I feel like nothing happens in this album. Sure, there are chords and melodies, but none of that builds up to anything. My Life in the Bush of Ghosts has interesting ideas and is overall very well crafted, but these ideas are not expanded upon. Every song here feels like a good intro to a longer song... except the full version never comes.

I like the concept of noise music, but I've found that bare-bones noise/industrial records like this one tend to be rather boring and not really appealing to me. I like when noise is used as an extension of other genres, to add more weight, texture, accetuate certain parts of the record. Kollaps, however, doesn’t do that and is mostly a sound collage of different noises without a concrete structure. Look, I don’t hate noise. The genre that got me into music was metal, which tends to be pretty noisy. Noise rock and shoegaze are some of my favorite genres. And my favorite band, Swans, used to be a noise rock band and still frequently incorporates elements of noise into their music. I understand that all I’ve listed here is basically "child's first exposure to noisy music," but I'm totally fine with liking it. Kollaps is a lot more sonically offensive than most of the noise music I like. This is not a problem on its own. What I don't like here is that there's not a lot structure or musicality, which is also not necessarily wrong, but I think there's only so many of music conventions you can sacrifice before it becomes completely unengaging. I'm not saying "This is literally not music!" and I actually find that kind of attitude to be incredibly annoying and unfair. Who is to decide what counts as music and what doesn't? This kind of discussions are stupid and pointless. People come up with all kinds of arbitrary boundaries, but always fail to explain why would any of that matter. Jazz is not music because "it's just improvisation"; hip hop is not music because "they're just reading words" (also, the ones who think that tend to be not the biggest fans of black people, but that's a different story); metal is not music because "it's just random noises and screaming," etc. You know, vocals didn't used to be a part of the classical musicians' (who’ve invented music theory) repertoire originally. Does that mean every song that has vocals is not music? People need to come to terms with the fact that music, just like any other art form, constantly expands it's bounties and evolves. Whether you like these evolutions or not is irrelevant and doesn't make them any less “music.” Experimentation and diversions from popular norms lies at the core of art and is what makes it so exciting. I think noise music is totally valid, and you're allowed to dislike it, but "this is not music" is not legitimate criticism. This is also not what I dislike about this record. I don’t like when artists use the whole dynamic range their recording equipment allows as I have to lower the gain and make the quiter sounds way too quiet just so the louder ones don’t obliterate my eardrums. I like music to feel actually mixed. I like music to have structure. A typical framework of buildups and crescendos is far more satisfying to me because of the way it balances anticipation and relief. In place of that, Kollaps has quiet, droney backdrops occasionally interrupted my loud metallic noises or screaming vocals, which are not pleasant to the ear (and yes, you can make noise and screms pleasant). The title track is good, though, but it is also the one which the furthest removed from the rest of the album’s soundscape. I wouldn’t call Kollaps completely unlistenable or a total disaster, but I can’t say I enjoyed it. It’s not for me. If you’re a big fan of noise, you may like this, but I personally wouldn’t recommend it. 3/10

When discussing art, I don't usually care about the political views of the artists as it is largely irrelevant to the quality of their work. Like, conservative comedians are bad at comedy not because of their views but because they lack the sharp, absorbing mind comedy requires, which is also the reason they arrived at these views in the first place. But everything has its limits. And for someone as outspokenly terrible as Kid Rock, there's no excuse. My judgment for the music of this racist bitch, who’s raging for the machine directly through his work, is always going to be clouded the same way it is, for example, for Kanye's music or Mold Lady's writing. My morals would simply not allow me to stop thinking about the vile shit they have said and done. But at the same time, I also don't feel bad for potentially misrepresenting them, so I guess that doesn't really matter since Kid Rock and his ilk don't deserve any sympathy in the first place. That all being said, this album is... not terrible. Despite the fact that there isn't a single song I would consider good, there's a surprising amount of decent riffs, and the lyrics, although cringey, are mostly not obnoxious. The biggest crime this album is committing (besides being made by Kid Rock) is that it's just forgettable. Outside of the chorus of the opening track, everything else is pretty bland and monotonous (I don't think the flow changes a single time)... but not awful. This was before "owning the libs" became Kid Rock's entire personality, but all the lyrics here are the same basic edgy, boastful stuff about how "cool" he supposedly is, how much he supposedly parties, and how many women he supposedly fucks. I mean, this is the same guy who started a boycott of a beer company because the art on the can was forcing him to look at a woman, so take out of it what you will. Funnily enough, Eminem, who also failed to grow out of the same era of "dark" and "offensive" lyrics, is also on this album (not that his contribution is significant). He's probably the poster child of that style of writing, but unlike Kid Rock, Eminem could sort of write and definitely could rap, and seems to be a decent person (citation needed). Yeah, I was expecting a lot worse. Devil Without a Cause is not unlistenable and even has its moments, but it's very basic, occasionally cringey, and a bit too long. 5/10

Incredible solos. Layla has one of the best riffs I’ve ever heard. The only problem is that it is 77 minutes of mostly the same idea. They’re doing a decent job of keeping it fresh, but the album still feels a tad bit repetitive.

Honestly wasn't expecting to like this as much as I did. I was a bit worried about the runtime, but Stankonia managed to stay consistently good all throughout its a bit bloated 73 minutes. That being said, although I liked pretty much every track, there wasn't a single truly impressive one (apart from maybe B.O.B.). Also, unnecessary interludes are unnecessary.

I guess if you like blues, you'd get more out of this. For me, it just felt like one idea repeated over and over again, with the only highlight being Got My Mojo Working. Although not bad by any means, most of the music here wasn't particularly fun or interesting and felt outdated. It was an easy listen, though, so I can't say I disliked it.

There's not really much I can say about this. It's just rather bland pop rock. Some catchy riffs, some fun lyrics, but nothing groundbreaking. Can't say it's bad, but this album is not something I would be excited to hear again. It's just fine.

First off, who gave these people a second audio channel? Seriously, they use stereo way too aggressively. Sound stage? Nah, drums left ear, guitar right ear! It adds nothing to the music and is just annoying and distracting. Okay, now to serious stuff. This is my first The Beatles album. Furthermore, I've actually been avoiding listening to them. But why? They're The Beatles. Aren't they one of the biggest bands of all time? Of course, I'm aware of all the praise they get. But whenever I hear someone talk about The Beatles, it is almost always about how "influential" or "monumental" they are and rarely anything about the quality of their music. I'm not trying to downplay the band's impact on the music industry, but this is not what I'm looking for when choosing what music to listen to. Call me a philistine, but I don't care how important a specific song or album was to the history of music or how technically impressive it is—I just want it to sound good. Of course, I've seen praise for their music too, but none of what I had heard or read made me excited to listen to it. That's why I avoided The Beatles—I was afraid that I was not going to like them. I realized that there was a pretty good chance that if I heard their music, I was going to become one of the very few people that don't care for them. And it's not like it's a simple unpopular opinion. Liking The Beatles is like some sort of a default opinion everyone who dares consider themselves a music nerd is simply expected to share. Not praising them is almost seen as flat-out wrong and an attribute of annoying contrarians and attention seekers. And I'm neither... well, at least I hope I am. Look, I hate not sharing probably one of the most popular opinions in music as it will now forever sit at the back of my mind whenever I see people discuss the band and certainly don't want to be the person to go, "The Beatles? Yeah, they're mid," but unfortunately, this is what I got out of my first experience with their stuff. So, does The White Album sound good? Well, yes... but I'm not impressed. Sure, It has a couple of bangers (Back In the U.S.S.R., While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Helter Skelter), but there are 30 songs here and most of the other ones are just decent to good. There's nothing wrong with the music here; I certainly didn't have any trouble getting through the album, but "decent to good" is not something you're supposed to expect from one of the most popular albums from arguably the most revered bands in history. The White Album is good, but it didn't grab my attention and felt like road trip music—pleasant but not exiting. Maybe it was revolutionary at the time of recording, but it's not really an argument. The problem is not that it's old, the problem is that its outdated. There are amazing bands like Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Yes, Led Zeppelin, and many more that came immediately after The Beatles yet for me their music still feels gripping and fresh many decades later. And yes, it's likely that The Beatles actually influenced the creation of at least some of these bands, but it doesn't make their music any batter. The White Album, on the other hand, by today's standards, feels like simple pop rock with folk elements. Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't get the appeal. My opinion may change when I listen to some of their other albums, but for now that's that. Your mileage may vary. 7/10

Folk and country music is not my cup of tea, but Harvest is great. The low-key moments interconnect well with energetic electronic guitars and even some huge orchestral bits. The vocals are great and bring forth a nice vibe. Wasn't really a fan of some of the more laid back parts, but other than that, there's not much to complain about here.

Laid-back, vocal-based songs is probably my least favorite type music as there's usually not much to catch my ear. Not saying that Stardust is bad—the vocals here are great, and the instrumentation is… fine, I guess. I just didn't particularly care for any of the songs here since this kind of music is not for me. It was a little underwhelming. 5/10

I feel like nothing happens in this album. Sure, there are chords and melodies, but none of that builds up to anything. My Life in the Bush of Ghosts has interesting ideas and is overall very well crafted, but these ideas are not expanded upon. Every song here feels like a good intro to a longer song... except the full version never comes.

Nu metal kind of got the worst of all worlds. It doesn't have the dark atmosphere or the songwriting of classic metal; it doesn't have the energy of early '90s metal; nor does it have the raw aggression and heaviness of modern metal. What does it have to compensate? I don't know actually, and this album certainly doesn't make things clearer. That being said, I personally don't have a strong opinion on nu metal and just find most metal from that era to be kind of mid, Slipknot included. But I recognize that there are also good things that came out of the nu metal era, like Deftones or System of a Down. Nu metal seems to be treated as this bastard child of metal by much of the internet community, something you don't like but with whose existence you have to cope. For that matter, Slipknot being the poster child of the genre, it's hard to find any sort of civil discussion about this album, or any of their discography, really. For some reason, people seem to be more concerned with what is the age limit after which you're not allowed to enjoy Slipknot; whether or not you're a "poser" for liking them; or can you even consider nu metal as a whole "metal" (because that's an argument that exists, somehow). But since nothing is going to stop children (be it mental or literal) from airing out their insecurities by stating that they definitely, without a shadow of a doubt didn't like a popular thing, let’s just not worry about any of this shit and talk about the music from Slipknot's self-titled, because this, at least in my humble opinion, is what music reviews are for. I actually was pleasantly surprised with this album initially. Although simplistic, the first half had plenty of catchy riffs and lyrics. But that quickly started falling apart towards the second half. The riffs became monotonous and repetitive, and the vocals lost all of their charm. It is obvious that they just ran out of ideas after some time. This album just didn't have to be this long. Why commit to a 55-minute album when you don't have enough material? Just cutting this album to 35-40 minutes would've made it noticeably better (although all Slipknot albums tend to be on the longer side, for some reason). It also seems to have some problems with the mix. The guitars on some tracks sound overly compressed and sort of distant. Overall, although I can't call this good music, I didn't hate it. The first half was pretty fun, but the second half has some boring songs and definitely drags the experience down. The people calling this unlistenable garbage are definitely overreacting, though—it's not that bad.

Nothing particularly special, just extremely fun, energetic riff rock. It’s simple and enjoyable. There's surprising amount of variation here, and the same riffs are not repeated over and over again (even in the 14-minute song). I wish they'd cut the talking out of the digital release, though, but it's not the album's fault.

This is why I don't usually enjoy pop-adjacent music. It often isn't bad and actually a pretty fun first listen, but it so quickly becomes bland and uninteresting. Most of the time when I listen to pop music, I can't stop thinking, "This is just engineered to be inoffensive." I'm not trying to diminish The Killers' effort here, but since this is made for a wide audience, the result is a well-produced piece of decent but painfully unremarkable music. And this probably wouldn’t have been a problem if I hadn’t known what remarkable rock sounded like, but I do.

I think it's extremely hard to make relaxing music not boring, but Moon Safari nails it. The first track set expectation extremely high (god, that bass), and although the rest of the songs didn't quite reach the same height, this album didn't disappoint. The songs here are chill yet atmospheric and engaging. The instrumentals are well-produced and are complemented greatly by vibey vocals. This album is not something I would've chosen to listened on my own, since calm electronic music without crescendos is not exactly for me, but I'm glad that I did. I mean, Daft Punk if they were good, amirite?

Jazz is one of the genres I don't fully understand yet, but I know that I'll probably get into later down the line. As for this album specifically, honestly, there's not much to criticize here. Although I feels like it doesn't do a good job at separating itself from the rest, Home Is Where the Music Is is a solid jazz record with great performances all around. That being said, I don't understand why many artist are so averse to cutting their albums to more appropriate lengths. I'm not against long albums, but for the record to justify its length, in my opinion, it needs to either constantly rejuvenate itself with new and exciting ideas or be based around one idea and explore it with different approaches. Unfortunately, a lot of longer records, this one included, tend to fall under neither and be just repetitive. 7/10

The Beatles continue to leave me woefully unimpressed. The music is nice, but "nice" is the highest compliment I can give it. It's enjoyable and has a couple of bangers, but it doesn't stand out. And this album is not something that I'd be particularly excited to relisten. 7/10

Quite basic and pretty uninteresting hip hop. It doesn't have any unique ideas, and most songs are not that catchy (Work It is a banger, though). It's not bad, but I got bored after the first half, so there's that. 5/10

Good music, but not for me. Vocal-based music is just not that fun for me. I enjoyed the funky parts with more complex instrumentals a lot more than the relaxing soul ones, but unfortunately, they're not the majority. There's no denying that Stevie Wonder is a great vocalist, but I mainly enjoy music for the instruments, and there's nothing special about them on most tracks here. 7/10

I've listened to Hendrix's debut album a while back and wasn't impressed by it. Considering his reputation, I wanted to relisten to it for some time, since my understanding and taste in music have changed considerably since then. After listening to Axis: Bold as Love, I no longer think this is necessary, since the problems I've found with this album are largely the same. Although I feel like Axis is an overall improvement at production quality, the main issue remains the same—Hendrix just can't write good music consistently. There's some genuine greatness here, and it’s hard to deny how good Jimi Hendrix is at playing guitar, but the rest sounds like generic psych/blues rock. From the two albums from him that I've heard, I would describe his music as "sparks of brilliance in the sea of mediocrity." To be fair, this is probably not his fault. As Hendrix, along with The Beatles, is seen as one of the biggest trendsetters in rock, it's the other bands that sound like him, not the other way around. But how good or bad the music was back when it was released is entirely irrelevant to how good it is today. And today Axis is still good but unimpressive. 7/10

Short and sweet. Simple but fun. Great riffs, great vocals, great vibes. Doesn't have any sort of "wow" effect, but it does what it tries to do well.

Hard rock is so fun, man. Deep Purple's Machine Head is perhaps a bit overplayed, but it's full of iconic banger with great riffs, impressive solos, and fun vocals nonetheless. The only complaint I have is that this album feels a little low energy. It's hard to explain exactly what I mean since I'm not familiar with music production terms, but the mix feels a bit barren, if that makes sense. There is not enough layers, not enough going on. Still a great album, but I wish it had more detail.

I like weird experimental music, but some tracks here I did not like at all. This album is too inconsistent. Some songs are great, others are just boring. The second half, which is less experimental and has more conventional tracks, redeems it a bit, though.

To me, Talking Heads is a band that makes accessible, decently fun, and very well produced music that, for some reason, has almost no charm to it. It's like pop but slightly better, excerpt slightly better is not enough for me to be a fan, because I don't like pop. Yeah, their music just doesn't impress me in any way. Their next album, Remain In Light, is slightly better, in my opinion, but I also couldn't find anything to praise it for. Good music, but nothing remarkable. 7/10

Was skeptical going into this since I like loud, layered, complex music and a cappella is pretty much the antithesis of that. But this album turned out to be just... nice. It's easy to listen to, and I had no problem getting through it despite this kind of music being completely outside of my interests. But aside from being exceptionally accessible, there's nothing to praise this album for. It's too monotonous and not exciting. There's not a single song of even part of a song that stands out. This is nice background music, but it can't stand on its own.

I like the concept of noise music, but I've found that bare-bones noise/industrial records like this one tend to be rather boring and not really appealing to me. I like when noise is used as an extension of other genres, to add more weight, texture, accetuate certain parts of the record. Kollaps, however, doesn’t do that and is mostly a sound collage of different noises without a concrete structure. Look, I don’t hate noise. The genre that got me into music was metal, which tends to be pretty noisy. Noise rock and shoegaze are some of my favorite genres. And my favorite band, Swans, used to be a noise rock band and still frequently incorporates elements of noise into their music. I understand that all I’ve listed here is basically "child's first exposure to noisy music," but I'm totally fine with liking it. Kollaps is a lot more sonically offensive than most of the noise music I like. This is not a problem on its own. What I don't like here is that there's not a lot structure or musicality, which is also not necessarily wrong, but I think there's only so many of music conventions you can sacrifice before it becomes completely unengaging. I'm not saying "This is literally not music!" and I actually find that kind of attitude to be incredibly annoying and unfair. Who is to decide what counts as music and what doesn't? This kind of discussions are stupid and pointless. People come up with all kinds of arbitrary boundaries, but always fail to explain why would any of that matter. Jazz is not music because "it's just improvisation"; hip hop is not music because "they're just reading words" (also, the ones who think that tend to be not the biggest fans of black people, but that's a different story); metal is not music because "it's just random noises and screaming," etc. You know, vocals didn't used to be a part of the classical musicians' (who’ve invented music theory) repertoire originally. Does that mean every song that has vocals is not music? People need to come to terms with the fact that music, just like any other art form, constantly expands it's bounties and evolves. Whether you like these evolutions or not is irrelevant and doesn't make them any less “music.” Experimentation and diversions from popular norms lies at the core of art and is what makes it so exciting. I think noise music is totally valid, and you're allowed to dislike it, but "this is not music" is not legitimate criticism. This is also not what I dislike about this record. I don’t like when artists use the whole dynamic range their recording equipment allows as I have to lower the gain and make the quiter sounds way too quiet just so the louder ones don’t obliterate my eardrums. I like music to feel actually mixed. I like music to have structure. A typical framework of buildups and crescendos is far more satisfying to me because of the way it balances anticipation and relief. In place of that, Kollaps has quiet, droney backdrops occasionally interrupted my loud metallic noises or screaming vocals, which are not pleasant to the ear (and yes, you can make noise and screms pleasant). The title track is good, though, but it is also the one which the furthest removed from the rest of the album’s soundscape. I wouldn’t call Kollaps completely unlistenable or a total disaster, but I can’t say I enjoyed it. It’s not for me. If you’re a big fan of noise, you may like this, but I personally wouldn’t recommend it. 3/10

To be honest, I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to get out of soul. If it's supposed to be relaxing and easy to listen to, then it succeeds, but it doesn't do anything to be interesting. This is just inoffensive music with nothing exciting about it. There's nothing wrong with that, but I'm not having much fun listening to this, which is what I really want from music.

I really liked the opening song, but most others were a little boring. I feel like this type of music works best when it's energetic. That’s why I enjoyed the first song a lot, but the rest not so much. I would've certainly rated this album higher if everything were like the first song. I actually want to find more of this sort of energetic big band R&B Fallout type beat music, but this wasn’t it.

Has it's moments, but it lack energy, in my opinion. The opening song is really fun, and I wish all the others were like it. I also wasn't a huge fan of the ambient part in the second half. 7/10

Just pleasant easy-listening vocal jazz. Inoffensive, not bad by any means. I was expecting it to be too much of a "quantity over quality" thing (considering it's over 3(!) hours long), but it turned out to be quite enjoyable with a surprising amount of nice grooves. There isn't anything that would draw me to this album over any other one with a similar vibe, but it works well as background music. Also, yes, I did finish it before writing this. Professionals have standards. 7/10

Pop rock (derogatory). Yeah, that's an album that... exists. I don't know what I was supposed to get out of this one. The band clearly didn't know either. This might be the most mid piece of media I consumed in the past year. It's far from good, and it's also far from bad. It's extremely hard for me to imagine someone going, "Yeah, this is fire" over this, but also nobody is going to despise it. It's just so painfully... okay.

Decently fun new wave, but nothing particularly special. I had a good time, through. 7/10

I hate pop because most of it just focuses on not being bad instead of trying to be good. Central Reservation is such a nothing burger, with great vocals and pretty much nothing else. Why would I choose to listen to something that's not trying to be good when there's so much music that actually tries to be exciting and succeeds? Like, being a good vocalist—and Beth Orton is a good vocalist—is not enough to make good music. You have to think about the other aspects of the composition too. But here, in the first half, everything outside of vocals is unremarkable, and in the second half, they just completely gave up, it seems.

This is my first reggae album... and I'm unimpressed. It was kind of boring and way to repetitive. It's vocal-based music, which is not really for me. I like music to be exciting, but this is laid-back and not really atmospheric at the same time. It's fine but not that fun. Also, it is probably the remaster's fault, but some track have way too much bass and it overpowers the rest of the sound (more of a minor complaint). 5/10

As much as I'm not a fan of electronic music, Fatboy Slim has a couple of iconic tracks under his belt that I love. This album demonstrates that he can make incredibly catchy music... but not necessarily that he always does. This album consists entirely of repetitive loopy songs with occasional interludes and minor additions to the loops. The problem with this style is that for the songs not to sound boring, the loops need to be really good. This album achieves this... with various degrees of success. And here's the issue: The average song length here is over 5.5 minutes, which is on a longer side for dance music. I don't mind The Rockafeller Skank begin almost 7 minutes long, because it's fun as hell, but there are some tracks here that are not that good (In Heaven, You're Not From Brighton, Acid 8000), so instead they feel like an overly long slog. You've Come a Long Way, Baby is definitely of its time, but it has its charm and the songs mostly range from fine to incredibly fun. 7/10

A lot of singer-songwriter albums fall short for me because I don't care about vocals that much and the instrumentation is usually quite boring and doesn't do much to make the songs more fun. However, I happen to enjoy this heavy alt rock style of instrumentation, so Dry, while still maintaining a bit of that singer-songwriter vibe, is a lot more exciting to me. It's simple but fun, catchy, and overall a pretty pleasant listen. Gives some Nirvana vibes. Whoever mixed that needs to be taken out back, though.

The more I listen to music, the more I realize that the classic vinyl 40-minute format makes the most sense for compilation-style albums. I don't have anything against longer records, but I think that if the required time commitment exceeds 40-45 minutes, the album needs to justify it (like having an overarching narrative/some other sort of progression, or a lot of variety). An hour of standalone songs is just a bit too long for me. And it's not like the songs here are impressive. Don't get me wrong, they're pretty good overall, but aside from The Champ, none of them are all that memorable. I would rather artists make shorter releases but focus more on quality. And interludes... Don't, just don't. 7/10

This album is quite unique in a way that all the interruptions, jokes, bickering, and audience reactions are left in on purpose. And although I'd usually prefer the recording to be as clean as possible, it's hard to deny that all the imperfections add quite a bit of charm to it. That being said, I just don't get what people like about vocals. No matter how much I listen, I don't understand what I'm supposed to be finding in vocal-based music. I like vocals to be just another instrument, not completely take over the song. For me, it makes the music so much less interesting and engaging, especially when the songs are as monotonous as these ones. I just don't get how I am supposed to like music there only one "instrument" is good and all the others just support it when there's music there every instrument is good simultaneously. 5/10

Fun indie rock. There's not much more to say. It's pretty good, but lacks some extra punch, so I can't say it's great. To be honest, I don't really get the hype around Pixies' first two albums. They’re not impressive at all. 7/10

Just like My War, Damaged has horrible production. That being said, I prefer this album over My War because it's significantly more fun and energetic. But just like My War, it's way too simplistic to my taste, and where Dead Kennedys, for example, have been able to compensate with just how incredibly fun their vocals are, the vocals here are just fine, I guess. One song here (TV Party) even has a similar vibe, but the rest are quite a bit different, so I didn't like them as much. Still a good album, but there are other ones that do the same better. 7/10

First of all, this is one of the most sick cover arts I've seen... and second of all, the music is almost on par. I was not expecting much from this album as I don't have a great tack record with pop rock, but wow, was I impressed. Finally, pop rock that actually does its job well! Despite the sad name, it's a bunch of fun songs with simple but great riffs and vocals. It's a bit on the longer side but manages to hold up well. This is what pop music supposed to be. Sorry, Blur, I was not familiar with your game.

This might seem like blasphemy, but I'm not a huge fan of Radiohead. I don't really understand the universal praise they get and have always found their music a little... unsatisfying? I can't explain what exactly I don't like about their music. Not that it's bad, I just think that it could've been better. It's one step from great, it's a little unresolving, if that makes sense, and The Bends is no exception. I feels like it's 50% great, but the other 50% are just fine. Yeah, I don't know, just think some parts here a little boring. I might come around to enjoying Radiohead eventually, but the time is not now, it seems. 7/10

The title track is a generational banger, and I like it as much as I did the first time I heard it. However, the other songs here are kind of more of the same but have less energy, less memorable lyrics, slightly worse riffs, and slightly worse solos. It's a really fun first listen, but the tracks just blend together—not a lot of replayability here. 7/10

Although I do like atmospheric music, this sort of calm, mellow, bittersweet songs are not exactly for me... but this album is such a vibe. It's so well produced and feels incredibly nice. Even despite the fact that I prefer more exciting music, outside of Radio Cure and War on War, I like every song here.

I like most songs here, but I can't say I love any of them. Prince is a good vocalist, and the production is great. But the songs are too empty and drawn out. It also doesn't justify its length. I would've preferred to have less but more dense and less monotonous songs.

A perfectly adequate rock album. It's nothing special and certainly has some filler, but it doesn't have any tracks I would call bad, and overall it's pretty decent. 7/10

I actually... love this? With experimental music, I feel like you often either love it or hate it. And this is right up my alley. It mostly consists of repetitive drums and samples and frantic vocals, but they're occasionally interrupted by amazing riffs and melodies. I think this album strikes a perfect balance between being atmospheric and exciting, and I actually enjoy this kind of approach a lot. It didn't overstayed its welcome and was never boring. The only song I didn't really like was Charlotte, but it's only 2 minutes. Definitely not the finest work of experimental rock I've heard but great nonetheless.

Sonic Youth is one of a number of well-regarded indie rock bands I just don't understand the appeal of. This album is such a nothing burger. It has a couple of great parts, but it’s mostly just pretty boring. I really like their vocalists, which is impressive considering that I'm usually indifferent to vocals, but they were underutilized here. It's not "atmospheric" or "fun," like I've seen it being described—just kind of underwhelming. 5/10

Indie rock is a genre that's just fundamentally not for me. I don't like simplistic music, and unless it's something rhythmically complex (like post-rock or totalism), it tends to be boring. Funeral, however, despite its melancholic tone, doesn't have a single boring song. I can't say what separates it from the competition—maybe it's the chamber music elements, maybe the amount of passion its performed with, or something else—but what I do know is that Funeral is a great album. I can't say I'm exactly impressed by anything here, but it's still an incredibly engaging listen with its fair share of bangers. It's what I would've liked all calm music to be—an easy listen that still manages to stay fun despite its relaxing nature.

Wasn't expecting it to go this hard. As someone who enjoys instruments and doesn't care much about vocals, country and its branches are naturally not exactly my thing. But the instrumentation here has this spacey, almost progy vibe, which I love a lot since 70s prog is, like, peak music in my eyes. Although this is not as vocals-forward as country tends to be, it is still singer-songwriter country rock, but it's a lot more palpable for my ADHD brain.

The beginning of this album is good, like, really good. Just purely optimized to be as fun as possible and nothing else, which I appreciate. Fantastic loud, fast-paced, headbanging riffs and exciting vocal. But after that, Apocalypse Dudes just doesn't go anywhere else. The rest of the album is more of the same but a little worse: less energetic, less engaging. It just becomes stale and monotonous after a while. I still liked all the songs here, but the album had set my exceptions way too high in the beginning and then delivered something that's still good but slightly worse than what I was promised. 7/10

It's hard for me to evaluate this one because there's just nothing in this album that appeals to me. No hate to Dylan's writing or vocals, but I don't care much for them; and the instruments are... there... I can't say there's anything offensive about Blonde on Blonde (aside from maybe the occasional ear-piercing harmonica parts—not all of them are, just most...), but there's also nothing I love about it. There are a couple of songs here that I would consider decent (namely, Memphis Blues Again, which is quite good, actually), but apart from that, It's a bit of a slog and pretty underwhelming for me since my music taste is too far from this. 5/10

Instrumentation tends to be an afterthought in a lot of folk music, and as someone who doesn't enjoy vocals, that puts most of the genre outside of my interests. But seeing a folk album that puts great emphasis on the instruments, and that are not the western-style ones I'm used to and don't particularly enjoy, feels great. Sure, it's repetitive, but when the repeating part sounds this good, it doesn't really matter. Also, hats off to the production team. Both the instruments and vocals sound extremely clean, and the noise floor that frequently sours the experience of chill folk records is almost nonexistent (apart from the first half of track 6, for some reason). I know nothing of the culture this comes from and don't understand the language, but the vibes here are immaculate. It's lush and dreamy and pleasant to the ear. This is a relaxing, feel-good record done extremely well. This kind of style is not exactly for me (I enjoy louder, more layered sound), but although I wasn't blown away, I can't say I wasn't surprised by how much I enjoyed this.

Bands in the 60s were really competing in who can make the most mid pop rock album, huh? I mean, you can listen to this if you want to, but why would you choose this over something that actually tries to be good? It's not like it's bad or boring or anything, and it's pretty short. But it's not designed to stand out—just not to alienate anyone. This is not going to be anyone's favorite album unless you have some sort of nostalgia to it because there's just nothing impressive here. It's understimulating, unsatisfying, and aggressively fine.

It's... listenable, I guess? This is the type of music you would hear playing from ceiling speakers at a restaurant or something. And how often do you pay attention to that? This is not really my thing. There are some moments here that I like (mostly the saxophone parts towards the end of tracks 1 and 3), but it's most pretty underwhelming. 5/10

I would not call this your typical pop rock album because, unlike most pop rock bands, Oasis are at least trying to make something good here. Are they succeeding? Well, yeah? Sort of? This feels like a lesser version of The Smashing Pumpkins' best records: Noisy alt-rock mixed together with quieter, more personal acoustic songs, but with worse riffs, solos, and writing; less eclectic and energetic. This is the kind of album that makes me wish I used the out-of-100 rating system instead. In 95% of the cases, I infinitely prefer the out-of-10 scale because it's the most accurate system I can use without my executive dysfunction murdering me. But the gap between scores in it is not narrow enough to describe "this is, like, 10% better than that other album I'd heard." And Morning Glory is about 10% better than an average pop rock album. It's not the most groundbreaking stuff the genre has to offer, but considering the fact that a lot of pop rock is scientifically crafted to be the most mid music humanity could feasibly come up with at that point in history, this is an improvement. A marginal one, but still. It feels like they had some good things going for them—some solid riffs, some catchy choruses—but then a producer came in and said, "What if this 42-year-old Christian stay-at-home mother of two from Birmingham finds this too loud? We can't have that!" and they had to dial it down a little. And this is essentially what holds most of pop back—the fact that the artists are forced to sacrifice creativity in favor of mass appeal because that's what the shareholders want. I can almost assuredly tell you that they’d wanted to go full shoegaze-mode at a couple of points, but the invisible yet powerful hand of Capital said that that way, Wonderwall wouldn’t become every acoustic guitar player’s sleep paralysis demon, so we got what we got. Still, Morning Glory is definitely not the most soulless corporate music I've heard. I think they had good ideas but failed to realize them to their full potential. This is definitely not a bad album, but it feels like it had a solid foundation that went somewhat underutilized. Like I've said before, it's 10% better than an average pop rock album. And since an average pop rock album, in my experience, is around a 6, let's round it up and say this is a 7. But it's a pretty weak 7. 7/10

Not a huge fan of the three short tracks here (they're not bad or anything, just not that interesting), but the long ones are nothing short of fantastic. If this album were just these three songs, if would be a 9. WAR combine elements of funk, soul, and jazz in a very effective way to create these incredibly fun, catchy, and atmospheric tunes. The shorter songs hold the album back a little, but they don't ruin the experience.

Not much to say. Pretty basic but fun alternative rock. Not much to criticize and not much to praise. Very consistent, cohesive, catchy, and decent all around. I like alt-rock, so I'm probably rating this a bit higher than it realistically deserves. 7/10

It's pretty good but a bit basic. It's not as energetic or riff-driven as hard rock tends to be, but despite that being the main reason I like the genre in the first place, Who's Next is never boring. It's just doesn't do anything unique or that exciting. 7/10

When discussing art, I don't usually care about the political views of the artists as it is largely irrelevant to the quality of their work. Like, conservative comedians are bad at comedy not because of their views but because they lack the sharp, absorbing mind comedy requires, which is also the reason they arrived at these views in the first place. But everything has its limits. And for someone as outspokenly terrible as Kid Rock, there's no excuse. My judgment for the music of this racist bitch, who’s raging for the machine directly through his work, is always going to be clouded the same way it is, for example, for Kanye's music or Mold Lady's writing. My morals would simply not allow me to stop thinking about the vile shit they have said and done. But at the same time, I also don't feel bad for potentially misrepresenting them, so I guess that doesn't really matter since Kid Rock and his ilk don't deserve any sympathy in the first place. That all being said, this album is... not terrible. Despite the fact that there isn't a single song I would consider good, there's a surprising amount of decent riffs, and the lyrics, although cringey, are mostly not obnoxious. The biggest crime this album is committing (besides being made by Kid Rock) is that it's just forgettable. Outside of the chorus of the opening track, everything else is pretty bland and monotonous (I don't think the flow changes a single time)... but not awful. This was before "owning the libs" became Kid Rock's entire personality, but all the lyrics here are the same basic edgy, boastful stuff about how "cool" he supposedly is, how much he supposedly parties, and how many women he supposedly fucks. I mean, this is the same guy who started a boycott of a beer company because the art on the can was forcing him to look at a woman, so take out of it what you will. Funnily enough, Eminem, who also failed to grow out of the same era of "dark" and "offensive" lyrics, is also on this album (not that his contribution is significant). He's probably the poster child of that style of writing, but unlike Kid Rock, Eminem could sort of write and definitely could rap, and seems to be a decent person (citation needed). Yeah, I was expecting a lot worse. Devil Without a Cause is not unlistenable and even has its moments, but it's very basic, occasionally cringey, and a bit too long. 5/10

Oh boy. Here we go, an album I can't come up with a reasonable defense for... I've always been an advocate of approaching art patiently. I think if you don't finish something because it is "boring," you don't get to have an opinion about it because you haven't engaged with the art in its intended way. You don't get to judge the quality of the whole movie if you stopped watching halfway through because you thought that the prologue was too boring. To assess its merit, you first need to know what it was building up towards. If someone were to ask me to create a long list of my favorite songs, probably 80% or even more of it would consist of tracks that are over 10 minutes long. Longer formats give musicians more room for artistic expression, let them paint a more full, bigger picture. By not being confined by time restrictions, they're not forced to be eloquent and can fill the composition with as much detail as they want. Of course, you can't expect a 20-minute song to be structured like a pop track. The parts will have to be longer, and there's going to be more of them. This almost inevitably leads to the emergence of more low-key or even "boring" parts. But isn't this a problem? If some part is boring, doesn't it bring the whole song down? Well, in the case of long-form music, not necessarily. If I'm listening to something like GY!BE of Swans, the low-key parts are not going to bother me since I know that somewhere in the song, there is a part that is going to blow me away with it's sheer sonic power. Although this sort of minimalistic, quieter, more relaxed composition would usually be a problem for me, in this specific case, it is actually a benefit because it helps to establish atmosphere and build up anticipation before a huge reveal. A good build up enhances the crescendo by rewarding patience. This is what makes me like long songs so much. In a typical pop or EDM song, before the chorus or the drop—the part that is supposed to be the most hype—you'll get, like, 30 seconds, maybe a minute, of build up. It just never hits that hard. Even when it's not bad, I never stop thinking that, compared to long-form songs, they fail to appropriately build anticipation. The composition of the song doesn’t do enough to make me hyped up for the drop—the vibes are just not there. It is certainly not impossible to achieve a similar effect in a shorter time frame. Off the top of my head, one example would be Fade to Black by Metallica. Before arriving at arguably one of the best riffs ever written, the songs spends 2 minutes on build up that does its job incredibly well. Still, although short build ups can be good, the strongest ones are always longer. But how does this all relate to Lady in Satin? Well, that’s precisely the problem—it doesn’t. It doesn’t have any huge or impactful parts. Neither the instruments nor the vocals are going for anything catchy or interesting. Nothing stands out, there’s no build up, nothing to anticipate, and nothing to get excited about. There’s nothing to catch your attention. You can be patient and sit through it (like I did), but there’s no reward. This is worse than elevator music, because elevator music is at least trying to be pleasant. Imagine an album that consists entirely of the boring parts of long songs—it is meaningless since the entire purpose is build up. It’s not underwhelming—it’s just not “whelming” at all. This album is completely devoid of fun. Even before I started listening to music, I sort of knew that vocal jazz would be at the absolute bottom tier of my preferences. This kind of music doesn’t attract me at all. I hate this slow and brooding style of vocals and instruments with no meaningful variation of tone or volume throughout the songs; no crescendos and barely any accents to break the monotony. Since then, I've learned that there's perhaps a bit more to this genre than I'd originally given it credit for, but I doubt that there's anything that would make me like it. This is just something that is fundamentally not for my taste. My ADHD brain simply can't handle something SO understimulating. Lady in Satin is the absolute embodiment of everything I dislike about vocal jazz with not a single thing that would've made it a little bit more palpable for me. It doesn’t feature anything I typically enjoy about music. Although it’s not offensive in any way—it’s not going to blow your ears out or have any tonally unpleasant sounds—it is boring to an utterly absurd degree. I know this probably reads like an angry rant, but it’s really not. I’m not angry. I just think that this is an extremely boring album—that’s it. Music is meant to be entertaining, and in my opinion, this is simply not. On an unrelated note, this is the second vocal jazz album I've heard that uses the word "gay" at least once... I'm starting to think it might've meant something different in the 50s...

Black Sabbath is a great testament to just how far solid hard rock songwriting can get you. They might not have the most technically impressive or detailed sound, but by god, are these riffs and solos ever satisfying. Add some spice in the form of a little bit of extra heaviness, and you’ll get one of the most celebrated bands in rock (and metal) history (and for good reason). This particular album, though, is a bit inconstant and stylistically all over the place, but the highs are so high that I'm willing to forgive FX... but only begrudgingly.

Was not expecting to like this, especially not this much. Usually this kind of music would not be for me, but this is a rare example of a chill and soothing folk album that manages to stay fun the whole way through. It doesn't leave instrumentation in the gutter, it's not repetitive or monotonous, and all the crescendos here a extremely well made (the title track and The Boxer are so damn good). This is just a very pleasant and enjoyable listen. Wasn't a huge fan of the more laid-back song here as they're pretty much typical American folk that I find boring, but there are only a couple of those, so this is still a great album. This is not the kind of music I see myself returning to often, but I enjoyed the experience a lot.

This is pretty good, actually. It's an extremely clean and well produced album that doesn't lack in ideas. Abbaon Fat Tracks has probably the single most horny rhyme scheme I've heard, and I love it. But it's too simple and repetitive for my taste, so I liked it but wasn't over the moon about it. 7/10

Fun, energetic, passionate blues rock. Just how I like it, but nothing groundbreaking... And Mercedes Benz is also there, I guess...

Blur's self-titled is their first attempt at evolving their sound and moving away from britpop. As such, this album feels more like a mish-mash of different styles than a coherent listen, with some parts being more successful than other. Although I'm not a huge fan of the more lo-fi sound they went with here, I don't hate anything about this album and actually like most of the songs. But its inconsistency definitely bring the experience down. 7/10

This is fine... I guess? It's not a bad album, it's just not that interesting and pretty outdated. It's not boring, but I didn't feel anything when listening to it. This sort of chill, easy-listening rock is not my thing, and this album doesn't do enough to differentiate itself from all the other similar ones.

A wonderfully produced concept album that unfortunately goes for a vibe I don't care for at all. It's hard for me to come up with any criticism for this album. It has great, detailed, lush production with fantastic vocals. I think it's really good. The only problem that ruins that whole experience for me is that I don't like this pastoral, lively vibe. As a person who hates everything about the countryside, I obviously find the atmosphere this album presets significantly less romantic than Brian Wilson. It is also almost entirely vocal-focused—the vocals are on the top of the mix in most songs—and since I don't particularly enjoy vocals, this is another point that brings this album down for me. Yeah, I think Smile is a great album that just happens to combine a couple of things I don't enjoy, therefore ruining the experience for me.

It's high-budget, well-produced pop rock. It's perfectly fine and listenable, but it's not trying to be good—and it's not. Kind of basic and a bit uninspiring but adequate.

Definitely a fun album with a nice vibe, but at the same time, that's nothing especially interesting or exciting about this. I enjoyed listening to it, but nothing stood out, and I don't think I'm going to return to it. 7/10

I don't hate this, but this is not that different from other American folk from that time, which I don't really like. It's too minimalistic, too monotonous, and not that exciting. On its own, the music is solid, but the style is just not for me. 5/10

As awful as Morrissey is as a person, this is just a collection of very solid pop songs. I don't think this says much, but this is a very well made and pleasant-sounding pop rock album—inoffensive but not to the point of being uninspired or boring. There's nothing groundbreaking here or anything that appeals to my particular tastes, but every song, by all accounts, is pretty good. 7/10

I loved how massive the beginning of this album sounded, but then it lost a great deal of its epicness, which soured the experience for me. The first four and the last track are great and pretty unique. They're overproduced but not to the point of sounding noisy or chaotic and are just extremely loud and anthemic, which I really enjoyed. All the other tracks mostly sound like Radiohead songs... and I'm not a huge fan of Radiohead. They're not bad or anything, but I was disappointed that most of the energy was lost in favor of just sounding like another band—and a band I'm not big on at that. 7/10

Has really cool ideas and some fun, unique trippy parts, but half of the tracks feel like filler, with how simplistic and repetitive they are. Eventually the album stars to drag a little.

This is probably a cringe analogy, but since I don't care about vocals, finding a great pop album is like a legendary gacha pull for me. I find one at a rate of about one a year... and I guess this year is now locked in. When I heard the first track, I thought there was no way any other song here would be on the same level, but then it just kept going. This album could be carried by atmosphere alone. I think it goes for a similar vibe to Japanese city pop, but unlike most city pop, actually achieves it. It's smooth, jazzy, and lush in a best possible way, with even some elements of rock sprinkled in when it's most appropriate. This is not my preferred atmosphere (I like something more heavy or energetic), but the effectiveness of the way this album achieves it deserves praise. And the production is just unmatched. This is one of the most clean and well produced albums I've ever heard, with its incredibly orchestral arrangements and vocals that, instead of overpowering the instruments like it usually is in pop, actually add something to the composition and sound fantastic. 9/10

Radiohead is a unique band. I feel like no musical act combines commercial and critical success like they do. They make weird, experimental music that somehow has mass appeal. It seems like everyone loves them, but for some reason, I consistently fail to understand why. Even though I already decided that I’m not a fan of their music a long time ago, this overwhelming praise makes me relisten to Ok Computer, Kid A, and In Rainbows on a semi-regular basis in case I start to “get” them someday. And here I am, sitting down to listen to Kid A again, thinking, like the clown I am, “This time for sure”… And for what seems like a hundredth time, I once again can only come up with a single compliment—it’s good… But that’s kind of it. I don’t think I’m weird for thinking that Radiohead’s popularity makes no sense. They’re not making music to appeal to the masses and constantly experiment with their sound. Their songs are sophisticated and artsy, and you can’t dance to them. Like, this is the last band among the ones that don’t make their sound repulsive on purpose you’d expect to be popular. Yet they are. Radiohead make unusual music, but I wouldn’t call it challenging. They’re kind of a gateway drug into experimental music, but since a lot of the experimental stuff tends to be significantly more abrasive than Radiohead, most of their fans don’t seem to move past them. I'm certainly not inclined to call Radiohead fans pretentious losers (that would be friendly fire), but I get the impression that at least some of them say they like the band only because everyone else seems to. This is not meant as an insult to Radiohead fans. I don’t think liking them necessarily says something about your character, nor am I trying to spew some elitist bullshit about what bands people can’t like to not seem stupid to me (unless the band in question is, like, Imagine Dragons or something). Radiohead is just not a band I would expect to be popular, so the praise they get seems somewhat inflated to me. There probably is not an insignificant amount of people that conditioned themselves into enjoying them significantly more than they otherwise would have after seeing the overwhelmingly positive reviews. But I might totally be projecting, since the reason I constantly return to Radiohead is because the reviews totally conditioned me into feeling I’m missing something. There’s also not a single band I’m aware of that even remotely replicates the feel of Radiohead, and that may also be a factor. I don’t know for sure. And the thing is, I don’t really understand why I’m not a fan of them. I like well-produced atmospheric experimental music, so they should be right up my alley. But somehow they’re not. Maybe it’s the focus on vocals, maybe it’s the dark, melancholic vibe. There’s not a single thing I can point at and confidently say, “That’s what ruins it.” This is especially true for Kid A, which is my favorite Radiohead album. The music here is good, even occasionally amazing. I like every song here, except that ambient one, but we don’t talk about that (and if you like it, I get it—I also think sex is kinda gross). Everything In Its Right Place is a fantastic album opener, and its first few notes have been stuck in my head since the first time I heard it; the lyrics of Optimistic and the melody of In Limbo are so unbelievable memorable; even the more industrial sound of Idioteque somehow appeal to me besides the fact that I don’t like electronic music that much; and The National Anthem is quite possibly one of the best songs I’ve ever heard. With this album more than any other one from them, I feel like it’s going to “click” eventually, but it’s been so long that I’m not that sure anymore. Radiohead’s songs are anything but forgettable, but at the same time, most of them are not that fun for me. I can appreciate the effort and talent that went into creating this; I get that probably some very specific mood I've apparently never been in would make this the most ethereal experience ever. But I just don't enjoy it that much on its own merit. I don't fully get it and don't know why. I can with utmost confidence say that this is good music, but for me, it doesn't cross the line of being something truly special. Okay, Radiohead... next time for sure... 7/10

Most songs here are a little bland and forgettable, but California Dreamin'... holy shit, what a masterpiece of a pop song. I don't hate this album, but there's just nothing that interesting here, and it's pretty outdated. At least it's short... 5/10

As much as I agree with the sentiment that this album marked the beginning of the downfall of Metallica's songwriting and a shift towards a more soft, "mainstream" sound, I wouldn't count this album as a part of that downfall as it is, not unlike their previous ventures, great. Despite the fact that the Black Album, in my opinion, has nothing on Master of Puppets or Ride the Lightning, it is still filled with incredibly catchy, groovy riffs and Hetfield's satisfying vocals. Nothing here is revolutionary or boundary pushing, but it's not meant to be. Similar to something like Painkiller (although, in my opinion, not quite as powerful), it goes for this simple, catchy, headbanging metal fun and achieves it with great success. Although something tells me that the thing that had prompted Metallica to drop thrash was how hard they got mogged by Megadeth's Rust in Peace in that department. But who knows. Also, why one of the tracks called Don't Tread on Me and the libertarian snake is on the cover? I'm not gonna google it just in case in means what I think it means... Rebellion is when you advocate for a system where corporations abuse people and the government can't do anything to stop them...

This is the kind of album that is very good, I know is very good, but can't fully appreciate because it's not my kind of vibe. I know that it goes for this dreamy, ethereal atmosphere, and it also achieves it really well. But this type of sound is not really my thing. Even when listening to atmospheric music, I prefer it being more varied and exciting. Dream pop, however, is by definition very soft and monotonous, which is just not that fun for me. In short, Heaven or Las Vegas achieves its goal extremely well, but I'm not a huge fan of that goal; however, it's the quintessential dream pop album, and if you like that kind of sound, you'll like this. 7/10

A bit too simplistic and low-energy for my taste, but overall all the songs sound nice. Can’t say anything bad about them; I'm just not particularly thrilled. 7/10