundings, you were basically wandering blind. Trapped in a void that would threaten to swallow you whole, if not for the one thing guiding you: a distant church bell. Every now and then, it would toll, just barely audible above the pounding rain. You weren't sure if this was leading the way home or not — a doubt that continued to grow like a weed in your mind as you approached — but as they say, "Any port in a storm." However, very slowly, you come to a stop. A chill runs down your spine — noticeably, one that seemed to have nothing to do with how you were freezing in this rain. Something, you could just tell, was wrong. Through a large hole in the forest canopy, you could see another bolt of lightning flash, lighting up the forest and the cloudy sky. As well as... Something standing off in the distance. You couldn't tell what it was; it was too far away, shrouded in blur and a silhouette... But you could gather one thing: it was big. Very big. The church bell rang in the distance. Lightning flashed again, and the shape in the distance seemed to have gotten... Bigger? The wind picked up to a sharp howl, which forced you to shut your eyes to keep them from stinging. You rubbed your arms, trying to keep yourself warm, but it was like trying to light a match underwater — good luck with that. The church bell rang in the distance. The wind died down as soon as it picked up. Slowly, you were able to open your eyes again, just in time for lightning to strike once more and... Wait. Through squinted eyes, you wondered: "Did the figure get bigger again? Or... Maybe not bigger, but..." The church bell rang in the distance. As if on cue, a hellishly red fire rose in front of you. It didn't seem to shed much light on your surroundings, but it did reveal this — this **thing** was standing right in front of you. This towering, imposing figure, maybe ten feet high. Like before, it was completely cloaked in shadow, but thanks to the fire raging behind it, its exact shape was even blurry and less clear. One thing you could tell though, and you didn't know how you knew this — it was smiling. It spoke. It was in a language you'd never heard before, but somehow, you understood perfectly well. It spoke of you how you were the chosen one. How you were meant to bring an end to it all. How the figure was there to guide you. You started to laugh. You didn't understand why. You just began to. It was maybe all you could do in the face of this. The figure continued to speak, but you could hardly hear it. Quickly, your laughter was growing louder, overpowering the figure and, shortly, even the rain around you. The figure's grin grew wider and it began to laugh along with you. It spread its mighty wings wide and reached out a clawed hand to take you. By that time, you didn't know if you were laughing or screaming. The forest was dark. Rain poured down in a seemingly endless torrent. The wind whipped around the trees. The church bell rang in the distance. ==< [...] >== Alright, so apologies for all that. Typically, I'm not 100% about the whole "Pitchfork writer who clearly can't wait for his own time to creative writing" mode of reviewing. Like, sure, I like seeing creative writing based on music, but if I come for a review, I come for a review, y'know? However, in this instance, I feel like writing all of that was maybe the only way I could really relay the reverence I have for this album. 'Cuz whatever I actually think about the contents of the album, I'll always hold it up as one of the most important releases in music history, for being the album where metal was born. Like, as far as I'm aware, the history of metal splits into two periods: pre-Sabbath proto-metal (think "Helter Skelter" by The Beatles), and then post-Sabbath. For sure, it's probably way more complicated than that, and I have a whole-ass book to confirm that, but that's just the legend that's been relayed to me, and it's one I've always believed. 'Cuz you've had heavy acts before like Led Zeppelin and that one Blue Cheer album, but nothing compared to even how this album opens. A slow, doomy, detuned riff, crashing drums, lyrics about a nightmarish figure that drives the singer mad, and an outro with a ripping solo. It's incredible. The title track alone and they've already got a masterpiece and cornerstone of an entire new genre. The album hardly lets up from there. And I'll admit, before re-listening to this album (which was my first time in a while, actually), I had the lingering thought that I'd come to discover I was overhyping the sound of this album to myself. Y'know, that it'd turn out that this album outside of its opener is just heavier-than-usual blues — and it's not **not** that. I'll say, I do prefer their follow-ups for refining their sound away from English blues. But make no mistake: this is **heavy** blues. You only need to listen to the sound of Tony Iommi's guitar. You hear that distortion? That menace? Heck, just how big it can sound? Not even Jimmy Page had a guitar sound like that. The magic it turned out you could get from playing a right-handed guitar upside down as a left-handed one. And I know we've all been living with Ozzy Osbourne and his singing for years now, between the wacko locomotives and telling his mother he'll be returning shortly, but we just hafta appreciate what a voice he has. It works so well with the dark subject matter he ends up singing about. Seriously, the way he wails "OH, PLEASE, GOD, NO" on the title track — it legit sounds like he's begging to not be driven insane by whatever dark forces are confronting him. And, jus', ahhh, that one vocal melody on "N.I.B.", it's so good. Let's not forget to give it up for Geezer and Ward. Metal's got great vocal and guitar histrionics (ooo, big word), but they'd be nothing about their rhythm sections. Watch me make that case especially when my group gets MASTER OF PUPPETS, but yeah, seriously, give a hand to Geezer and Ward for holding all this together. I've always loved the sound of Geezer's bass, I gotta say. Jus' got this... I'unno, "plomp" to it sometimes. That's a made-up word, but it's as close as I can get to how it sounds to my ears. And would you believe that this whole album was recorded in only twelve hours? Yeah, they pulled recording this off in less time than it took The Beatles to make PLEASE PLEASE ME. That's just crazy, right? Sure, I can't hear anything on here that sounds like it should have taken more than twelve hours, but if they can just bang out a record like this in that short of time, you can only imagine how much better the rest are when they had **more** recording time. I could go on — really, I could. It's hard for me to not gas up this album, even though, like I said, I prefer the two follow-ups more. It's a mandatory must for anyone interested in metal, just to hear the most commonly and widely agreed-upon point where the genre started. I mean, just for how so many bands that I love might not exist if this thing hadn't come out, I hafta give it respect for that alone. And all that, on the top of the fact that it rocks like hell? Are you hearing these **riffs**? I'm just saying, it's something when my only gripe about it is that the North American release jams a bunch of tracks together into large medleys. Would you even be surprised if I said this thing is a 5 to my ears? If you somehow missed the number at the top, the tone of my writing would probably give it away. And sure, there's probably gonna be other metal albums (even besides PARANOID and MASTERS OF REALITY) I'm gonna be way more positive about, if you can believe it, but I don't think any of them would inspire me to gush at length like this one did. Or inspire me to write **short-form narrative fiction** to open a review. I won't deny that its legacy and legend plays a part in why I like this album as much as I do, but, oh, what a legacy. What a legacy.

Yesterday, my group got Black Sabbath's debut album, widely considered "the first metal album." Now, metal is a pretty mythologized genre, so it was pretty easy for me to get caught up in the legend and reverence towards it. I mean, goodness, it inspired me enough to devote 2/5ths of a 1,500 word review to a narrative adaptation of the album's title track, as if most people would find it at all relevant. Then you have this album, meanwhile. It holds a similar-ish place in music history, being where the subgenre of country rock kicked off. In fact, it seems the band was rejected for being innovators; Nashville viewed them as a bunch of hippies trying to invade their space, and I doubt a lot of rock people knew what to do with all of this country music. So you think that'd get something similar from me — well, not a whole-ass narrative, but at least a similar level of reverence. But whereas I'm very aware of the mythology of metal and do kind of buy into it... Don't get me wrong, I'm also aware how important country music has been, and of its place in American music. It's just... I've never heard country music as anything but just country music. Y'know? I don't wanna call country music all "the same" and act like there's no difference from artist to artist, but, like... Honestly, country strikes me as maybe the hardest genre for me to talk about. Like, rap can be difficult for me to talk about 'cuz that's a culture I'll never have a full and/or proper understanding of. Jazz, meanwhile, feels like it requires a golden ear to hear the subtle intricacies in playing and, like, modes. With both of those, though, I can at least appreciate flow, beats and lyricism in the former, and in the latter I can get lost in some good melodies and soundscapes. Country, though? Unless there's some super notable context about it, like Johnny Cash's prison albums, I often don't know how many unique things I can say about one album without repeating myself from others. So, like, this album specifically. I mean, yeah, it's country rock. I do like myself some country music, so I do rather like myself this. The fiddle, the slide guitar, the melodies... It's all there. Unless being melody-first is making me stupid and miss some particularly excellent story-telling — and most of these are covers, anyway, so I'unno how much I could praise **this album** for any of that — I just don't know what else I'm supposed to say about it. What makes this all even wilder to me is the fact that this is the **third** Gram Parsons country album my group has gotten now, and it hasn't even been a month since the last one. I know he's pretty well respected, not just for helping found country rock, but also for something he called "Cosmic American Music"; I've read as much. However, between a posthumous solo album, the first Burrito Brothers album, and now this — and of course I mean no disrespect towards the man, but I just can't figure what all the hype is really about. He makes good country music, sure. What else am I supposed to get from him? (And I hafta consider this album as a Gram Parsons album, by the way. This is also my group's third Byrds album, but besides some Bob Dylan covers, it's so far-removed sonically from what I remember, say, FIFTH DIMENSION sounding like that I can't really consider them together.) This might read like a pretty frustrated review. I mean, I spent less time talking about the album than I did complaining about my struggles writing about country music. But I will reiterate: I **do** like this album. Again, it's country music. I dig that sound, and this album is really good at making it. My biggest issue with it is just that I don't hear much special about it, and that's more a gripe with country albums in general (or at least the ones this Randomizer has been giving me so far). That's not enough for me to push this any lower than a 4. It's just, I'unno. 366 albums into this Randomizer, I wish I had more specifics about this kinda stuff. Well, hey, there's still 635 left on this list, and tomorrow's a new year, so I guess I'll just hafta wait and see if I get some or not.

Well, it's a new year, and it seems the Randomizer figured the best way to kick it off would be to have my group listen to an album entirely in **French**! Ah, yes, finally, a chance to put my mandatory French classes to good use! Except not really! 'Cuz, for one, I never actually retained anything from those classes, despite taking them for most of my schooling career... And, two, well, from everything I've read about this album, maybe I don't **want** to know what this thing's actually about? I kinda don't wanna get myself too worked up over an album that came out over 50 years ago, but, f'woof, boy, if finding out this thing's plot didn't make me a little biased against it from the start. It's... A **little** gross, to put it mildly? "A middle-aged man falls in love with, lusts after and has sex with a 14 year-old before she dies in a plane crash." Eee-yuck-o. But whatever. I've never been lyrics-first anyway, as I've stated multiple times, and that goes double for albums that aren't in English. Is that me being ignorant or whatever? Oh, probably, absolutely. But I always figure, music is its melody, so if this thing is lyrically gross, at least it won't be **as** notable. So, how does this thing stand up melodically, then? Uhm... I'm finding it hard to be impressed by it. Like, the instrumental work is all well and good, but... I'unno. Nothing about it strikes me with any particular "Wow!" factor. No kind of "Oh, that's cool" or "Oh, that was clearly the inspiration for [artist]." Mostly just, "Huh. Well, OK." It was pretty easy for this stuff to breeze by me, not helped by the fact that this thing doesn't even run 28 minutes. Which, to be clear, I don't think is necessarily a bad thing. I'd rather this thing get in, do its thing, and then get out in a succinct, tight package than drag itself on for another ten or twelve minutes. It just doesn't terribly help first impressions sometimes. Then there's this guy's voice, where all I feel like I really hafta say is that it's a bit too, y'know, ASMR at times? I don't like how often I heard his spittle. It's a bit off-putting. And it's not like the woman playing the 14 year-old girl does much to distract from that. I swear, all she says on this album is her character's name; she may as well be a Pokémon. That's probably something that makes sense in the context of the story, but I'd rather **not** consider the story, so... Blehh, I'unno. For most of the album I was willing to give it a 3 because, again, the instrumentation was nice enough. Honestly, as I'm sitting here writing this review, I'm feeling so unenthusiastic about it that... Aw, heck — it's a 2. I really didn't get much of it besides "Eh, sure" and "Ecch, ew." So that's not a great way to start up the year. But, hey, on the bright side, there's more than enough room to go up from here. Plus, at least now I can treat this thing like my French classes and forget I ever partook in them. If that ain't a positive for this kind of album, zut alors, I swear.

Y'know, I was really not expecting to struggle writing about this album as much as I did. Like, I didn't think this would be an easy job, but I didn't go into this thinking I'd end up starting over this review over as many times as I did. Look, I just needa get this roadblock out of the way. Before I even heard a second of this album, I was reading about how it was made following Alexander's stay in a mental hospital, and about how it was apparently "one of the most harrowing depictions of pain and confusion ever documented." From all that, I knew I had to be respectful of this guy and his struggles. After all, I'm not an ass. But, like, here's the issue: you know Syd Barrett and THE MADCAP LAUGHS? This album's backstory reminded me a lot of that one's, even down to the fact that this was the last thing Alexander released before largely disappearing from the music industry (Barrett released one more album after THE MADCAP LAUGHS, but still). I know THE MADCAP LAUGHS is gonna be a hard review for me to write, given everything I know about him, his problems, and what he means to Pink Floyd. But then, that's the thing: I know a lot about Syd Barrett. It's hard to be a fan of Pink Floyd without knowing about him, given all he ended up inspiring. Alexander, meanwhile, was a member of Moby Grape, a group I hadn't heard of until the Randomizer gave us one of their albums, and one I haven't thought about since that day. And I didn't even know Alexander was a member of Moby Grape until **today**. Like, as respectful as I wanna be — and of course I would be towards someone like this, regardless of circumstances — it's not exactly easy to write about someone I have so little connection to. Which just makes it all the worse that, on top of all that, I don't really have anything to say about the album itself. I can't remember the last time an album passed me by as badly as this one did. In one ear, out the other, I couldn't remember what it sounded like even seconds after the album ended. Which, sure, I could probably blame that on the fact that I got up late today and wasn't working at 100% mental capacity — that could legit be the reason. At the same time, though, there was just barely anything going on musically for me to latch on to. 'Cuz there's the other issue there: me being melody-first. I don't come to music to analyze poetry, so that's probably why I'm missing out on how "harrowing" this album is. But at the same time, you take another artist I'm wont to write about seriously 'cuz of their story, Nick Drake. I didn't really pay attention to his lyrics either, but goodness, he's at least he's such a beautiful guitar player that I can latch on to that. Alexander, meanwhile, didn't exactly give me anything to get engaged with except some of the most egregious 60's stereo panning I've heard in a long time. Seriously, whose idea was it to have songs where the drums were in one ear, and **literally everything else** was in the other? Not since the German-language Beatles songs. None of this is terrible, or even bad, but between Alexander's acoustic plonking and low-voiced mumble, if I didn't know any better, I would've assumed he was just some kinda jerk who was trying **way too hard** to be a Serious Artist™. Like... Y'know, at the end of the day, I was conflating not liking this album with being disrespectful of the man who made it. I mean, as far as I heard, he was essentially baring his soul and singing about his world. Who the hell am I to look at this and go, "It's a bit shit, innit?" But, look, that's not true at all. I mean, if I can like a fair bit of Kanye West's music despite not being respectful towards that man at all, why can't the opposite be true? Alexander's story, from all I've read, is tragic, and I don't mean any ill will towards him. But his music simply isn't for me. Like, I'll be generous and keep this album at a 3, but I was honestly considering a 2. As I say, that's just how it is sometimes. Alexander, Skip... Well, I can only hope you're resting in peace.

Well, this'll be a way simpler and shorter one to write about than the one my group got yesterday. This is just glam rock — what's widely agreed as being the first glam rock album, as a matter of fact — and, hey, if I'm the kinda person who thinks glam metal rules, you can only imagine I feel similar about its 70's predecessor. And, yeah, I do think this album is fun: straight up, plain ol' unpretentious fun. There's not much I really feel like I hafta discuss. You just listen to the guitar, the horns, the vocals — you get it. I don't think it's too hard to hear why the British fell so hard in love with glam rock. If I have any problem with it, I think it honestly has to do with the fact that it's the first. To be clear, that's no fault of the album; everything has to start somewhere. But comparing it to everything that came out after it, I'unno, ELECTRIC WARRIOR somehow feels a little too restrained, largely? I mean, you gotta understand that my sense of glam rock comes from, y'know, "Ballroom Blitz", "Crocodile Rock" and ZIGGY STARDUST. Those are all pretty wild takes on glam rock — and in the case of "Ballroom Blitz", damn manic — and besides "Bang A Gong (Get It On)", I don't think anything here really achieves those heights. "Ride A White Swan" and "20th Century Boy", stand-alone singles released before and after this album, both achieve way better what I want from this genre. Still, even then, I'd be a fool to give this album anything lower than a 4. Even if I wouldn't call it "classical glam rock" in the same way I'd call Black Sabbath's debut "classical metal" or Dr. Dre's THE CHRONIC "classical G-funk," there's no denying that this album is a good, fun time. At worst, it's just not exactly what I'd jump to first, which, again, isn't even its fault. So... I'unno. Go bang this gong and get it on for y'self.

Beh, I'unno. I don't think I can call it "terrible," exactly, but at the same time, my biggest takeaway from this album is that it sounds like... Y'know, either royalty-free house or the soundtrack to some low-rent PlayStation 1 game. It's not anything I wanna spend too much time ragging on. Honestly, the most I feel like the most I got out of this album was the one synth on "Disco II Disco" that sounds like a penguin tryna do a Gumi-chan laugh. I had a good time chuckling at that... I suppose the only other thought I had in mind throughout the album was... Well, I hate talking too much about "What's this doing here instead of this?" I don't feel like that's a terribly good use of anyone's time on here — or at the very least, it's not something that should factor into a final score. And so we're clear, it's still not a factor, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't spend a lot of the runtime stuck on a thought I had yesterday: "Why **isn't** Daft Punk's DISCOVERY on this list?" Like, it's just curious to me that this faux-French house can get in a revision of this book, but Daft Punk's DISCOVERY can't. That, apparently, isn't something the list author(s) think I should hear before I die. It's just odd to me is all. 'Cuz ultimately, like... This is a pretty unenthusiastic 3. As background music it works, but I have so many other albums to reach for first over this. Jus'... I'unno. I'll forget about it by tomorrow, just you wait and see.

I'll keep it 100: from seeing the words "art rock" on this album's Wikipedia page, I got the feeling I wouldn't like this. Kind of a sense of dread, actually, that I'd hafta spend the next forty minutes with this. Y'know, I haven't had very good experiences lately with "artsy" music — particularly post-punk and some experimental music. I mean, if there's any impression I've gotten lately from music that's tryna be "artsy," it's that it's usually atonal, noisy and verging on unlistenable for nothing more than for the sake of being "uncommercial." As if actually being appealing to people is somehow the worst thing in the world. It's the kind of music I imagine some folk like just because it makes them feel like a smarty smart big boy to "get it," unlike all the other plebeians and "normies." Luckily, though, my fears were found to be unfounded — and as it turns out, completely irrelevant. Like, yeah, there's quite a few moments on here that fall into being atonal and/or noisy, but none of it's ever abrasive. Y'know, none of it screams out "LOOK AT HOW UNCONVENTIONAL WE ARE; CLAP FOR US, DAMMIT." In fact, I probably shoulda paid more attention to the first genre classifier Wikipedia had up: glam rock. 'Cuz this is actually way closer to what I like from glam rock than was on ELECTRIC WARRIOR — and again, that's a good album. But here, it's bigger, it's wilder, and it is **not** restrained. The way "Re-Make/Re-Model" trades off solos at the end is amazing. "Would You Believe?" has a lot of that old rock n' roll flair, and it's great. But even when it does get artsy, like with the oboe melody at the front of "Ladytron"... Gawd, it's vibes. So much of this album is vibes. It's really something how much this album, in vibes, reminds me of Brian Eno's ambient work — and I do love me some ambient. Just as much, it's incredible that these vibes don't feel out of place next to all the hard rockin' glam. They just fit together so well. Oh, and also, going back to the traded off solos on "Re-Make/Re-Model" — each one quotes a different piece of music, from "Day Tripper" to "Ride Of The Valkyries", and that was such a Frank Zappa move to my ears that that alone convinced me that this album was good, actually. So once again I've learned to not judge an album by its genre label on Wikipedia. ("Once again?" Has it happened before? Probably, but heck if I can tell you where or when. And it'll happen again, let's not kid ourselves.) It's a real good album — one that's obviously not aiming for big mainstream success, but at the same time not aiming to be a big, off-putting mess just for the sake of it. I would listen to it again, and I wasn't even thinking I'd give it that much. So, yeah, it's a... Mm, yeah, a 5. I'll say I was impressed enough for that. It's nice to know some good Roxy music that wasn't played by Zappa and his band, I tell yah. Goodness.

Ahh... Nothing like kicking back to a little pop punk. Putting my feet up, sipping a diet Canada Dry that I wish wasn't a diet... These are the good times, people. For real, though, I do really love pop punk a lot. Which, OK, there was a part of me that hesitated on saying "love," 'coz I don't normally listen to much outside of Green Day, blink-182 and Sunrise Skater Kids — but I wanna emphasize how much I do truly love pop punk. It's a genre I could swear by, truly. Even the worst stuff, that was trying way too hard to relate to "the youths" — see stuff like Simple Plan or Good Charlotte — heck, it's still pop punk. As if I haven't spun Simple Plan's "Grow Up" more than once. So, what about The Offspring specifically, then? Despite being one of the Big 4 of pop punk in my mind (don't ask me who the other two are), I actually haven't listened to them much. Of course there's songs from them I play regularly, mostly singles: "Come Out And Play" (no duh), "Pretty Fly" ('cuz Weird Al parodied it), "Why Don't You Get A Job" ('cuz it's an "Ob-La-Di, "Ob-La Da" parody), "The Kids Aren't Alright" (that one's just awesome)... But I haven't played any of their albums like I have DOOKIE or ENEMEA OF THE STATE or... Goodness, even Sum 41's ALL KILLER NO FILLER. For the longest time I wasn't able to place my finger on why exactly, but I think after re-listening to SMASH I finally understand. Let's get this out of the way before anything else: SMASH is good. Amazing, even, actually. Top-tier pop punk, 5/5, no notes. It goes as hard as any of the other three albums I mentioned above. But if there's any reason why I don't reach for this first, honestly... It's the snot and attitude. Neither of those elements are entirely absent, but you just compare Dexter Holland's voice to Billie Joe's, or Tom's or Mark's, or Deryck's — you get it, right? The Offspring strike me as being way similar to, like, NOFX or Bad Religion. Those are bands I love, too, but I'm not sure if I'd call either of them "pop punk." Y'know, it's melodic hardcore, skate punk... Good stuff all; I'm just not as into as I am regular ol' pop punk. I think the short version of what I'm tryna explain here is "The Offspring are often more serious than I prefer." Just being 100 about my tastes. All said, though, of course, like I said above, I'm still giving this a 5/5. It rocks too hard and I had too much of a good time not to, even if it's not usually my thing. After all, punk, poppy or melodically hardcore, soothes even the most savage of beasts. (Hidden tracks don't, though. I can appreciate them in a pre-streaming age, but these days, unless they're split up like "Her Majesty"? Just a hassle, goodness.)

Well, that was a whole lot of nothing. Normally I don't like to be that blunt right off the bat, but, wow, there just wasn't... **Anything** there for me to get invested in. Not even the vocal on one song that sounded like Donald Duck with a cold could do too much for me. There's a person in my group who talks about this "the first minute is the whole song" trope. Now, I'll admit, I was reading some crossover fanfiction as I was listening to this album, so maybe my attention was too diverted to notice any deep intricacies, but seriously, that trope applies to this whole album. Every time my focus wandered back to the music, I had to check what song was playing and how far I was into it, 'coz for all I knew I could still be at the very beginning of the first song. And, y'know, I can forgive repetition if the song at least evolves and morphs over time, but there ain't no "Around The World" or "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger" here. Honestly, there were parts where I had to wonder if they were just looping the same bar of music over and over again. The album's length sure didn't help either. 57 minutes. Why did it have to be 57 minutes? Lemme bring back an idea I've discussed in a lot of my early reviews that I haven't brought up lately: CD bloat. The fact that once CDs became the dominant form of releasing music over vinyl records; once artists lost the limitation of 23 minutes per record side, they suddenly felt like they had to include every idea they could because... Well, they had the room. Who was going to stop them? And this isn't as egregious as some other cases; this is at least under an hour and not aiming for the full 73 minutes... But I still hafta ask: **none of this** could be cut? Not a single second? We **had** to have "The Quick And The Dirty"? Or, like, a bunch of these songs that're barely distinguishable from each other? All of this was supposed to be worth my time? Really? Like, I gotta wonder who exactly they were aiming to satisfy here. Me? Well, obviously not; no one makes music specifically for me except me. I'm not **that** much of an egotist. Was it clubgoers, then? I mean, like that's the most discerning audience in the world. As long as there's a good boom-down beat, I'm sure clubgoers could dance to anything. So, like, was it just themselves, then? 'Coz I've been going back and forth on whether the band's name is supposed to be a part of the album title or not, and... Y'know, I don't wanna go out claiming the band is like that, even as much as I didn't like their music. It just wouldn't surprise me, from the way it looks, if we really were supposed to read it as "Our Only Aim Is To Satisfy Red Snapper" is all. I really can't remember the last time I got so little out of an album, yet so much to complain about. 'Coz, like, I had no expectations for this album, so I shouldn't be too offended that all I got out of it was acid jazz/trip hop mush. What did I even want out of it in the first place? I suppose jus'... Something more than this. Honestly, it doesn't even make for good wallpaper. Even Les Rhythmes Digitales, who I actively thought I was gonna go after for making faux-French house music, did a better job at it. And as I've been writing this, I've been debating with myself if I really wanted to slap this thing with a 1 or not. Unlike every other rating I give out (check my 150 4's), I don't just wanna throw those around willy-nilly. An album actively has to do something to get under my skin to justify that. Either the artist has to be so shitty, where I have so little respect for them, that I can't justify keeping the album at the 2 it'd otherwise get (Kid Rock, Koffi Olomide); or I have to find the album just that unlistenable for my sensibilities (MAXINQUAYE was too boring; PSYCHOCANDY was too much of a noisy mush). I really hafta be honest with myself in asking if this album really bothered me that much or not. Was there really **nothing** redeemable about it? Yeah. No. No quarter. There wasn't. I'm slapping this thing with a 1. This album is a box. I could have chosen to spend my time with anything else; anything that I'm already familiar with, but I chose to take a chance on finding out what was in the box. And inside the box... Well, if I may quote the scene from UHF I thought of upon seeing the band's name: "NOTHING! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! STUPID! YOU SO STUPID!"

If nothing else, at the very least, I hafta give it to this album that it wasn't what I was expecting. From its cover, I thought this was gonna be way more in the vein of... Y'know, Avril Laveigne, Alanis Morisette, Liz Phair... That kind of sound. "Chick rock," for lack of a better phrase. And from the top of the album, it did sound like that's exactly what it was going to provide me. However, then it had that small "Penny Lane"-like breakdown and I sat up in my chair — "Oh? There might be more going on here than I'd naïvely assumed based on no more information than the album cover aesthetics?" The next track confirmed it: yep, there's some Beatlesesque tracks on here. Much-produced orchestrated pop with a knack for a hook. Ah, something I could latch onto. And let me be clear, I don't dislike Avril, Alanis or any other artist who could be slotted into that crassly-blunt "chick rock" phrase I used. Simply, my worry is that this would just be **generic** to my ears, where I'd be left wondering what people like Elvis Costello were going to gaga over. Y'know, the whole question of, "Why would I go to this woman for this sound, when there's so many others in this field that could provide the same thing?" And good for her, I can't think of anyone else who provided this sound in the 90's, sliding between rock, orchestrated-type pop and even some country-style acoustic ballads. That's something I can be impressed by. However, at the same time... I'unno. Not even too far into the album I was kinda getting tired of it. Maybe if it's too much of a good thing, or because I wasn't splitting it up into "vinyl sides," or because I was distracting myself with making a work night playlist at the same time... Or maybe her voice just wasn't that unique to me. Seriously, I spent way too much of the album tryna figure out all the women I thought she sounded like, and I couldn't land on even one specifically. So maybe this is another album that would have benefitted from a little editing? Like, did it really **need** to be 52 minutes? And I don't wanna entirely kid myself; there **are** albums that are this long that I can listen to just fine without any kind of break. This just... Isn't one of them, I guess. At the end of the day, I don't think I can give this any less than a 3; I was too pleasantly surprised by its content to go lower. I just wasn't ultimately too engaged with a lot of what it ended up presenting, so I also can't go any higher. Just leave at an "it's fine" 3. Like — I mean, I'unno. Whatever.

Off the bat, I take issue with this band's name. "The United States Of America" — I'm sorry, but that just sounds incredibly pretentious and up-their-own-ass. It comes across to me way too much like the kind of name someone slaps on their art to make it sound deeper and more important than it actually is; like they're making such **the** definitive statement about America that it can't be titled anything else. I mean, it'd be one thing if this band was making "A Horse With No Name" or "Peaches", but this is Serious, Important Experimental Music™ with Serious, Important Commentary™ and radical left politics! I needa take this as seriously as its name suggests I should! And to be clear, I love me some radical left politics. Just look at how much I dig Rage Against The Machine, Dead Kennedys, Chumbawamba and The Clash. Like, I realize, I'm aware, this is just me taking way too much issue with aesthetics — ultimately, whatever the band calls themselves doesn't really matter. But it's not exactly irrelevant to how I was coming into this album, y'know? Besides, how much I like or don't like someone's politics often doesn't impact on how I feel about the actual music itself. If they're egregious enough, sure, but I'm not gonna act like I don't still listen to and enjoy some people who believe some things I just can't agree with — just look at Frank Zappa, for instance. By that same token, I don't hafta **like** music just because I agree with politically, and... Well, I'm not gonna say I completely hate this music, but it's not like I'm terribly impressed by it. Like, to begin with, experimental music has never been my bag, so that's already a point against this album. At best, it's something I put up with because I like the rest of the music so much. To bring up Frank Zappa again, I'm never gonna say my favorite part of any of his albums are the atonal sound collages. So the stuff here, like the multiple with the five American standards being played over one another — I mean, sure? But especially in 2025, I'm not sitting back in my chair like, "Wow! What a noise!" Then there's all the parts that aren't experimental, and, y'know, I'd be lying if I said there weren't parts I enjoy, mostly on side two. "Love Song For The Dead Ché" is a nice instrumental. The strings on "Stranded In Time" are pretty lovely. And there's quite a few moments all over "The American Way Of Love" I dig, especially that electric violin that sounds a lot like it came from HOT RATS (oh, wow, Frank Zappa again). But besides that, it's mostly light psychedelia that doesn't sound too unique from stuff I've heard on other albums. I just can't hear what I'm supposed to be so impressed by. So... I'unno. Ultimately, I'm not left very enthusiastic about this project. I might even say I'm **un**enthusiastic. I mean, given that the longest paragraph in this review was the one where I bitched about their name — what does **that** tell yah, huh? Like, all it comes down to for me is the arbitrary idea of whether or not they've "earned" the name; if they can back it up musically. Green Day does, I think, and that's why I don't have issue with AMERICAN IDIOT — nor, for that matter, Rage Against The Machine calling themselves Rage Against The Machine. But this, to me, slides closer to... I mean, it's not **as** egregious as Madona's AMERICAN LIFE or CSNY's AMERICAN DREAM; I didn't dislike it **that much**, or even really much at all. But still, this is closer to those on the spectrum than not, so... I'unno. I'm feeling a 2, honestly. It's probably more a 3, but I really don't care enough to bump it up that extra point. "This is my United States of whatever," I suppose.

Y'know, as much as a part of me would hate to have this review be just "It's Aretha Franklin" without much further explanation beyond that... I mean, it **is** Aretha Franklin. Most people would completely understand the 5/5 I'm giving this album from just that alone. Her voice? One of the most amazing and powerful in all of soul music, whether it's on a slow ballad or one of the harder tunes. The accompaniment, from the instrumentals to the backing vocals? Always a pinpoint and perfect compliment, helping Aretha's voice soar even higher than normal. It's just a marvel to behold; simply incredible. I find it interesting that on the 2012 Rolling Stone 500, this is so close to the other Aretha album my group has looked at, I NEVER LOVED A MAN THE WAY I LOVED YOU. In fact, LADY SOUL is **one spot** below I NEVER LOVED A MAN: 85 and 84 respectfully. Like, to ears in 2012, they were just that close in quality, that I figure the big reason why I NEVER LOVED A MAN got to be higher was because it had "Respect" — and it's hard to compete with that. And in fact, it's so hard that in 2020, while LADY SOUL rose to 75, I NEVER LOVED A MAN went all the way up to **13**. Nearly a top 10, eight years later. It's nuts. And to my ears, I don't mean this as a negative to either album, but I feel like it made more sense when they were closer together. Maybe my ears are just that ignorant, but I really can't hear a difference between them. They're both just that good. Force me to pick between them, though, and it could be recency bias here, but I'd honestly pick LADY SOUL over I NEVER LOVED A MAN. It's just so smooth, and at only 28 minutes, it's no big commitment whatsoever. (As if 32 minutes is really that much more, but y'know what I mean.) But, really, it's no competition; they're both 5's. Heck, I say actively don't choose. Just listen to them both and bask in how amazing of a singer Aretha was. Do yourself that favor, come on.

Oh, hey, it's an old country album. Lemme take a wild guess here: I'm gonna like it 'coz I generally really like this kind of sound. Well, hey, wha'd'y'know — I do. It's got all the slide guitar and whatnot I usually like to hear outta these things. That's a different tone than I've normally had reviewing any other album, but like I said in my review of SWEETHEART OF THE RODEO, unless there's particularly notable context behind an old country album, I feel like there's only so much I can say before I start repeating myself. Like, being an old country music fan must be great; if you like one song, you're probably bound to like nearly all of them. I can't imagine listening to nothing but this music like I'm aware some people do, but I also can't say I can't hear why. Lemme take a second now to speak a little about George Jones specifically, so this doesn't end up being a review I coulda given any old country album. He's another one of those names I know about mostly because Cledus T. Judd name-dropped him in one of his songs complaining about the current state of country music, alongside people like Merle Haggard. Like Merle, I'm happy to report that I do enjoy George's music, and, honestly, it kind of does get me one step closer to understanding those kinds of "complaining about modern country music" songs? Understanding that in the 2020's country music is hardly about stories like it used to be. Unless you wanna count... I'unno, "Last Night" as a story? I'unno. I gotta say, too, that it's bonkers to consider that this is Jones's **39th album**. His 50th album overall, even, if you count other releases as well. Honestly, I jus' gotta... Marvel at the quality level here. You'd think after, like, 20 albums he'd run outta good shit — and maybe I'd be feeling differently if I had heard everything he'd made before now — but, hey, y'know, that's just old country music, I guess. Real consistent, through and through. Also, I read somewhere that apparently the title track is considered one of the all-time great country weepies, and, well, it didn't get me to break down, but, still, goodness, I can hear it. So, yeah. This is probably one of my more scattered reviews, but like I said, country music is hard for me to talk about. If I gotta go off the dome and it comes out like this... Y'know, that's just how it is. And this is another good old country album — and a real breeze at only 28 minutes. Thumbs up from me. Give it a 4 like all the rest.

From the jump, I was not inclined to like this album. I mean, I see that someone on Wikipedia has labelled this album as "slowcore," and already I'm expecting the worst. With a name like "slowcore," you may as well just come out and tell me "this album is boring." The only genre label I've seen lately that outmatches it for "Oh, this is gonna be no fun at all, isn't it?" is gosh-darn "**sad**core." But, hey, hey now, that's just a genre name. I had no idea what it could even sound like. So, take a breath, procrastinate a day on playing it, and actually give it a chance. You never know; I might actually really dig it. And for the first couple of minutes, yeah, I was. It's not anything I'd go nutso over, and I'm not 100% with this guy's voice — there's **way too many times** it nearly verged into "I'M SO IMPORTANT SUCH A GOOD WRITER; PLEASE TAKE ME SERIOUSLY" but just narrowly stayed in "Like... Sure, fine? Whatever?"... But the backing instrumentals and melodies were all nice. Some pretty country-ish stuff; I'm down for this. I could maybe take a whole album of stuff like this, even if there's some quirks I hafta deal with... But then "Bad Liquor", the album's "big rocker," hit. Until this point, I was tryna fight off the easy thought of "Maybe this album sucks, actually?" Like, I'm giving it an honest chance; let's leave my knee jerk "I don't like the name 'slowcore'" reaction to the side for a moment and see if it's actually justified or not, eh? But with "Bad Liquor", the question mark in that thought turned into a flat period, and nothing else that happened the rest of the album could change my mind. Seriously, past "Bad Liquor", the album got interminable. The kind of experience where I'm desperate to see how much time is left, 'coz the album's such a slog that I feel like I'm trapped. Besides "Bad Liquor", it just never gets terribly interesting. Even the few songs I saw people in my group highlight as good ones didn't do much for me. It's just the same "who cares"/"whatever" over and over and over again. After I was done listening to this album, I hadda put on blink-182's CALIFORNIA so I could remember what an album I **like** with that state's name sounded like. (What kind of a name for a group is "American Music Club," by the way? Is this some LOVE LIVE! 'Japanese Idol Club' thing? Honestly, it gathers nearly enough irrational bother in me as The United States Of America did, but not enough to go on about it beyond this aside.) So... Aw, heck, I'm at a 2. There's not enough in here that I dislike that I'd give it a 1, but goodness me, I'm never gonna listen to it again. California, as a state, has and deserves better than this — and in fact, maybe "slowcore" does, too.

Frankly, I'm mostly finding myself... Like, just unsure why this album was included on this list. The way I figure it, if you've heard DUSTY IN MEMPHIS, you're probably good for Dusty Springfield albums you "need" to hear. It's the one with "Son Of A Preacher Man", after all. With a doubt, that's her greatest song, with or without a popularity boost from Tarantino. The rest of the album is pretty good blue-eyed soul, too, so... I'unno, I just can't imagine what else you're supposed to get from a **second** album of hers that IN MEMPHIS doesn't already provide. And it's not like this album provided a good answer. Like, yeah, it's a 60's pop album, composed entirely of covers. And, look, I'm not down on covers, or largely recording songs the artist didn't write; as long as the artist can provide something new or that makes it uniquely their own. Elvis did that all the time — and "Son A Preacher Man" falls into this as well, since not only did Dusty not write it, but it was originally meant for Aretha. Now, "Son Of A Preacher Man" turned out to be a classic, whether it's Dusty or Aretha singing it. Meanwhile, this album, being 100, makes me wonder what's so special about Dusty Springfield. She's a great singer, and she's got range, and it's all a pretty fun listen, but... What's the big deal about this album, besides the fact that it's from the woman who'd go on to be the second pick to sing "Son Of A Preacher Man"? I'm willing to bet, there's probably a dozen other records from 1964 alone that'd sound just as good as this one. So why does **this** hafta be something I **need** to hear before I die? Now, I'm not gonna be a complete jerk about that, like so many others would be. To my ears, this is still a pretty solid 3. It's a good listen that I can't say I didn't enjoy. I'm just lost on what that "special something" is really supposed to be. Like, this could have been any girl called anything, y'know? But, eh, whatever. I'm not gonna throw a fit about it. Besides, at least it was a way better listen for this Randomizer than American Music Club's CALIFORNIA, even if that's not a very high bar to clear. Jus', goodness.

After I got done listening to this album, I had to go back and replay DÉJÀ VU, 'coz about halfway through the first side, this question suddenly popped into my head: "Do I actually like this better than DÉJÀ VU?" Now, normally when I get albums from The Randomizer I don't like to stray over to other ones. While I may reference other albums in my discussion, I want to have the work assigned to me be the only music in my head as I enter a discussion. Sometimes I cheat and get an outer-album song or two in there, but I never do full albums. But listening to this album, I couldn't help but think back to what I said about DÉJÀ VU and how, that time around, I ultimately wasn't as impressed as I was the first time around. I still acknowledge it as a classic album, but I supposed that the years in-between listens did a number on my opinion. In contrast, I'd never heard this album before, but, gosh darn, I was quick to groove with as easily as I had DÉJÀ VU that first time. And I just had to wonder, what was so different about that follow-up that I can click with this album that I hadn't heard as much about versus the other one that I had? And I didn't wanna say it was just Neil Young and call it a day. After RUST NEVER SLEEPS, I've been doin' pretty well with every other album of his that's been thrown my way (and there's still a **lot** left), so I don't wanna take the easy way out. What I ended up coming back to is this: consider "folk rock." Split it down the middle — "folk" and "rock." Neither album fully, completely one or the other, but I feel DÉJÀ VU is more on the "folk" side, whereas this album is closer to "rock." DÉJÀ VU clearly has way more refinement and polish than this one has, and maybe that's Young's influence, maybe it is... Whoever's influence it is, this album, meanwhile, just comes across to me as a bit rougher; a little more open to having electric guitars jam along with the acoustic ones. And, y'know, of course DÉJÀ VU has "Woodstock", "Cut My Hair" and even a little in "Carry On", but still, it doesn't feel like it has rock guitar to the extent that this one does. And, yeah, on a relisten, where I'm not tryna fight off falling asleep 'coz it turns out that's all my "listen on my back with my eyes closed" strategy does for me, I actually do like DÉJÀ VU as much as I used to. But as it turns out, I like this album more. Like, goodness, "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes" alone is a masterwork. Just an incredible journey. Plus, as amazing as the harmonies on DÉJÀ VU are, hearing them over the kind of songs that're on here are even better. I even dig the folkier acoustic songs that're here a bit more, to not focus on the rockers entirely. Jus', top to bottom, it's great. All that pre-"we've completely figured this group out" refinement, I'm tellin' yah... Goodness. So I guess Young's presence is really missed after all. Hm, well. Either way and anyway, y'know, I didn't think I'd spend as much of this review talking about DÉJÀ VU as the one I was actually supposed to discuss, but there yah go, I guess. And if I could go back and re-rate it, I'd give it the same 5 I'm giving this. Like, regardless of which one I prefer, they're both spectacular pieces of folk. Certainly, of all of the albums that sparked off the "California sound," between this, SWEETHEART OF THE RODEO and MUSIC FROM THE BIG PINK... Well, you can probably guess my pick. (And once again, if you ain't never heard Weird Al's "Mission Statement"... Like, besides an acoustic line lifted from "Carry On", it's basically just "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes". It's so good.)

OK, OK, OK, I'll be fair here: it's not actually as bad as I thought it would be. Like, I'unno. I'd seen that one of the genre labels it'd been given on Wikipedia was "shoegaze," and between that and the fact that this thing is nearly an hour long... I was expecting a slog, quite frankly. Now, first of all, don't ask me what my problem with shoegaze even is, exactly. Taking a second to think about it, I... Well, I'm really not entirely sure. I suppose it's just an impression I have of its fanbase, where it's mostly hipsters who're really obnoxious about how their taste in music is better than mine. Even then, though, I can't tell you where I got that from. You can only imagine how happy I was, then, that this album didn't turn out to actually be as shoegaze as I thought. (Not that I could easily point it out without being told "that's what it is," but still.) However, that only means that I've gone from my pre-conception of "UURRRRGH, this is gonna be a SLOG" to my current opinion of "urrrggghhh, it's fine, I guess — whatever." I just... Really found it hard to care too much about this album. Sure, I'll grant it, it's got quite a few more melodies I like than I would've otherwise assumed, but... I'unno. It's just got this air about it that it's... Honestly, that it's low-rent Coldplay. And to be clear on two fronts, I actually really love Coldplay, and I don't actually mind it too much when a band's sound is another band's. To the former, well, I own copies of VIVA LA VIDA, A HEAD FULL OF DREAMS and MUSIC OF THE SPHERES — and if owning those last two isn't sign enough of me being a Coldplay fan... As for the latter, well, I'unno. If I like a sound, why would I necessarily complain about hearing more of it? That's why I was never too down on Greta Van Fleet, for instance — well, until I actually heard their music, but I was never gonna get on 'em for "sounding like Led Zeppelin." Here, though... I don't know. It could be that there's this part of my brain that wants to hold onto my knee-jerk negative preconception, so that there was ultimately nothing this band could do to win me over. That can be a bad habit I have sometimes with all forms of media, I'll admit. Just as well, however, honestly, I just... Didn't find this terribly exciting enough to truly wanna give it the benefit. Note that I did say this was "**low-rent** Coldplay" — "low-rent," specifically. The kind of rare soundalike where I just hafta wonder why I'm not just listening to the original. Y'know, ultimately, I just don't think they did the sound well enough. And as for the parts that don't fall under that "low-rent Coldplay" generalization, well, I'm not too wild about those parts, either. At best, I think they're alright, but nothing more than alright. So... I'unno. Give this thing a down the middle "it's fine" 3? Which, believe me, is still a step up from the 2 I was thinking I was gonna slap this thing with. I'm just left figuring, if I had gone in with a more open mind; if I had focused on any of the genre labels besides "shoegaze," I might have been more willing to go higher. Like, maybe the problem, ultimately, was just me preemptively deciding based on next to nothing that I wasn't gonna give it a chance. But, I'unno. This is just what I got out of this listen, and I don't wanna be anything but honest. Maybe a second listen would go over better — who knows?

I don't feel like I've had a very good track record with East Coast hip-hop — what I consider as "East Coast hip-hop," anyway. 'Coz, see, THE LOW-END THEORY is an album I like a lot, but I don't actively think of it as such. After that, there's Nas's ILLMATIC, which I do consider "East Coast hip-hop" and also like, but I'm not particularly wild about... And then there's all the various Wu-Tang solo albums my group has gotten, which I've been pretty back-and-forth on. Now, I couldn't tell you what exactly it is about East Coast hip-hop I'm not too big on. Best I can figure is just that when you put it next to West Coast hip-hop and G-funk... Yeah, it's hardly a competition in my mind. Living as someone who's largely "melody first," the beats on G-funk albums do it so much harder for me. Despite all the parts of THE CHRONIC that haven't exactly aged well, I still dig it a lot for its incredible beat work, if nothing else. Although, there has always been one exception. In the East vs. West beef of the 90's, I've always preferred The Notorious B.I.G. to 2Pac. Part of it might just be that me and Biggie share a birthday a few years apart, and, y'know, me being me, I hold a bit of importance to that date. Beyond that, though... Well, I haven't heard a 2Pac album in forever, so I'll tell you what my thing is with him whenever The Randomizer gives my group one of his (know for now, at least, that I do **like** him; not just as much as Biggie). And, look, I think it's worth addressing right now, before anything else, the parts of **this** album that haven't aged terribly well. To begin with, there's a pretty healthy dose of misogyny and homophobia. It's not something I'm really gonna ding this album before, since it's unfortunately a pretty common trait of rap records around this time period, but it's still a factor. I mean, you got a song that'd otherwise be a pretty sad (fictional) story about Biggie's wife getting shot dead in place of him — except that the song's called "Me And My Bitch", and he spends the entire song referring to her as, well, "his bitch." It undercuts things a little, y'know? (Let's not even touch "Friend Of Mine", goodness.) Then there's the other elephant in the room: Diddy. He's all over this dang album — and not even as a featured artist, like Method Man. No, he just... Keeps showing up. Y'know, to do ad libs and act as Biggie's hype man... And, I mean, this sorta thing might just be an element of rap music I just haven't encountered, but goodness me, if it don't come across like Diddy's just piggybacking off of Biggie's success. Y'know, like these songs are just happening like normal, then out of nowhere Diddy runs in and is like "I'M HERE TOO! I'M HERE TOO! I'M ON THIS SONG AS WELL! I HAVE LINES ON 'JUICY' AND 'BIG POPPA'! I'M A CONTRIBUTOR!" Like, jeez, man. I know Biggie's your discovery or whatever, but just stick to producing. This guy's ass, tainting Biggie's rep in the 2020's by association... It sucks. I also wanna say I'm not too big on a lot of the skits? Like the one that's Biggie having sex with a girl, or the, like, ten uninterrupted seconds of mouth sounds hidden at the end of "Respect". I don't have many problems with skits on rap albums, but these strike me as ones like, "Why would I listen to these every time I spun this album?" But finally, let's get to the parts of the album I like. Biggie, for all the lyrics that haven't aged too well, I think it's phenomenal on the mic. Generally, I really like his voice, but I also like his flow and storytelling. Like, sure, the songs where he's just bragging about how he's gonna shoot, or about how good he is at The Sex™, they're just as good as any other song of this type. However, the storytelling on songs like "Warning", "Gimme The Loot"... Even "Me And My Bitch", despite its problems. I just find his way of words in these songs so engaging and interesting. Plus, I gotta give props, too, to the songs looking at the hood and his life: "Things Done Changed" and, of course, the masterpiece that is "Juicy". Just amazing looks into his life and life around. The beats are great as well. Sure, there's nothing on the level of any of the G-funk classics I've bumped so often, but these are maybe the best I've ever heard from the East Coast from the list. There could be an album I'm forgetting, but, hey, I can't think of what it could be, so... Shout-outs, too, to the sampled hook on "Big Poppa". I really like that hook, I'unno why. Then we have the closer, "Suicidal Thoughts". It's — y'know, it's always gotten to me that this is the way this album ends. Like, it opens with his birth, and then a quick skim through the rest of his life until this album — his family life, his arrest, his release from jail... And then the rest of the album, y'know, while there are dark spots, he's still bragging about how he's gonna kill you, about how he's good at The Sex™, about how he's made it despite how no one believed in him... The biggest hint something's on is the title track — heck, the title — but until this song, it doesn't seem like too much next to "Machine Gun Funk" and "Friend Of Mine". But then you hit this song, and... Well, if I can quote a disciple of 2Pac, "Money can't stop a suicidal weakness." It's the one song on the album where I don't mind the presence of Diddy. I wish it coulda been someone else, but still, having another voice on the track, starting out confused but then by the end begging B.I.G. to not do it... Goodness. It's chilling, honestly. It's the kind of closer that I can't take lightly; I hafta sit there and just... Let it wash over me. Like, damn. Damn. Made all the worse by the fact that Biggie did, though not by his own hand, actually die not too after this album came out. It makes the opening of the posthumous album LIFE AFTER DEATH, where it's revealed that B.I.G. survived the attempt, kind of sad, actually. And a bit cruel, in the cosmic sense. Like, for good reasons, I can't justify giving this thing a full 5/5. There's just a bit too much of that plays wrong in 2025 for me to go there. It's still, however, absolutely a 4/5. A great album from a great artist who, alongside 2Pac, was taken from the world too soon. It was all a dream...

To this point, I have not been very happy with what I've heard from Morrissey. Either his music's been shoulder shruggingly "ehhhh, fiiiine" like on VIVA HATE, or I just could not get past what an asshole he is like with YOU ARE THE QUARRY. I mean, for someone who used to be part of such a well-respected band, I'm a little surprised that the stuff he made without them hasn't been that great, at least to my ears. Well, today I got to find out at least one part of what that band was all about. My group, at last, was given an album by The Smiths — finally, an album with Morrissey that I figure people generally actually like! And, hey, it's the one with the title that relates to one of those things I hear Morrissey is very annoying about! But let's put that aside for the moment, though, and just answer the simple question: did Morrissey fare any better with a band behind him? Oh, goodness, yes. Absolutely, yes. I like this way more than anything else I've heard involving Morrissey. Seriously, all the credit to Johnny Marr for actually writing music I can be engaged with. It's often pretty rockin' and driving, and, ahh, mmm, it's so enjoyable. I'll take this tenfold over the "restrained and refined" whatever that VIVA HATE had going on. Y'know, that this is particularly wild or rough, but goodness, it doesn't feel the need to be nearly as uptight and respectable, y'know? Then we've got the lyrics, which, like usual, I wasn't able to catch all of. Jus' how I am. However, from the little bits I were able to catch, this isn't nearly as aggravating as YOU ARE THE QUARRY was. That album, at various times, felt either like Morrissey complaining about how awful everyone else is or Morrissey being smug about how **great** he is. Real asshole behaviour. Meanwhile, here — well, I can't pull any specific overarching theme out, but just the fact that I didn't wanna skoosh him for anything he said is a major point in this album's favor. Even the closer and title track wasn't as obnoxious about its veganism as I would've thought it'd be. Another point, too: I found Morrissey's voice better here than on any of his later solo albums. Which, maybe it's just a case of better backing instrumentals making him sound better as a result, but whatever the case, I'll take it. Big respects as well to the band for playing as well as they did, of course. So... Well, shucks. I'm pleasantly surprised! If this is what The Smiths generally sounded like, then yeah, I can understand just from this alone why they were held in such high regard. Even if it did lead to Morrissey becoming such a name on his own... Well, y'can't really hold that against the music, can yah But anyway, as for a rating, uhm... I'm really tempted to give this thing a 5? Which, goodness, ain't that an improvement from the 3's and 2's I've otherwise been givin' this guy's work? Ultimately I think I'm happy with a high 4. 'Coz I needa remember, the 5 is for big "Wow, this touches in my soul" reactions — or at least close enough — and as much as I like this, it just didn't quite get there. Still, it's the best thing I've ever heard from Moirrissey, and I can only hope their most famous album (THE QUEEN IS DEAD) is even better.

Singer-songwriters were never gonna easily be my friend. Especially not once I read a line somewhere that said something to the effect of "Singer-songwriters are poets pretending to be musicians." 'Coz that's just it, isn't it? With these types, what's important are the words, with the actual instrumentals backing them often not being much more than a bed for them. That's not to say there aren't singer-songwriter types who don't aim to do more with the melodies than act as breaks between segments of poetry, like Bob Dylan's harmonica solos, but more often than not... Yeah, that's how they really come across to me. Even though I've liked my fair share of them, I still always kinda groan a little whenever I see an album labelled as such, 'coz how they make music is completely antithetical to how I enjoy music. I've stated this many times before: I'm melody first. I don't often pay attention to lyrics 'coz I'm typically bad at understanding poetry. So, a genre of music that places **all** of the emphasis on the lyrics... Heck, even more than rap, 'coz at least there there can be hot beats. The most you can often hope for with these 60's and 70's singer-songwriters is a **lot** of acoustic guitar. How's this one fair, though? How does it fit into my perception of singer-songwriters? To begin with, of course I didn't pay too much attention to lyrics. Not even the title track, which is a tribute to Nick Drake (which I did feel a bit bad about, but, y'know, I are what I is). Although, without actively reading the lyrics, I'm not sure how many I would be able to gather by myself anyway. Like, I can completely hear the criticism I heard about his kind of "mumbly" delivery. Y'know, the kind of "serious, sensitive" kind of deal. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "baby talk" like that one review did, but I wouldn't exactly give this guy high points for diction. Listening to it as another instrument, though — well, I've probably heard better, but for what he's doing, it's not bad. It can be pretty nice in some spots. (I do like the bits of lyrics I heard about jelly, though.) What really got me, though... So, I was talking about how in this genre instrumentation is basically being an after-thought, right? That is absolutely not the case here. There's a lot of tracks where the instrumentation is just, ahh, so good. So good. It's not every track; some of them fall back into acoustic strumming, or diversions into Da Blues. But the tracks that **do** go above, into jazzier sounds? Goodness me. Like, even if I didn't pay attention to the **lyrics** of the title track, the **music** was enough to carry me through. I'm especially impressed knowing that the song wasn't written with an arrangement in mind, so this is just them jamming out. It's darn good stuff. And then you got a lot of the stuff going on over at the end of "Dreams By The Sea"? Like, that may be the single prettiest moment on the whole album, I think, beyond how the rest of the song is way funkier than I would've expected from a singer-songwriter album. So, once again, I judged a book by its cover and was actually pretty happy with its contents once I took a look inside. It's a recurring thing, 'coz as much as I wanna claim that genres don't really mean much to me... Well, as you can tell. Made all the funnier once you actually go and look at this album's genres on Wikipedia, and none of them are actually "singer-songwriter"; I just saw John himself describe that way and extrapolated from there. I may as well have taken issue with how he's Scottish for how much it should mean. (And for the record, this website classifies this album as such, but I didn't see it until I was almost done writing this review.) Let's quickly bring this to a close. This is a 4 from me — possibly rounded up from a 3.5 depending on how much the songs that're more strictly folk bounced off of me, but a 4 nonetheless. I just think the jazzy and psychedelic excursions are just that good, and well surpass my typical negative expectations for this kind of music. Will it mean that in the future I'll be kinder towards singer-songwriter albums? Probably not. But at least this one's on my good side, and, hey, it ain't nothing. I hope John's resting in peace.

AC/DC has never been a terribly complicated band. They make rock n' roll — in fact, all they do is make rock n' roll. It's not something they're unaware of, nor ashamed of. You might've seen a quote floating around: "I'm sick to death of people saying we've made 11 albums that sound exactly the same. In fact, we've made 12 albums that sound exactly the same." To some people — heck, to a lot of people, really — this is a huge issue. Like, why would a band do that, just make the same music over and over again? Why would anyone need to listen to more than one album from this group? Heck, more than a small handful of songs, if it's really true all the albums sound alike. Here's the thing, though: AC/DC are good at what they do. They're **really** good at what they do. Regardless of what song or album you're listening to, this hard and fast rock and blues stuff kicks so, so, **so** much ass. That's what's kept them around and as popular as they have been for so many years. It's that you know exactly what you're getting into when you put on an AC/DC album: badass rock music and a good time — no more, no less. It being so simple is the point. In fact, I'd smack down the line that they're repetitive and say that they're more **incredible consistent**. Like, sure, some albums do the sound and formula better than others, but you'd hardly go wrong picking one over the other. In that regard, I've always compared them to Motörhead, another band who makes badass rock n' roll and could be accused of making the same album 20 times. (And for real, like you don't get a kick out of this album's title track, or BACK IN BLACK's title track, or LET THERE BE ROCK's title track, or FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK WE SALUTE YOU's title track, or "Thunderstruck", or "It's A Long Way To The Top", or T.N.T.'s title track... A lot of their title tracks are very popular.) But anyway, that's enough a defense of AC/DC as a group and their sound. What about this album specifically? What makes it so notable it ends up on a list like this, and even 200 on the 2012 Rolling Stone 500? I mean, jeez, it's ranked one spot better than THE DOWNWARD SPIRAL. What's it got goin' for it? Well, of course there's the unfortunate historical context: that this was Bon Scott's last AC/DC album before he passed away tragically young. Seriously, he was only 33 at the time. Just tragic. And while, yes, in a literal sense he was replaceable; AC/DC would soldier on with Brian Johnson... Let's not kid ourselves: Bon Scott was one of a kind. AC/DC would never again sound exactly the same without him, even as much as I do love Brian Johnson and his goblin voice. I mean, I'm not gonna like I've always been a #1 Bon Scott believer; like most other people, I was introduced to Brian Johnson-led hits first. Plus, don't mistake me, I'd never wanna nudge too close to people who're really obnoxious about Paul Di'Anno being a better singer than Bruce Dickinson. That's an annoying realm to exist in. But all the same, y'know, it's an undeniable fact. Johnson's great, but Scott's voice is just way more "hard rock party good times," and, y'know, that's what AC/DC is, at its core. And to that end, the other reason why HIGHWAY TO HELL is here is that it's simply the best the band would ever sound with Bon Scott fronting it. No disrespect to the albums that came before this, particularly LET THERE BE ROCK, but it's like I said: some albums do their sound and formula better than others. And goodness me, does this one ever. Like, there's not even anything I can particularly say that you can't gather just listening to the music. You can hear Angus Young's wild solos. You can hear Malcolm Young keeping the riff's consistent. You can hear Cliff Williams's bass grooving along. You can hear Phil Rudd's locksteady drums keeping it all in place. This is the kind of music where you turn your stereo up to 11 and just rock the hell out. And if you're lookin' for deep cuts beyond the title track, well, I think "Love Hungry Man" is really good. Reminds me of KISS, actually (and I mean that in the best way; I do like KISS a lot). Angus says it's their worst record, and,'ey, I'm gonna say it's their best, but "worst?" Even "bad?" No way. Well, that was a lot more words about AC/DC than I think I was expecting to say — and at this point, I don't think I have any left that wouldn't just be repeating myself. That's gonna make it real fun when my group gets around to covering BACK IN BLACK, but let's not get ahead of ourselves and just close shop on this one. It's a 5, and it's not purely an uncritical one. It's AC/DC at the top of their game, and it's a game I'm more than happy to see them keep replaying. Like, this album was never meant to be Bon Scott's last — in fact, they were working on BACK IN BLACK material right before they passed. I hear it's a hot debate topic whether he should be credited for lyrics or not. But with a few exceptions, no one gets to choose their last work, and as one... Well, I can't think of a better record for him to leave us with. I say this for you, Bon: "Shazbot. Nanu nanu." BWAMP.

This ended up being kind of an odd break between the stuff I planned to listen to today — which is to say, Frank Sintra's "feels bad, man" sad albums to try and ignore what was happening today, and then Rage Against The Machine's debut to actively engage with what was happening today. You can see how I was tryna be, right? Y'know? And I coulda stuck to just that, but I didn't see any reason to put today's album off, so I snuck it in and here we are. And what fun, it ended up probably being my least favorite kind of album to get from this list. Yes, it's the unfortunate classic: the "I acknowledge that this is a very good album, even a great album, but ultimately it just really doesn't inspire me to say much about it" kind of album. But maybe not even that; honestly, I felt a little underwhelmed for most of the runtime. And that sucks, 'coz I'm the kinda person who **loves** to rattle off their thoughts about and relations to an album, across maybe hundreds of words. It's kind of my thing, I figure. But when I start making my review about how I can write a good review, well... Like, at this point, I don't think it's a problem with me and my ability to express myself. Lemme put it like this. I saw a review not from this website that described a song from this album as "dance music for grown-ups." And y'know what that description reminds me of, honestly? Grape Nuts. Bran Flakes. All the cereal I see in the aisle and go, "Why should that have to be the cereal I 'graduate' to once I grow up? There are people who really give up Froot Loops and Cap'n Crunch and Nesquik and all that for gawdamn **Grape Nuts**?" Which, I don't think this album is as bland as comparing it to Grape Nuts would imply — I do think it's good, even great music, regardless of how underwhelmed I was by it — but if this is dance music for grown-ups, gimme some damn Froot Loops. It largely just bounced off me, and I don't think it was solely because I was also busy distracting myself doing outfit sketches for an OC. I just didn't really get into it too much until "Us V Them", and by that point, it felt a bit too late. Not even the closer could really save my opinion, and I liked it a **lot** for how it reminded me of Ben Folds. So... Yeah, I'm gonna be the outlier in my group again, I figure. 'Coz while they're probably gonna give this thing 5's, honestly, I'm feeling more like a 3. That's more a reflection of my enjoyment than how I feel about it quality-wise, but ultimately, it still feels like the best one for me to give it. Jus' how it be sometimes. LCD Soundsystem, your album's fine, but that fact's bringing me down.

There's a line I remember about this album — and don't ask me where I got this line from, but the way I remember it going is, basically, "IN UTERO was made with the purpose and intent of losing every fan Nirvana had made with NEVERMIND." Whether or not that's exactly true, it's always been the lens through which I've understood this album. It's not an entirely unreasonable assumption. You listen to the noisiest tracks off of NEVERMIND and there's a level of polish present in them so that they won't scare off people who bought the CD for "Smells Like Teen Spirit". The guitars are heavy, and the drums can do machine gun fills, but none of it's mixed to be too loud or abrasive. Meanwhile, you contrast that with a lot of the songs on this album, with its whining feedback, up-to-eleven fuzz and distortion, confrontationally descending riffs... Goodness, just how Kurt screams a lot of the lyrics. There's hardly any concessions to mainstream appeal beyond, like, one or two songs — and you could argue that they're only there because the album couldn't be 100% noise. They're not The Jesus & Mary Chain, after all. But, I mean, even the big lead single, "Heart-Shaped Box", doesn't strike me as exactly the friendliest sound for radio. Honestly, listening to NEVERMIND directly after IN UTERO, I can really understand why some people in my group said pretty quickly after the album was revealed that it was Nirvana's best. NEVERMIND, despite how good the material is and how important it is to popularizing grunge, can sound like a compromise when placed next to how raw and punk IN UTERO is. It can feel like NEVERMIND is only considered Nirvana's best album because it has the big pop hits, overshadowing the true genius found in songs on IN UTERO like "Milk It", "Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge On Seattle" and "Radio-Friendly Unit Shifter". For my money... I will say, I actually am inclined to agree with that to an extent, although I would still say NEVERMIND is my favorite. See, I'm someone who likes polish and big pop hits. "In Bloom" and "On A Plain" might not have that raw punk sensibility of abrasive noise, but damn it, they're killer songs with great hooks. NEVERMIND isn't as acclaimed as it is for nothing, after all, and I can't front: polish and hooks are more often than not I'm gonna return to first over anything else. I mean, I don't think it's not nothing that besides the songs that were released as singles, the track I return to the most from IN UTERO is "Dumb", an outlier in the track listing for being a mellower song with a cello. The rest, let's be real, can blend into the mush of "noise." But as for IN UTERO as Nirvana's best album, meanwhile — y'know, I wanna start off by making something clear about my perspective. When I say that this album was made to lose all of the fans they'd gotten with NEVERMIND, there's sometimes a part me that subliminally extrapolates that to their **entire** fanbase. As if this album was supposed to be their equivalent of Eminem's ENCORE or Bob Dylan's SELF PORTRAIT; just a giant middle finger to the fans, the critics, the label, the expectations, everything and everyone. Clearly, though, they did still want people to **like** this album; I don't think you'd have the mellower songs like "Pennyroyal Tea", "Dumb" and "All Apologies", and I don't think they would've left off songs like "I Hate Myself And Want To Die" if that were the case. What it's more about is that this album was designed, from its conception, to be the kind of album the band would like to buy. So, y'know, y'still got your share of pop-ish moments (Kurt **did** love MEET THE BEATLES!, after all), but it's louder and way more unrestrained. And if we're to view this album, then, as the band's "true sound," unchained from concessions... Yeah, in that sense, absolutely, it's the best thing they ever made. So, despite my small reservation about this album falling into "noise for noise's sake," I can't give it any less than a 5 like I gave their other two albums on this list. It's incredible, from Kurt, Dave and Krist's performances, down to Steve Albini's decision to get out of the band's way and let them make the sound they wanted to. I don't reach for it as often as NEVERMIND, but I don't hafta in order to recognize its greatness. All in all, that's all it is. Kurt Cobain (1967-1994) Steve Albini (1962-2024)

Until today, the only thing I knew about this album was that it was in ROCK BAND. For real, besides the name of what song was in the game specifically ("Maps"), that's everything. Honestly, I couldn't even tell you what the song **sounded** like, 'coz I don't think I ever went out of my way to play it. (I mean, I never really played many songs from ROCK BAND 1 anyway; I wasn't used to the kind of fast strumming some of these songs required, so I mostly avoided them.) If I'd had to guess just based on the album cover... I'unno. Some kinda "Hot Topic fringe" emo? On the wannabe, try-hard side, like Simple Plan or Good Charlotte. I could probably get some "guilty pleasure"/"so bad it's good" enjoyment out of it... So it turned out I was entirely off the mark, 'coz not only is this album sung by a woman (Karen O, who I think I kept mistaking for Wendy O., namesake of one of the Koopalings), but this song was... Way indie-r than I would've assumed. A little soulful, even, although I wouldn't straight-up call it "soul." I mean, yeah, it kind of sounds like if the verses of Kelly Clarkson's "Since U Been Gone" never turned into the chorus, but I'd still take it over the Maroon 5 song of the same name, for as much as that's worth. I guess this was gonna be the album, then, huh? Indie rock? It;s... Far from my favorite genre in the world, but sure, whatever. I could probably tolerate it... And so it turned out I was wrong again, 'coz, see, "Maps" is actually an **outlier**. The rest of the album, as I found out, is more SCOTT PILGRIM movie soundtrack garage rock. Like, seriously, you play me "Maps" and any other song from this album back-to-back, I never would have guessed they were both from the same band — and, honestly, I'm kinda grateful. Seriously, if the rest of the album sounded like "Maps", this would probably be a much shorter review. Honestly, I kind of don't get the fuss about "Maps". I won't say it's bad, but it's just kinda... There? And doesn't really go anywhere besides that one guitar part. I mean, I suppose I can hear why it was the big hit of the album when put next to everything else, but that doesn't really help my opinion of "Maps", y'know? As for the rest of the album, like I said, it's SCOTT PILGRIM movie soundtrack music. It's a big garage rock sound, which, yeah, I guess a hint of indie in there, but not enough that it bothers me. And, hey, I like that soundtrack, and invoking it was my sole reason for why I gave that Hives album a 4, so... Yeah, I dig this. I suppose if I had any complaints... Well, Karen O has a great voice, let's not get that twisted. She's killer on these songs. Hell, even on "Maps", which is maybe the "indie rock" safest her voice gets the whole album. But I don't front, there are times it does kind of get to me a little. Like, OK, there's a review of this album on this website that gives it a 1/5 because there are a lot of times where the songs go "Ha-ha, we're saying this dark thing in a girly voice, aren't we cute?" And that sort of thing didn't bother me enough to wanna lower the score that low (helps that I hardly pay attention to what albums say in the first place), but I'd lie if there weren't a few vocal lines that... Mm, didn't hit me right, terribly much. Otherwise... Yeah, no. I thoroughly enjoyed this. It's not gonna replace ELEPHANT as my go-to for a garage rock fix, but I'unno, today it just hit the spot right. I can happily give it a 4. So, y'know, good on you. I like you, Yeah Yeah Yeahs. With a score like that, you know you should be glad.

Off the top, I just wanna say, if for my own sake if anybody's, that it was tragic Tim Buckley died as young as he did. He was only 28 — I mean, goodness. That's a sort of sentiment I feel like should go without saying. Big "No, duh," right? But I wanna bring it up 'coz of this idea that gets lodged in my head every time I find out an artist died: that to openly dislike their work would be in some way disrespectful. It feels like kicking a dead man when he's down, y'know? The whole "don't speak ill of the dead" thing. But, like, disliking an artist's work and respecting them after they've passed are two different things, right? I mean, just because I might not like someone's output, that doesn't mean I can't be gentle about how or when they passed. There's no hard obligation either way. And of course, having an artist's passing in mind when engaging with their work can actually bring something extra to it — I gave high praise to stuff like PACIFIC OCEAN BLUE and IF YOU WANT IT DARKER because of their proximity, after all. Not to mention, that sort of thing is why ★ has the reputation it does (that'll be a fun one to get to). (And, yeah, we'd all prefer all of those artists still be alive, but y'know.) So, jus', please believe me that I have no ill will against Tim Buckley when I say that I found this album kind of painfully boring. Like... **Painfully** boring. At first I was thinking it was just a thing where my undiagnosed ADHD causes me to get sleepy and yawn a lot when I try to sit down and just focus on music, but no, no. It just does that little for me. I mean, this thing was already fighting an uphill battle for being a folk singer-songwriter album. As I've expressed many times before, I do **not** do well with singer-songwriter music — check my review of SOLID AIR for the full lowdown on that. The short version is that this kind of music, especially from the 70's, largely ends up being poetry that just so happens to be set to music, and poetry is not what I come to music for. Although, it's actually fitting I get to bring up SOLID AIR. That's an album I actually ended like quite a fair bit thanks to how jazz-y it could get. Seriously, specific shout out to the end of "Dream By The Sea", goodness. Now, this album tries to get its jazz thing on, too, but... I mean, it mostly just amounts to a vibraphone being present on every track? So, great, not only is it the usual acoustic plonking, but you've also got a vibraphone meandering around, too. They just never do anything interesting. I'd honestly believe me if you told me that none of these songs had arrangements and that they just improvised the whole thing. Which, heck, puts it a step below SOLID AIR again, 'coz that's exactly what happened with its title track and it came out a **lot** better. It doesn't help that the songs are as long as they are. The shortest is the closer, at only two-and-a-half minutes, but the rest are all over five, and two of them are over **ten**. They just drag on and on and **on** without ever realizing that maybe they should actually **go** somewhere. Like, I really tried to just give myself to the music and let it take me away with its beauty, but besides parts of "Dream Letter" and "Gypsy Woman"... Look, if I can quote a fanmade Rap Battle with Huggy Wuggy: "You call it experimental; I call it b-boring as fuck." I'm honestly surprised that keeping Tim's passing in mind isn't causing me to be any kinder to this album, but there you go, I guess. And that's why it kind of bums me out to give this thing a 2. I know I said above that I'm not obligated to like this album; that I can still respect Buckley and his passing regardless of how I feel about it, but... Gosh, that doesn't mean I hafta feel **good** about this rating, y'know? And I was seriously considering at least bumping this thing up to a 3 for the parts of "Dream Letter" and "Gypsy Woman", but even the appeal I find in those can't last forever with how dang **long** those songs are. So, yeah. It's another one of those "That's just how it is sometimes" reviews from me. All I can hope for is that if there's another Tim Buckley album on this list I can get more of it than I did this one. Oh, and that I manage to get something out of his **son's** album, too. Goodness, it would **not** make me good if I disparaged albums from **both** of them...

The crazy thing to remember about A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, both the album and film, is that it wasn't meant to be good — and certainly not some of the greatest work this band would do in either medium. 'Coz let's recognize, when United Artists got The Beatles under contract to do all this, all they were expecting was a quickie exploitation film; a cashgrab. At best, they probably figured, they'd get something like Elvis's movies: some cheap rush job with flimsy plot meant to do nothing more than to prop up the boys galavanting about and singing songs. They didn't care; the fans would come to see their boys on the big screen regardless of if it was good or not. Heck, they'd buy the **album** regardless it was good or not — which would promote the film, while the film promoted the album... It was a genius strategy. Or at least it was until the Colonel had it milked dry by the middle-end of the 60's. Seriously, you didn't wanna be Elvis in the middle-late 60's — but that's a story for another day... So imagine everyone's surprise, then, when The Beatles and director Richard Lester pulled up with a film that was actually really, **really** good. Instead of Elvis driving cars or doing the clam around Hawaii, they got a cinéma vértié-style look into 36 hours into the band's life at the time ("[A] train and a room, and a car and a room, and a room and a room"), which is kept from being depressing by the witty and clever dialogue dispensing Liverpudlian humor and some brilliant songs. Add in how charming The Beatles were on screen, plus some innovative camera work during the musical sequences, and you have a movie that'd wind up in the Criterion Collection for being a precursor to MTV and music videos. In short, besides YELLOW SUBMARINE (a personal favorite), it's the best film the band would ever be involved in. And about those songs (this **is** supposed to be an album review, after all)... Frankly, I consider this album a triumph; the peak and pinnacle of their first three albums — their "beat"/"boy band" phase, as I think of it. I mean, come on, it's the only album in their entire discography written solely by Lennon and McCartney: a whole 13 songs worth! Not even SGT. PEPPER'S can make that claim thanks to George's "Within You Without You" (which is a fantastic song, of course). And the fact that they all came out as strong as they did — goodness! The title track is among the best album openers this band has ever had. I mean, the iconic opening chord alone would be enough to cement that fact, but then you get into how frenetic the rest of the song is, from those bongos to the guitar/piano duet solo that had to be recorded at half speed for how fast it is. "I Should Have Known Better" is one of my favorite harmonica rollicks from the band, "If I Fell" and "And I Love Her" are both beautiful acoustic ballads... Goodness, that one high backing vocal on "Tell Me Why" ("If there's anything I can do-ooo-ooo") gets me every time, it's great. Honestly, among the first side, the weakest song here might be "I'm Happy Just To Dance With You", but I enjoy George enough as a singer that I can hardly mind it. Besides, when side A closes with another of the band's best-ever songs, "Can't Buy Me Love", I bet you're hardly thinking about the weak points. Which brings us to the second side of the record. In what was apparently tradition for British soundtracks at the time, it consists of a bunch of extra songs. Y'know, a just-under-equal smattering of bonus tunes to go along with the ones from the movie. And they're... I mean, I'm not gonna lie; they **are** a bit of a step down. In fact, if there's anywhere you might miss the covers the band included on their first two albums, it's here. But all the same, I think they're generally strong enough that my earlier remark about this being the pinnacle of their beat phase stands. I mean, heck, at one point "I'll Cry Instead" was considered good enough for the movie itself. It only didn't end up on side one because they figured "Can't Buy Me Love" was tonally a better fit for the scene it would've scored — and even then, it still wound up on the American version of the soundtrack, even if by accident. I do like "Any Time At All" as a side opener. Jus' the way it goes "THUMP!" and, well, we're off running. Plus, I've always had a soft spot for "You Can't Do That", in part because of its early inclusion on another American release, THE BEATLES' SECOND ALBUM. That's not on this list, unlike MEET THE BEATLES!, but I still wanna recommend it anyway for being a good encapsulation of the band's early rock n' roll songs. As for the other three, they're all pretty enjoyable. I like how "When I Get Home" walks, with its "WAOH-OH-IIIIII"s; "Things We Said Today" has a nice vocal from paul, and I enjoy that "hard strum" riff it has; and I think "I'll Be Back" plays as a nice album closer, what with the repeating riff it fades out on. Not to mention, as a meta-promise to the fans... Boy, would they ever be. At any rate, I kinda doubt anyone would find the songs on side B weak enough that they'd actively bring side A down. Side A is just such an incredible run of songs, making it easily the music from this phase I've returned to the most often. By itself it gives this whole album a 5. Like, sure, PLEASE PLEASE ME has originals like its title track, and WITH THE BEATLES has covers like "You've Really Got A Hold On Me", but put them in context of their entire record side and they can't quite compare. And for real, if you haven't seen the movie yet, what're you even waiting for? Go do yourself a favor and watch it. I know I'll be watching it, and singing along as loudly as I can. Goodness.

Y'know, instead of spending half the review on prose like I did the last time I talked about a legend of British heavy metal, let's cut straight to the point: this album kicks serious ass. Front to back, it's 36 minutes of nonstop riffing and soloing, and it's **awesome**. As you can tell, I'm not particularly complex when it comes to what I want from metal albums. Heck, I'd probably even call myself a little simple, or even shallow. It's probably why I have so little trouble loving hair metal as much as I do. I mean, if a metal album makes me scrunch up my face like "Aw, hell yeah, that's **sick**," then it did its job right and **I'M A HAPPY GIRL**. And seriously, this album has all the right things going for it. Like my tastes in metal, they're not terribly complicated, but... Goodness. You take that twin guitar attack from K.K. and Glen... Those just awe-inspiring vocals from Halford... Not to mention, the **choruses** he gets to sing throughout — you might call 'em cheesy and commercial; I call 'em **AMAZING**... And you just lock it all down with Holland's rocksteady drumming... I've called Black Sabbath's "classical metal" for being the prometheus flame of metal, and honestly, I'm incredibly tempted to call this album the same for 80's metal. At the very least I'd call it traditional metal for how much it clearly inspired bands that came afterwards. I can hear so many of them in this album, from Maiden to Metallica... It's inspiring, honestly. (Seriously, though, "Rapid Fire" sounds so much like an Iron Maiden song it honestly kind of stuns me. You just so easily hear Bruce Dickinson singing it, goodness. Gawd, the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal — that's really the good shit right there.) No "duh" this album is a full 5 outta 5 for me. It's just so... Fwoof, man, I feel like I've run out of synonyms for "kickass." 'Cuz that's just what it is, without question, and that's all I have and need to say about it. Unless you're just **that snobbish** about metal — and I know some people can be **really** snobbish — I can't imagine not having a good time with this. And I really don't envy the random 60's singer-songwriter psychedelic folk album The Randomizer is gonna give my group after this, 'cuz, boy, ain't it gonna look like an absolute smoldering nothing next to this absolute face-melter. Seriously, jus' give us MASTER OF PUPPETS or Iron Maiden's debut already, I swear...

ONE TWO THREE FOUR I've talked a bit before about "classical genre albums" — the albums that, to my ears, are **the** sound of their genre at their basest, simplest forms. Y'know, there are the examples I've mentioned before: Black Sabbath's debut is "classical metal," Dr. Dre's THE CHRONIC is "classical G-funk," and so on. It doesn't necessarily have to be the **first** album in a genre, but it helps a lot. It just has to be the album that, to your ears, is the genre at its most basic, without any fluff. And this album... Boy, yeah, this is "classical punk," without a doubt in my mind. I'm sure there could be a case made for the Sex Pistols' debut, since that has a lot of the snot, and even some of the political commentary, that the genre would later become well known for... But let's not kid ourselves: the Sex Pistols wouldn't exist without the Ramones. To me, the Ramones and this album are to punk what, like, Nirvana and NEVERMIND are to grunge (that album is "classical grunge," by the way). Like, there's no pretense or aspirations to anything big on here. Y'know, nothing is aiming shots at the monarchy or anything like that — or even that complex, for that matter. There's plenty of songs on here that consist of only three lines at most, nothing they sing about is terribly complicated (besides one song about, uh, Nazism),and musically speaking most of them don't aim for anything more than "buzzsaw these three chords." And let's be clear: that's the appeal. I've seen people give this album a 1 because it's repetitive and most all the songs sound similar to each other, but I give it the same defense I've given AC/DC and Motörhead: it's just what they do, and they're just that good at it. Like, if you come into a Ramones album expecting much more than raw "three chords and the truth" punk, that's on you. It's a rush of pure energy, and, bluntly, it's fucking awesome. I also wanna draw particular attention to "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend", probably the biggest outlier in the track listing because of how slow it is and because of its use of instruments like tubular bells. Of all of the songs on the album, it's the one with the clearer influence from 60's girl groups, which is something I've always felt like has been the secret ingredient in the Ramones' music. Sure, I love what an adrenaline shot this album is from how simply fast and loud it is, but it's the way they incorporate girl group-style lead and backing vocals on top that pushes things into another realm entirely. Like, "The KKK Took My Baby Away" is my favorite Ramones song because of how melodically similar it is to a girl group song. Swap out the guitars and tempo (and the KKK, too, I guess) and when you're left with just the melody, it's not too far off. So it should come as no surprise that "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend" is my favorite song here — second place going to "Beat On The Brat", largely because Weird Al has covered it, but also it just has a fun vocal line to sing/shout along to. Simply put, not only is this one of the greatest debut albums of all time, but absolutely a definitive and landmark album — and not just within punk, I don't think. It's a burst of simple, loud joy that I'm hard pressed to find any fault in. Not even the fact that it just barely isn't even a half-hour long is an issue; that just means they knew exactly what they wanted to do and didn't bullshit around. And, sure, I might gravitate a bit more towards their later albums for how they managed to expand upon what they laid root here, but that doesn't change what a raw blast this is. It's a 5 and big ol' "HEY HO LET'S GO" from me.

Well, after I reviewed that Yeah Yeah Yeahs album I didn't think I'd be tackling another entry in the "Hey, I know that album cover from ROCK BAND" case file so soon, but here we are. And unlike that Yeah Yeah Yeahs album, I can actually remember the song that got included in ROCK BAND — LEGO ROCK BAND, in this case. But before I get into that, lemme talk for a second about Iggy Pop. Honestly, he's another person I know more for his name and reputation than anything else. Y'know, he was, like, the frontman of The Stooges, I think? They had that album that was infamously purposefully mixed like total ass (or maybe it was the remix that was? I can't remember). I can't remember what I thought about it 'coz it's been way too long of a while. Beyond that, besides his random cameo in LEGO ROCK BAND besides Queen, blur and Spinal Tap, I can only recall his name from a Patton Oswalt bit about skinny jeans. That's really it. So that just leaves us with the one piece of music I'm actively aware of from Mr. Pop, "The Passenger". A few hours before I got to listening to this album I read somewhere that it was inspired by a Jim Morrison poem, and, like... Yeah, this reminds me a lot of The Doors. Just add some Manzarek-style keys and it wouldn't be too far off — like, from the swingin' bounce to even the vocals, it's already pretty much there. I really dig it. It's got a nice "la-la" hook. At any rate, compared to the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, this is a way better song I was introduced to through ROCK BAND than "Maps". And listening to the rest of the album, it turns out that "this reminds me of another artist" would be a small recurring thought. Take the title track, for instance; it sounded a lot to me like The White Stripes if Meg had been a more technically skilled drummer. Or take "Tonight" from later on. If I hadn't already known that David Bowie has his fingerprints all over this album, I would've been able to guess here. It was the first song where I noticed this nonspecific "Bowie" sound that I'd keep hearing throughout the rest of the record. I mean, supposedly this album is more strictly Iggy Pop's baby than the last album he and Bowie worked on (THE IDIOT), but not having yet heard that... Well, I don't think I really woulda been able to guess, y'know? Really, coming out of this, I don't really have a good idea what the "Iggy Pop sound" specifically is supposed to be. And maybe this is a bad album to try and find that out, but I'unno. All that said, however, I still liked this album a whole lot. I know it sounds like I damned it with the whole "nonspecific Bowie sound' remark, but that is legit something I like about this album. I won't lie and say it's not done incredibly well. Certainly, I got into it way quicker than I did the Bowie album that was released before this, LOW. This album is great poppy rock n' roll stuff. Like, gawd, the hard garage shuffle on the opening track is amazing, and "Turn Blue" is an incredible slow burn of a tune, where I don't even mind that it's six minutes. Follow that up with "Neighborhood Watch" and its low, bendy grumble of a guitar line at the end — goodness. Really, this thing is a solid 4 in my book. I do kinda wish I could've pinpointed something that was clearly "Iggy Pop," but I suppose if I wanted that I would've gone and blown my ears out with RAW POWER. For what this is, all garage-y and proto-punk and New Wave... I didn't go gaga over it, but I had a good time. There's nothing much more I really could've asked for. Well, that's two for two from the ROCK BAND case file. Can I go three for three? That's partially up to The Randomizer, I suppose... Gosh, imagine if it was a Bowie album. Could you imagine? It'd be like, "Gawd, this Randomizer sometimes... I swear."

It's kind of weird to me to see an Elton John album labelled as progressive rock. Like...Elton John? Prog rock? Those just don't sound like they fit together. I mean, you've gotta understand my perspective on prog rock: to me, it's stuff like Pink Floyd, Yes, King Crimson... Y'know, that kind of crop. Whereas, meanwhile, I gotta look at the songs I associate with Elton John — stuff like "Candle In The Wind", "Crocodile Rock", "Border Song", "Rocket Man"... Mostly piano ballads and pounders, with a little glam flair in there at most. It's like, I don't hear anything else on GOODBYE YELLOW BRICK ROAD that strikes me as particularly "prog," or on DON'T SHOOT ME or HONKY CHÂTEAU for that matter. That's all music I love deeply and dearly, but "prog?" Unless my definition of prog is narrower than I thought, I just don't hear it. Particularly on the album my group got today, the one that's actually labelled prog. Like... Is it because they're longer than Elton John songs usually are, on average? Is that it? 'Coz that reminds me of the claim that a lot of Iron Maiden's recent work has been "progressive," when really they're just longer than they have been before. That's not necessarily a knock against anything on this album or Iron Maiden's recent work, 'coz I do like it all, but I'unno. To my ears, it should take more than stretching a 3 minute song out to 6 or 7 minutes to make it progressive rock. (Seriously, though, songs like "For The Greater Good Of God" and "Empire Of The Clouds" aren't to be missed. This is an unrelated aside, but if you ain't heard either of them yet, go ahead and do so, goodness.) Really, to me this album just sounds like typical Eltom John fare. Maybe there's a few more orchestras than usual, but otherwise, I'd've never been able to guess this was supposed to be anything else. Which, I mean, regardless of all my yapping about genre, it's still really good stuff. Of course "Tiny Dancer" and "Levon" are the standouts, but everything else keeps up at a good enough pace. Really, the only song I feel like I'd give the side-eye to is "Indian Sunset", though I don't take as much offense to the lyrics as I know other people do, so... I'unno, I just like a good orchestra, and it has one. Honestly, I feel like this album only falls flat in comparison. I listen to this, and I do legitimately enjoy what I hear, but at the same time I find myself wondering why the cosmic entity that runs The Randomizer would give us this over HONKY CHÂTEAU. That album is Elton's single-disc masterpiece if you ask me, and way worth hearing before this. I mean, come on, that album has "Rocket Man". If that song's appearance on that album alone isn't an incentive or reason enough... 'Coz that's where the glam started, of course, and as much as I like the pre-glam stuff like "Your Song" and especially "Border Song"... Goodness, it just ain't the same. So... Yeah. MADMAN ACROSS THE WATER has a lot of great Elton John fare, with some neat orchestrations to boot, but... Eh. I wouldn't go as gaga over it as I did for GOODBYE YELLOW BRICK ROAD or I would for HONKY CHÂTEAU. At the very least, it's not one I'd recommend anyone start with. It's more like a "after you've taken in the best of the best..." Still, just for how much I like typical Elton John fare, I'm gonna give it a 4. He plays piano good and I like his voice. What can I say?

Y'know, before I started listening to this album, I felt like I had to ask myself a simple question: do I actually like jamming or not? Now, I'm the first person in my group who'll defend live albums to the dickens and back for capturing a band's sound like a studio album never could, but... Jamming, specifically. The art of noodling around, live on stage. Is that a part of live albums I actually enjoy? I'm only asking myself this 'coz... Well, this is a late 60's psych rock live album. The last time my group had to deal with something like that, it was the Grateful Dead's LIVE/DEAD, and I wasn't exactly a huge fan of that one. As much as I felt like I could understand where Deadheads are talking about when they bring up the group's "intangible X factor" — the group's "vibe," in a simpler word... Frankly, I just wasn't too impressed. Vibes can only take me so far. I mean, you can describe "Dark Star" as "entangling yourself in a field of energy" all you want, but eventually I'm gonna need a hook to ground myself with before it all just starts sounding like noise. Luckily, thankfully, this album didn't really have that problem — not entirely, anyway. I don't know if I'd say this band is better players or jammers than the Grateful Dead, but dang it, they actually managed to play a couple of melodies I could latch onto. Even when I wasn't entirely focused on it, it still made for better, more pleasant ear wallpaper than the Grateful Dead's album did. It's absolutely not what I was expecting from an album that spends its entire first side on an extended Bo Diddley cover. Still, as pleasantly surprised as I was by this album, I don't wanna act like I'm too crazy for it. I'll mention again that large parts of it ended up as ear wallpaper — and as I've said before, I don't think that sort of thing is bad or invalid. However, at the same time... Y'know? I'unno. I mean, it's not like I'm gonna remember terribly much of this album even a day from now, and I doubt I'll ever really feel the need to listen to it again. Why would I, when I have better live albums **and** better ear wallpaper? 'Coz, yeah, I didn't dislike this album, but... Yeah, no, I can't really name the "intangible X factor" that's supposed to make me wanna come back. 'Coz it's not like this album doesn't dip into its share of noise either. So... This thing's a 3? Is a 3 fair? That's the same rating I give LIVE/DEAD, and while I **do** mean this 3 in a much more positive way than I did that 3... Yeah. At the very least, it did reaffirm that I can like jamming as long as it doesn't end up as "vibes" noise. Hopefully that carries over to something like Deep Purple's MADE IN JAPAN, but, y'know, we'll see. Well, happy trails, Quicksilver, I guess. I'unno if we'll ever cross paths again, but... 'Ey, you never know.

Ever since my group got PSYCHOCANDY I've been a little on edge about any album labelled with a genre prefixed by "noise." Like, I gotta be fair, maybe PSYCHOCANDY was just a bad first step into noise music. After all, that's an album which reverbs itself out to the point of being dull, undecipherable mush. If there are any pleasant melodies to be heard, they're buried under a mile and a half of reverb. It struck me as music made by people who're so far up their asses about how they're "too good" for popular music, for people who're up their own asses for the same reason. That's not typically a mindset I like to have musicians and their audiences, but I can't even begin to stress how that album was the most unpleasant experience I'd had in a while. So it really does make me happy to report that this album wasn't even nearly as bad an experience as PSYCHOCANDY was. In fact, not only would I say that it's actually a pretty good one, but that's more comparable to something like Nirvana's IN UTERO than anything else. For real, it's a good thing my group got to listen to that album recently,'coz it really did help me in understanding this one. There **is** a lot of noise here — feedback and atonal guitar noises and all the stuff you'd expect — but it never gets in the way of the fact that these songs just rock, plain and simple. None of it is just loud for the sake of it, I wouldn't say. There's a lot of hard and heavy guitar tones, and dang it, I'm down for it. Of course, a lot of this music would still probably scare away... Well, let's call them "people with lesser limits." I was gonna say "untrained ears," but there are just people who aren't gonna like some styles of music no matter how much they "train."I know **I** won't probably won't ever like PSYCHOCANDY — although let's not bring that album up again, huh? And I know what I just said, but I still feel it's kind of a shame that some people would hafta miss out on tunes like these. I don't think I'd wanna say I'm **completely** over the moon for this album; there's a few moments here where the album relies a bit too much on "mood" for me to be completely into it... But all the same, I can be pretty simple: I hear a good guitar, I'm happy. If nothing else, this gets my expectations up for the other, bigger, more famous Sonic Youth albums that're no doubt on this list. If this, one of the lesser big ones in their discography, is as good as this... Woof, goodness. But, yeah, it's a 4 all around from me. "It was not an assault on my ears — a triumph!"

It can honestly be kind of frustrating that some of the hardest albums for me to write about are the ones that are among my favorites of all time. For real, this album is one of those that I describe as being "entrenched in my soul," alongside stuff like Pink Floyd's THE WALL, The Beatles' ABBEY ROAD, and Weird Al's ALPOCALYPSE. It was one of the first two albums I ever picked up on vinyl. It's been pretty much always one of my first choices whenever I just wanna throw on a random album. Heck, I've barely listened to any other Elvis Costello album outside of a few songs simply because they just don't hit me in the same way that this one does. And the whole time, I've hardly thought about **why** — and I never even really wanted to. I was just happy to accept it as one of my all-time favorites without reason or question. So, like, I'm not even sure exactly what I wanna say here. But you didn't stumble across this review expecting no opinion, so if I could take a stab at it... I think it's because this album is kind of nerdy. Not in the way that, like, They Might Be Giants is nerdy, but more like... I mean, just look at him on that album cover. Scrawny. Bit of an awkward pose. And with the **Buddy Holly glasses**... This man is not cool. If he was in a high school movie, the jocks would be pushing him around. Heck, even at a regular corporate job, the guys who used to be jocks would be doing the same thing. But he is **smart**. He knows his way around words and then some. And it's not even particularly deep poetry; it's just good words, about life and love and all that. And as for the music, well, he was never gonna make it as an absolute rocker, so instead he makes this New Wave pub punk power pop... And gawddamn, he's **so good** at it, and it's so perfect for his voice... And you gotta look at his smirk on the cover, too: he might not be traditionally cool, but hell if he cares. This is the music he wanted to make, and dammit, he's happy with it. I gotta throw a shout-out to The Clovers (the band who backed Costello on this album), too. I think part of the reason why I never really 100% gelled with Costello's later albums is that he switched to being backed by The Attractions, and while they are a good band, don't get me wrong, they're just... A little more forceful than I'd like Costello's music to be. The Clovers, from what I've read, were a country band, so they're a little looser, a little more relaxed... And, I'unno, I just think they're perfect for the material here. They probably couldn't do "Radio, Radio" all too well, but for stuff like "Allison", "Miracle Man", "(The Angels Wanna Wear My) Red Shoes)" and "Less Than Zero", I couldn't imagine them being performed any differently. This is subdued rocking, but it's still rocking nonetheless. And those, hopefully, were the right words to explain why I was always gonna give this album a perfect 5. 'Coz, don't me wrong, I do believe in those words, but... I'unno. Just like any other album that's truly been entrenched in my soul, I don't know if words alone could completely express how I truly feel for them. Short of listening to this music through my ears, through my perspective, there's no better job I could realistically do. I suppose that's true of all opinions and trying to relay them, really, so... I'unno. Take it or leave it. Just know that whatever I type, without a doubt, my aim is true.

I really wanted to think more of this album. I really did, honestly. I mean, we all know her as the "All I Want For Christmas Is You" lady, right? That's basically her entire legacy these days: having this one song get incredibly overplayed starting the day after Halloween. It's a meme, pretty much, how consistently it tops the Hot 100 during the holidays. And I won't lie, I'm among the many, many people who've come to loathe the song for that exact overexposure. I'm not a unique story, I'm aware. But at the same time, y'know, I'm not mean. I ain't no jerk. I wanted to believe that there was more to her music than one Christmas song. There **had** to be, y'know? I'm pretty sure that song might not have become as omnipresent as it had if it wasn't for whatever came before. So, like, if you take **that one song** out of her discography and take a look at some of the other music she used to be famous for, what do you got? What was even her appeal way back when? Looking back on this stuff from 2025... If I may quote ULTIMA IX: ASCENSION: "I'm not entirely sure." I mean, yeah, OK, this is pop R&B, and Mariah has a great voice. At a base level it'd be generally inoffensive enough with enough chops to be a hit with a mainstream audience. In fact, I know it was a hit because its, like, fifth single, "My All", was number one with a bullet on the Hot 100 the week I was born. Given the unearned importance I place around my birthday, that does mean I do have something of a connection with this song... Which really makes me wish a better song had been number one. Let me not beat around the bush: this is a pretty uninteresting listen. Every song seems to go the exact same way: a lightly lush instrumental that Mariah sings over in a high coo. At some point during every song, and it always feels very early on, it seems like they just run out of verses and resort to having the backing vocals endlessly repeat the chorus while Mariah freestyles. Honestly, it feels like the backing vocals sing more actual words than Mariah does. Listening back to "My All", I swear it's mostly comprised of vocal runs of gibberish meant to fill space until they could think up any actual words, but they never did or just forgot to. The whole album just **crawls** along at the same slow tempo — which, sure, probably makes for great wallpaper for cuddling. That's completely valid. But actually tryna listen to it, it all blends together at a certain point. Nothing terribly interesting happens besides the occasional out-of-place record scratch, or whenever a guest artist shows up to provide a different voice to listen to. 'Coz the thing is, I'd think a lot of these songs were very pretty if this album otherwise had any damn **variety**. By the time "Fly Away" comes around with its thumping dance beat, it's kind of too late in my eyes, and there's still two songs left after it, including a seven minute Prince cover. (Speaking of different voices, by the way, it's frustrating that fuckin' Diddy was a producer on this album. I really thought I wouldn't hafta think about him again after Biggie's album. But at the same time, it's kind of funny to hear him on the first track pull the same shit he did all over Biggie's: mumbling ad libs all over the song so he can claim that he was there. Is that just his trademark? Goodness.) And let me briefly talk about that Prince cover, by the way. Seven minutes? Seven minutes. For what? A cover that feels just a hair too slower than the original, that ends up missing all of the intensity that the original had? It just sounds so standard — like, ah, that's what this song would've sounded like if Prince didn't wanna add any pathos. Seriously, you do not understand how much this song misses when you don't forcefully deliver "DO YOU HIM? OR DO YOU WANT ME? 'COZ I WANT YOU" or just start screaming at the end. And I get, too, that comparing a cover of a Prince song to the original is a losing battle — nothing compares 2 him, after all — but... Gawd, it just makes me wish my group could have gotten PURPLE RAIN, so we could have gotten some actually interesting R&B mixed in with some actual **variety**. Honestly, I'm disappointed I didn't end up liking this album too much. As I keep emphasizing, Mariah's got the vocal chops, and, I mean, I **do** wanna like her. I feel like I've heard enough individual songs from her that I should (shout out to the one that randomly has Ol' Dirty Bastard; that one's great). And maybe that's just the problem here. Maybe if I took a handful of these songs in isolation, I'd've liked them a lot more. Like, that synth line on the closer is such my shit, you don't even know. I should have loved the song for that synth alone. But in context of the whole album, nearly an **hour** of music — well, I still did like that song, but I found it so much harder to care than I would have otherwise. So, believe me, it pains me to give this album a 2. When I saw this album pop up, I was actually pretty excited for it. "It's her magnum opus, after all! It's gonna be great to kick back with all this beautiful R&B." But... Eh, I can't be anything but honest about my opinions. It was generally just too dull for me to get much out of it. Well, I suppose it's back to not thinking about Mariah 'til she defrosts on November 1st. And it's not like I'll be actively trying to listen then...

Y'know, come to think of it, I'm not actually too sure why The Dude hates the Eagles. I don't think he ever really gives a specific reason why... Which, I mean, given the state he was in when he said he hated the Eagles, I don't think he was in too much of a mood. If I could throw out a wild guess, I suppose if you hate typical 70's rock an album like this ain't gonna do much for you. Y'know, this is no real frills 70's rock, unlike Creedence with their swamp thing, or Dylan with his folky-ness, or First Edition and their hard psych. No, this is just **the** typical sound of 70's rock, take it or leave it. And I'll take it all the way to the damn bank, thank you very much. I believe this is the first time I've found a "classical genre" album for a whole decade. Like, if I were to imagine what 70's rock sounded like without much extra added on top of it, like Queen's theatricality, Led Zeppelin's heaviness or Elvis Costello's nerdiness, I think I'd end up coming pretty close to this. That's up to and including the CSN(Y) harmonies, even, and they're my favorite part of this album next to how fuckin' hard the guitars on this thing rock. Seriously, I always knew the guitar work on the title track ripped, from the moment it starts to the twin solos at the end, but goodness me. This is just so much, at the most basic level, the shit I wanna hear from a 70's rock album. And I really wanna emphasize that, like with every other "classical genre" album I talk about, being a genre at its most basic isn't a bad thing. Sometimes all you want are meat and potatoes, no extra garnish. But I tell you, it takes a true talent to make meat and potatoes rival more gourmet dishes, and I think Eagles are chefs like that. Now, the thing for me is that I kind of didn't even expect this. See, when I think of the Eagles beyond "Hotel California" (and before now I've never heard this album beyond that song), I tend to think of, like... Soft country rock. Stuff like "Desperado" or "Lyin' Eyes" or, honestly, this one parody of the Eagles I heard called "Dead Cicada". And it's not like this country influence can't be heard across this album (particularly in those aforementioned CSN(Y) harmonies, and a little bit of slide guitar here and there), but goodness, I'unno what happened ONE OF THESE NIGHTS and here that got them to rock the hell up so much, but I sure as heck appreciate it. Well, shucks. I think I'm gonna hafta enter this album into my 70's rock album rotation then. It sure as heck proves it and then some, even just by the guitar work (to bring them up one more time) if nothing else. I always knew I was gonna give this album high marks 'coz of the title track, but it makes me very happy to know that the rest of it holds up, much like something like Rush's 2112 or Funkadelic's MAGGOT BRAIN. It's an easy, easy, **easy** 5 from me, and if I wasn't late on getting this review out and didn't need to hop over to the next album on my group's docket, shucks, I'd listen to this all over again right after I finished writing this. Well, it looks like I'm gonna hafta wait a little longer, 'coz believe me, I'll be checking in again as soon as I can.

Has it really been nearly a year since the last time my group got a Rolling Stones album? 363 albums... Goodness. Well, I suppose with a gap like that, it's time for a bit of a refresher on my relationship to the Stones. To put it basically, when it comes to the debate about who's better, I've always preferred The Beatles to The Rolling Stones. From their early beat boy bands stuff to their later experimentation and pop masterworks, The Beatles have always been more up my album. The Rolling Stones, meanwhile, have kind of always just been a British blues and rock band to my ears. A **very good** British blues and rock band, yes, but nothing I've heard from them has gotten terribly close to the music I've loved from The Beatles. I've supposed that part of it could just be I've just been exposed to The Beatles more than The Stones — a whole-ass ROCK BAND game versus one song in GUITAR HERO III — but I think the music has spoken well enough for itself. I've just generally never had much interest in diving too deeply into the Stones' catalog. Frankly, I've always considered The Beach Boys more a point of comparison against The Beatles than The Rolling Stones. But let's put The Beatles aside. This is 1971, and they, as a group, haven't been a thing for one or two years. Let's focus strictly on the Stones: it's been two albums since BEGGARS BANQUET. They'd since released LET IT BLEED and the live album GET YER YA-YA'S OUT!. ALtmont continued to have been a disaster. Brian Jones had passed. What do The Rolling Stones have going on here? Well, lemme keep LET IT BLEED in mind, 'coz I think that's an important piece of the puzzle. See, I read on Wikipedia that this album was a return to basics and that got me a little worried. After all, that's what BEGGARS BANQUET was, and I didn't find much special about that album at all — or was it? There's actually a key distinction that needs to be made: BEGGARS BANQUET was a return to **roots** after the clusterfuck SGT. PEPPER'S wannabe that was THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST. STICKY FINGERS, on the other hand, was a return to **basics**. To me, that reads like at most they just dropped a lot of the unique instrumentation from LET IT BLEED, and that they're still keeping whatever songwriting philosophy they had there. And trust me, that's worth a **lot**. LET IT BLEED is one of the few Stones albums I've actually heard, and it's the one among all of them I'm the most excited to revisit. After all, it has two of the best songs they ever made: "Gimme Shelter" and "You Can't Always Get What You Want". Those are songs that went well beyond what the Stones normally did without going over the top like THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST did, and they're both absolutely amazing for it. On STICKY FINGERS I feel like, by choice and necessity, they had to scale back on the ambition a little, but only enough that these still end up being incredible rock songs. Seriously, the worst they get is the lyrics on "Brown Sugar", but if you can manage to find a way to look past them (and that could be hard, I know)... Goodness. Honestly, despite how much I've talked before, I feel kind of speechless about how much I like this album. I knew the Stones always had it in them for an album I'd like just that much (AFTERMATH and BETWEEN THE BUTTONS both feel just a bit short), but... **Thus much**? I mean, let me put it like this: when the keyboard solo on "I Got The Blues" happened, I hadda stop writing for a second and make that kind of lip-biting stank face that expresses "Aw, hell yeah — now **this** is the good shit." No other Stones album has done that for me before. That's a big deal. In the end, I'm very confident giving this the highest praise I think I could give any Stones album: this is on the level as some of the best Beatles albums. Maybe a bit towards the bottom end, given some of the absolute gems those boys have, but still, it's up there. And even again putting The Beatles aside, it's still one of, if not the best Stones album I've ever heard — we'll hafta see if LET IT BLEED can surpass it when I can get around to it again. Either way, let me give this thing a 5. In my eyes, the band's reputation has been completely recovered, and I look forward to whatever record of theirs gets tossed my group's way next. Let's just hope it doesn't take another full year, huh?

It's not too terribly often I think about Syd Barrett. I mean, as I've said before, the early years of Pink Floyd aren't exactly my thing. Even as much as I can say I do like those first two albums, that kind of psychedelic space rock isn't usually what I want out of the band (or in general, but that's besides the point). It might be a bit typical, but the run of albums from THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON to THE WALL is way more my speed — alongside records like MEDDLE and (yes, really) THE DIVISION BELL. I've even listened to THE FINAL CUT more; it's honestly not really that bad. And if I don't often listen to THE PIPER AT THE GATES OF DAWN, you can imagine how much I've listened to something like THE MADCAP LAUGHS. Now that's an album that requires just a bit too much serious consideration than I'd like for a casual listen. Goodness, it's gonna be fun when my group gets to that one... But all the same, I'd never dare speak ill of Syd Barrett. And frankly, whenever I do end up thinking about him, it's pretty common that I end up coming to the conclusion that he's the most important member of the band. Absolutely, they would not be the same without his influence — even if, specifically and tragically, that influence came from his absence... Like, if it weren't for Syd, would we have "Brain Damage"? Or large swathes of THE WALL? I know for a fact we wouldn't have today's album, that's for sure. Syd and the shadow where he used to be loomed so largely over the band, it's hard not to have respect for him. And there's nothing they ever did where you can feel how much respect they had for Syd, and how much they missed him, as WISH YOU WERE HERE. Let me lay this down right now: this is my favorite Pink Floyd record. Full stop. DARK SIDE OF THE MOON and THE WALL both make good cases for coming close, but in the end, nothing can. Not really. I mean, if I haven't listened to it as much as I have THE WALL, that's only because I'm trying not to lose any part of its magic to overplay. It's... It's just special, y'know? Honestly, for most of the day I was worried I wouldn't have anything to say about it. I was excited as the dickens when my group got it; it was the fastest I'd hopped on listening to an album since ACE OF SPADES. But as for actually talking about it... Well, as I've discussed back when I talked about MY AIM IS TRUE, there are just some albums so deeply entrenched in my soul that it's hard for me to find the words to say about them. And if that's true for MY AIM IS TRUE, then it applies a thousandfold to this album. Part of me can't even really fathom articulating the words. To me, this album's greatness goes without saying. If this album doesn't just speak for itself, then no other does. But if I could try... Well, it's just like I said: there's nothing else in their whole body of work where you can feel how much they loved, respected and missed Syd like this album does. The fact that half of the album is dedicated to a song celebrating Syd should tell you enough all by itself. And... Gawd, "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" is beautiful: all nine parts, and all twenty-plus minutes. If it hadn't been split up to bookend the album, it'd beat out "Echoes" as the greatest single track of their entire career. It aches for Syd, and it's very sad that he's gone, but at the same time it doesn't forget to be happy about who he was and what he did for the group. It kind of plays to me like a memorial service, honestly. Like, it's not the funeral, where you're actively mourning someone, but... It's the memories. It's looking back on all the times you had with someone, good and bad. And there's just this... This hole in yourself where they used to be. And I don't think that feeling is better encapsulated on this whole album than those three guitar notes. Like, it's incredible that just those three notes can evoke so much and so many feelings. I'm in awe every time. Chills, seriously. "Wish You Were Here" evokes largely the same feeling, albeit in a smaller setting. If "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" is a large-scale celebration of a loved one, surrounded by family and friends, then "Wish You Were Here" is when a song comes on the radio that quietly brings everything back. Like, you're just about to get out of your car, stressed out about some bullshit or whatever, when you hear those notes come over your radio and — and suddenly, you're out of place. You just can't bring yourself to leave until the song's over. You just can't. They're too important to ignore. And, y'know, whoever you're thinking about, they don't even have to have passed on — Syd wasn't when this album was released, and he wouldn't until a few decades later. It's just, whoever you couldn't have imagined living without, but have had to face that reality anyway. And it tears you up inside, because you don't know when you're gonna see them again, but the idea that eventually, some day, you will — that's what gets you through. And speaking of that bullshit that stressed you out, that's what the other half of the album is about — music industry bullshit, specifically. About a cold, unfeeling, mechanical industry that chews up and spits out any talent unfortunate enough to try and get too close. About executives and management who care so little about you compared to the bottom line they can't even be assed to remember your damn name — and yet when the big bucks start pouring in, they act like they had anything to do with it. Well, beyond trying to crush your soul into just another cog, anyway. They're an empty suit in the desert, selling you dreams but leaving you with nothing but burns from broken promises. These songs aren't as clearly angry as the ones on ANIMALS are, but you can still feel it beneath the sarcasm and haunted warnings. "Have A Cigar" is the only other song in the band's discography to have a guest vocalist (here it's Roy Harper), and it says so much to me that someone outside of the band ended up singing these words. It's not exactly a happy album, if you somehow couldn't tell. Honestly, put all together, I can't help but imagine a story. One about someone who tried to hack it in the music industry, but ended up getting so lost in the shuffle and burned out that only the memories of their loved ones could carry them forward. And even that couldn't last forever — after all, that's not them singing "Shine On You Crazy Diamond". Whether or not this reflects Syd's story, I'm not enough of an expert on him to say. But that story, and its emotional resonance... If that ain't one of the big reasons why I keep coming back. And I haven't even gotten around to mentioning the musicianship yet! It's all top form, across the board. Like, I wanna highlight Wright's keys on "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" specifically. They're the star of the song, and most of the reason why it's as good as it is. From the opening solo over those ambient glasses, down to the slow funeral march, followed by the "See Emily Play" that closes the album... Everyone else is amazing, especially Gilmour for playing those three notes on "Shine On" and that opening solo on "Wish You Were Here", but Wright especially deserves credit. Absolutely insane that Waters would later fire and demote him to session musician come THE WALL, goodness. If all my blabbering hasn't made it evident, this is an absolute 5, among the strongest I've ever given. Across 44 minutes, it just does not miss. It's simply the most stunning and beautiful music they'd ever make. Like, I understand why THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON is often held up as the greater achievement. It came first, it has the hits, and people probably generally resonate more with its songs about aspects of life than they do this album and its themes of alienation. And don't get me wrong, I hold DARK SIDE in the same high regard; this isn't a competition about which one is better. I just agree whole-heartedly with Richard Wright and David Gilmour when they say that this is the best Pink Floyd record — 'coz it is. It might just be my favorite album of all time, honestly? If it's not, then it's certainly top 5 — or, heck, top 3, actually. And I still don't know if I've used enough words to express how I feel about it. It's just that big in my mind. And, y'know... I can't imagine being any of them on the day during recording when Syd came to visit — during "Shine On You Crazy Diamond", of all coincidences. Where they couldn't recognize him for minutes because he'd lost all of his hair and grown overweight. I've seen the picture — it's a little hard to look at. Roger Waters was so distressed by how Syd looked he was reduced to tears. And there's this one I've read — I don't know how true it is, but there's one anecdote about the visit I've always remembered. It's when Syd stands up and says that he's ready to play, only for the rest of the band to have to tell him that there's nothing for him to play. It breaks my heart every time I think about it. And that's pretty often when I'm listening to this album. Bless it, for everything it's worth.

I don't think I've ever heard another album this quietly sad. Like, for most of this album's runtime I was just... Staring off into the distance. At the wall, at the floor — at nothing in particular, honestly. I just couldn't do anything else. Not with how this album was causing sadness to wash over me, over and over. Every time I thought it would stop, I'd catch Cash's voice — so old and ragged — and it'd all come back all over again. Even the songs that were more upbeat in one way or another still had an air of melancholy around them. You can't shake the feeling, no matter how hard you try. It's like he knew he didn't have much time left. It's like he knew that this was his last statement. It's like he knew that if he didn't say anything about where he was right then and there, he wasn't gonna get another chance. And that's just remarkable when you consider that this album is mostly covers. Like, that's the big thing that separates it from albums like Leonard Cohen's IF YOU WANT IT DARKER and David Bowie's ★. There's only two songs that Cash penned himself, and one of them is a re-recording of a song written decades ago. But if you don't know these were all covers... Gosh, you'd never be able to tell. It's like what I usually say about Elvis: even if he never wrote a song in his life, just him being him was enough to make any song he sang his own. That's pretty much exactly what's going on. Cash being who he was, and being as old as he was when this was recorded, is enough to make songs like "Hurt" all his own. They're imbued with so much more meaning than if he'd been a younger man at the time. Which, there's a part of me that feels like that's kinda messed up. Y'know, the idea that I like this album **because** he died so shortly after it was released. That if he'd somehow lived long enough to release AMERICAN V, this album wouldn't have held as much weight as that one would have. But that's just the truth, and the same goes for stuff like IF YOU WANT IT DARKER, ★ and any other album with this kind of reputation. That's just honestly where it gets its power from, no matter how much I wish they could have lived longer and had done more. Though I wanna feel like either way this would still be a melancholic heartbreaker of an album. I don't think you can hear a voice like this, over arrangements like this, and not feel at least somewhat down. I can't imagine the kind of person who can hear stuff like this and not feel anything. I mean, I've gone out of my way to avoid using words like "depressing" and "feels bad," 'coz I feel like those are a bit over the top for what I think this album evokes, but... Still, goodness, y'know? I would absolutely be lying if I said I didn't feel close to crying more than once. I just can't give this album any less than a 5. It just wouldn't feel right to. Not with the context of its release and how much it gives to what would've been very powerful material regardless. It's, jus'... Oof. Goodness. And I do hope his reassurance at the end comes true: that someday soon — who knows where, who knows when — we'll all meet again. That someday, eventually, the man in black will come around once more.

Y'know, right off the bat, let me be 100% with my problem with this album: it's indie rock. As much as I'd want my take on this album to be more complicated than that, it's really not. I mean, indie rock is— jus'... I'unno. It's not even the genre I have the most trouble with. Generally, I feel like I still have more problems with shoegaze and post-punk for how actively and purposefully unappealing they can try to be. But, goodness me, can this genre ever be the most boring whiff of nothing sometimes. Like, more often than not, I'm honestly not even sure what the appeal's supposed to be. I can't even fathom a guess at why people would go so hard for indie rock. And if listening to three Arcade Fire albums won't give me any clues, I don't know how anything can, let alone this album. I really do wish this album had leaned into its other genre way more: tejano (or "Tex-Mex," as the album's Wikipedia page called it). Heck, it's what I was hoping this album would be more, 'coz if I've learned anything from watching MACHETE, I really like this kind of music. Whenever this album goes all out with the horns and the accordion, that's when it's great. If the whole thing were like this, honestly, I'd hafta restrain myself from giving it a perfect 5. But I'unno. There was too much stuff on here that I could only think of as "just boring indie rock" that, frankly, it kind of spoiled the mood. I mean, heck, give one to the thought that I spent two paragraphs on indie rock before I even brought up tejano music. More than anything, I come out of this album a bit mixed and honestly disappointed. I was really looking forward to this being something like, I'unno, The Pogues, where it's this really rippin' national sound and it's absolutely **amazing**. Instead, even when I got what I was looking for, I was still a bit too busy groaning at the stuff I wasn't to fully enjoy it. So... A 3, I guess? This shoulda been way more my alley, goodness... And seriously, what is with this album cover? Lookin' like some kinda "recolored screenshot" deviantART OC. I swear.