This album is incredible on a couple of levels. First, it is an actually great pop rock record (which is akin to a unicorn sighting already considering how oversaturated and unimaginative this genre is). And second, this little man made me care about vocals, which only a select few albums could do. You know, it's surprising to me how little fun music a genre that is supposedly all about catchiness produces. Most pop rock bands focus so much on trying to produce something that as inoffensive as possible that they forget to make it interesting. And unfortunately, considering how many successful pop rock bands there are, this strategy seems to work. Some of the most catchy music I've heard unironically comes from prog rock, which has the opposite of pop rock's philosophy of simplicity. Why? Because there’s a lot more artistic expression in that genre. Instead of following the norms, they break them if that means creating better art. I don't know, maybe 4/4 songs mathematically engineered to be the most basic shit ever because statistics tell that that's what an average Joe likes is not that fun for someone who listens to more music than just what comes up on radio. I'm not trying to be snobby, but it's just frustrating to me how little effort some popular bands put into their music and still remain successful. This album, however, is nothing alike. This is some of the most fun and exciting music I've ever heard. This is what the genre is supposed to be like but unfortunately isn't. I also don't find vocals all that fun, which is another huge discrepancy between me and an average listener. But Prince's singing is just so good on this record that I couldn't not pay attention to it. Such horny writing usually makes me cringe a bit, but Prince delivers it with such electrifying passion that it almost makes me believe that he's actually straight. Even through I have no interest in the subject matter this album presents, there's so much energy seeping through Prince's vocals that it's nothing short of contagious. There's a couple of laid back songs on this album that are not quite on the same level with the best bangers here, in my opinion, but even they have something to love about them, like that incredible screaming part in The Beautiful Ones, which a pretty mediocre track outside of that (yes, actual extreme vocals on a pop album). Honestly, what a ride. 9/10

Montana Song is way too epic for a Disney princess introduction. To be honest, I kinda dig this. Definitely not my type of music, but it's just so lush and pleasant. This feels like cozy fantasy music (especially the last song, which is beautiful, by the way), except the fantasy land is, like, America (not that different, I know). Too much on the slower side for me, though. 7/10

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

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.

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

I don't like pop. I never have. My distaste towards pop is what essentially got me into music. When exposed to popular music, I used to think, "No way all of it is this bad, right?" And thankfully, after digging a bit deeper, I found out that there's a huge amount of artist that are driven by the pursuit of artistic expression and not profit incentives. I feel like most pop albums I liked appeal to me despite being pop. If your main motivation for creating is to make a product to be sold to a wide audience, it will only result in good art accidentally. Pop albums are usually professionally produced but completely lack soul. This genre is popular because it's inoffensive and specifically created not to alienate anyone instead of trying to create something interesting. The wider audiences don't want good music—they want accessible music. All of this is completely fine, by the way. I don't think that pop is harmful to music. If anything, exposing more people to the art form brings more potential musicians into the scene, and at least some of them are gonna stay for the love of the game and not money. I'm just a little frustrated by the fact that a lot of people seem to think that popular equals good, which is demonstrably untrue (and anyone who disagrees I challenge to sit through a single Ed Sheeran album). Not all pop is bad, of course (just most is), but enforcing strict boundaries on your artistic expression just to make sure that as much people like your output is certainly not helping make better art (I know this doesn't apply to all sub-genres of pop, but it should be obvious by now that I'm talking about pop of the corporate variety people like Taylor Swift make). I'm also not trying to shame anyone for liking pop. Most people just listen to whatever radio or the algorithm serves them, and nobody should be forced to exert effort to "understand" what "good" music sound like. I'm not gonna think less of you if you're convinced that Imagine Dragons produce straight bangers (well, maybe a little), and to think this is acceptable behavior is ridiculous. Despite what my affinity towards yapping sessions may tell you, I don't actually think it's that deep. This album, however, is a bit more unique, in a sense that despite being a pop record from the beginning to the end, it doesn't stick to a single sub-genre. It's not as monotonous as most of the records in the sea of corporate music. What we have instead is a sort of smorgasbord of slop, each song equally as uncreative and uninteresting but in their unique ways (except Oh Father—this song is actually good). Rock slop, dance-slop, slop soul, baroque slop, and even psychedelic slop—we got them all here! But the uninspired nature of this album doesn't let this fact help. And although half of the songs are fine, the other is very boring, probably because of the extremely generic vocals and dull writing, making the experience of listening through it a little tedious. 5/10

Some songs here are not that good and pretty boring (and at least one with very poor production), but the rest, especially in the later half, are quite catchy and entertaining. There's nothing impressive here and the quality is a bit inconsistent, but overall I had fun listening to this album. 7/10

Post-punk is like pop rock's younger, slightly less ugly sibling, in my experience. Like, it's sometimes fun, sometimes catchy, and there are some bangers made within the genre (Joy Division), but most of it makes me feel absolutely nothing. War is kinda more of the same. Can't say it's bad, but I'm largely indifferent to the music here. I also don't like the production that much. It sounds clean, sure, but it's so thin and weak.

To be honest, I like this album more than Thriller. The exceptional production is still there, but I think Off the Wall has less dead moments and filler (there's still some, though). It's more energetic, and the instrumentation is better, in my opinion. It's a simple but fun, catchy, and memorable album.

The first 4 songs are very good, but the rest is on the boring side. I don't know why they switched the style on the B-side, but if they continued doing the same they had been doing on the A-side, the album would've been much better. It's still fine, through, just disappointing.

This is certainly in the better half of 60s' pop rock, but at this point, considering how far rock has evolved past that, this style is so outdated that I can't imagine preferring this over some more modern alternatives. Also, stereo... I hate aggressive use of stereo. 7/10

I like the writing and the rhythmic beats and flow, but there's just nothing special about this album. If you want some chill hip hop, this is perfect, but that's not what I prefer this genre to sound like. I like something more energetic and aggressive (yes, I like pretty much the same stuff most white hip hop fans like, sue me). This album is a bit to repetitive for me: There is not enough iterations within tracks, or the same iterations repeat with some regularity. Good album, not really my vibe. 7/10

There's nothing all that special about this album, but I'm just very partial to this style of hard rock. It's fun and energetic with a bunch of catchy riffs and passionate vocals. Really enjoyed it.

Way to minimal and repetitive for my taste. Every song is pretty much one chord progression repeated over and over again with minimal differences and some extra sound effects and vocals on top. They're not bad or anything, but I prefer music to be more detailed, varied, and exciting—and this is just not that. It's fine but would've been boring if it were longer than 30 minutes.

This is totally a hot take, but I prefer SOAD's debut over Toxicity. Don't get me wrong, I think Toxicity is conceptually and lyrically superior... but this one is just so fun. Seriously, this is one of the most engaging album I've ever heard. Every song is amazing. It has a bunch of incredible riffs with the most perfect alt-metal guitar tone, and, despite being a metal fan, Serj Tankian is one of the very few extreme vocalists I actually like (not that I hate extreme vocals; they're just not for me—I tolerate them, but almost never prefer). I'll never grow tired of this album as it has almost no downtime. Every song is a constant onslaught of some of the most satisfying metal out there. 9/10

Can't really say much about this album. Fun, engaging songs structures, interesting guitar work with some epic moments, good vocals. Great album, but nothing impressive—I just love hard rock.

Not really my vibe. It's fine but lacks energy and excitement, in my opinion. This is just background music.

She has a pretty good voice, but every song on this album is so basic and uninteresting. This the stuff you hear on your car radio. Sure, the music is playing, but you only occasionally remember that it's there just because nothing catches your ear. And the entirety of this album is that. Although I don't think it's bad, I don't really see a reason to go out of my way to listen to this. The title track is pretty nice, though. 5/10

Pink Floyd's best album (in my opinion) and one of my favorite albums of all time. A flawlessly executed work. Shine On You Crazy Diamond is genuinely one of the greatest songs ever conceived, and all other songs except Welcome to the Machine slap (it's not bad, I just don't really like the vocals, and the synths are a bit too much). It's not quite a 10/10 for me since “smooth” music like this is not really my thing and I like something more energetic, but it's extremely close. I'm totally nitpicking, by the way. It's a phenomenal album, but it doesn't suit my tastes as well as some others. 9/10

I don't really know what to say about this. It's not bad, it's not good. It's not fun, it's not boring. Just completely unremarkable and average.

What originally turned me away from hip hop is that a lot of rap artists had seemed to hard-focus on lyrics and put pretty much all the other aspects of music production on the back burner. As someone who's a lot more fond of instrumentation than vocals and doesn't like analyzing lyrics all that much, for the longest time, I thought that rap was something that I'll never be able to get into. I've since learned that this approach to hip hop production is not at all universal. There's a lot of hip hop, especially in the last couple of decades, with more detailed and engaging (at least for me) instrumentals and more variety in lyrical delivery. But a lot of modern hip hop and most of the older hip hop still consists of basic, rhythmic, repetitive beats and flows with not much variation, of which I'm not huge fan. This album is definitely of the more "traditional" variety. The tracks here are not bad, but none of them excite me. Like, I didn't mind this album playing in the background—the beats and the rapping are solid—but nothing about it made interested in paying more attention. This album is just pretty generic and not that imaginative. But if you're into this style, I can totally see you enjoying this far more than me. Cool J is a good rapper (can't really talk about the lyrics because I didn't pay a lot of attention to them), and the production is pretty clean. But this minimalistic approach is not for me. This album is fine, but it's not something I would consider relistening. There's a lot of hip hop I like, and none of it follows this formula.

60s' pop rock being 60s' pop rock with the added benefit of horrible use of stereo. Not terrible but outdated and quite boring.

Extremely basic and extremely outdated. It's not bad by any means, but music has evolved so much past this. Compared to the options we have right now, this is just underwhelming. But it's very short, so that's nice, I guess. 5/10

It's crazy to think that in the 70s, when synthesizers first started to widely appear in music, the prog bands got it right pretty much immediately, but the rest, for some reason, up until pretty much the 90s had... this... This album is fine, but it's early synthpop, and it shows. It feels more like a proof of concept than a mature work, which is weird since we had had good synths a decade before that. It's too minimalistic for my tastes, and the instrumentation feels a little dry, especially in the second half. It's very much a product of it's time.

Along with The Beatles, The Jimi Hendrix Experience is another of the universally praised classic rock bands the appeal of whom I just don't get. I'm not denying Hendrix's skill or his influence, but, like, there's so much music right now that is just miles ahead of this, no? This album is good. The riffs are solid (despite the outdated production, but that's not really the band's fault), I like his voice, and the songwriting is catchy enough... But the amount of praise this album gets feels so inconsistent with it's actual quality, in my opinion. Maybe it was groundbreaking at the time, but I don't think it held up well. I write this after the third listen, and there certainly have been times when it took me even more to "get" an album, but I just don't see what to "get" here. It's solid. Don't understand the praise. 7/10

Not a fan of chill soul like this, but this is one of the better implementations that I've heard. Good vocals and pleasant melodic instrumentation. Definitely a bit too quiet and smooth for my taste, but that's just the genre. There isn't really anything to write home about, but a nice listen nonetheless. 7/10

This album is incredible on a couple of levels. First, it is an actually great pop rock record (which is akin to a unicorn sighting already considering how oversaturated and unimaginative this genre is). And second, this little man made me care about vocals, which only a select few albums could do. You know, it's surprising to me how little fun music a genre that is supposedly all about catchiness produces. Most pop rock bands focus so much on trying to produce something that as inoffensive as possible that they forget to make it interesting. And unfortunately, considering how many successful pop rock bands there are, this strategy seems to work. Some of the most catchy music I've heard unironically comes from prog rock, which has the opposite of pop rock's philosophy of simplicity. Why? Because there’s a lot more artistic expression in that genre. Instead of following the norms, they break them if that means creating better art. I don't know, maybe 4/4 songs mathematically engineered to be the most basic shit ever because statistics tell that that's what an average Joe likes is not that fun for someone who listens to more music than just what comes up on radio. I'm not trying to be snobby, but it's just frustrating to me how little effort some popular bands put into their music and still remain successful. This album, however, is nothing alike. This is some of the most fun and exciting music I've ever heard. This is what the genre is supposed to be like but unfortunately isn't. I also don't find vocals all that fun, which is another huge discrepancy between me and an average listener. But Prince's singing is just so good on this record that I couldn't not pay attention to it. Such horny writing usually makes me cringe a bit, but Prince delivers it with such electrifying passion that it almost makes me believe that he's actually straight. Even through I have no interest in the subject matter this album presents, there's so much energy seeping through Prince's vocals that it's nothing short of contagious. There's a couple of laid back songs on this album that are not quite on the same level with the best bangers here, in my opinion, but even they have something to love about them, like that incredible screaming part in The Beautiful Ones, which a pretty mediocre track outside of that (yes, actual extreme vocals on a pop album). Honestly, what a ride. 9/10

Some solid choruses and fun writing here and there, but nothing particularly special. Don't really care for the vocals, and instrumentation has that characteristic 60s' outdated, recessed sound, which I don't like. It takes a lot to make me care about a pop record, and although this album is fine, it doesn't do enough.

About on par with Heaven or Las Vegas but a bit more minimalistic. Similarly also, I can totally see why people enjoy this, but it's not really my thing. For atmospheric music, I would rather listen to post-rock or atmo-black metal; calm atmospheric music like dream pop/ethereal wave don't really do it for me. Shoegaze is pretty much a heavier version of dream pop, and I like it more also. This album is too relaxed and not very exciting, which I don’t really like. Still an enjoyable listen but didn’t blow me away. 7/10

This is a more "artsy" approach to pop, which I appreciate. Red Rain, Sledgehammer, and Big Time are great, extremely engaging songs. The vocals are fun, and the production is fantastic, with a wide, immersive soundstage that sounds big and busy yet clean at the same time... But the rest of the songs are just fine and dragged my experience down quite a bit. They're way too quite and way to "ambient" with barely any accents, which I'm not a fan of. And when Don't Give Up manages to stay exciting despite the somber tone, the rest... not so much. This album would've been much better if all the songs sounded more like the first two, in my opinion. 7/10

A garage rock album that's actually been recorder in a garage, it seems. God, that recording quality... Yes, most albums from the 60s sound terrible by today's standards (and are not made for headphones), and I don't usually complain about this, but this album is so awfully mixed and mastered and sounds so crusty and peaky and that actively destructing. Outside of that, this album is actually great. Chaotic, extremely fun, and energetic. It has a couple of slower songs that are not on par with the rest, but overall it’s still very enjoyable.

Pleasant, melodic music with fun vocals, and unlike a lot of 60s' rock, even well produced. Not really my thing, but I still enjoyed it. Nothing all that special as it's still pop rock–esque writing (with folk elements), but the execution is better than average, in my opinion. 7/10

County is one of the genres I don't see myself getting into. I certainly don't have a hate boner for it like a lot of people seem to, but the vibe nor the sound of country don’t appeal to me at all. This album is fine. But it's definitely not something I would relisten (or even listen on my own time in the first place). It's quiet, chill, and relaxing and is decent background music. If you enjoy this kind of vibe, then it's good, but it's not something I'm looking for in music.

I remember when I first heard Pantera in elementary school, I though this was the heaviest shit ever, and almost too heavy to bare. It's surprising to me how soft their music sounds now that I've listen to a lot more metal. I mean, it's still on the heavier side, but it's so far from some of the most heavy music out there. I find that when riffs are as slow as they are here, they need to be very heavy and groovy for me to like them, and this album, despite begin classified as groove metal, often delivers on neither of these aspects (there are still some good ones, through, like in This Love). The overall quality of the riffs is fine, but none of them blew my mind. Actually, the faster, thrashy songs here (Fucking Hostile, Rise) were my favorite by far, but these are the ones that divert the farthest from the rest of the album's soundscape, so it's not really a compliment. I don't know, I was expecting more.

I don't really like ABBA. They have some great songs, but on average, their music is whatever (which is typical for popular pop artists, to be honest). This album is no exception. I don't hate it, but it's just so unremarkable. For every artist, I would rather them release less music and focus on the quality. I don't care how much great music a band made combined over their albums; the most powerful experience is a single album with a very high concentration of bangers (compilations don't count since the songs in them were not originally designed to go together). ABBA can make good music, but their albums tend to have a couple of good songs (Dancing Queen, Knowing Me, Knowing You, and Money, Money, Money for this one specifically) and the rest is filler.

Chill, well-produced music that manages to stay engaging throughout the whole album is quite a rare experience for me since I prefer exciting music, but this is definitely it. I can't say there's anything that punches above the rest in this album (apart from that solo in Summer Breeze), but it sounds nice. 7/10

Just background music. Definitely not bad and has its moments, but most songs don't catch my attention with their pretty basic and repetitive melodies.

Not usually a fan of repetitive music, but the melodies and riffs here are great. This album has great atmosphere, and the fun vocals make it engaging. Even the 10-minute track is a bop all the way through (but especially towards the end).

Nothing particularly special, but it's just fun, energetic post-punk with fun melodies and vocals. Not amazing but has a fair bit of variety and pretty engaging overall. 7/10

Was not expecting to like this at all, let alone this much. I don't like chill, repetitive electronic music, but the atmosphere here is fantastic. The beats and melodies are so groovy and fun that the repetitions actually helped. And there was enough variety to keep me engaged for the entire hour of runtime. There isn't any songs that blew my mind, but their average quality is very high, and overall this album offers a pretty coherent experience. It also gets a bit too ambient for my taste towards the end, but otherwise, it's great.

I agree that the fact that RATM were signed to Sony kind of diminishes their message. I don't think it means that they don't actually agree with what they're saying and just grifting or whatever, but it is a strange decision nonetheless and shows that they at least don't have the Fugazi-level of dedication. I know that most discussions around RATM are centered around their politics (which is unsurprising considering the overtly political nature of their music). I personally listen to music just for entertainment and not political messaging. If I agree with the politics of an artist I already like, it just a sort of thing that makes me appreciate them even more but doesn’t necessarily matter otherwise. Someone like GY!BE, who have a grand total of zero words over all of their releases, having the words “Transphobes eat shit and die alone” strapped to one of their amps during shows (and their song and album titles, of course) certainly adds some sympathy points from me, but it doesn’t affect my enjoyment of their music in any way. And if the artist I like is a terrible person, my reaction is usually to just say “bummer” and move on. But no matter how compelling I or anyone else may find the message, I don't care if the music is shit... and the music of RATM's self-titled is decisively not shit. This album has some of the best riffs of any album I've heard. They're funky, groovy, and just incredibly engaging and powerful. This album is also a rare example of a metal record where bass plays a huge role and is not in the background the whole time, which I like a lot. I like the vocals too, but I would say they're probably the weakest part of the album. Not because they're bad but because all the other parts are just that good. The writing is more important here, but Zack certainly can't deliver the same amount of power as someone like Serj Tankian. Amazing album. Not perfect, but one I keep coming back to because these riff never get old. 9/10

Was ready to hear some basic pop rock slop, but was pleasantly surprised. As usual with pop rock, the slower and acoustic songs didn't leave any impression on me whatsoever, but there's only a couple of those here and the rest is pretty good. There are well-written, energetic riffs and melodies and fun vocals. Nothing out of this world but still fun. There are even some really good instrumental parts, which I really like. Solid album. 7/10

Radiohead is not for me. They make good music, but it just doesn't appeal to me. I don't know, maybe emotional music doesn't really affect me, and lyrical content is not something I care about much. It's too quiet, too melancholic, without many energetic parts. I wouldn't call their music boring, but I would still rather listen to something more exciting. I do like it, just don't love it like most people seem to. 7/10

Great, fantastically atmospheric album. Long but unique and with enough variety to stay interesting the whole time. The songs here are a bit low energy, which I’m not a huge fan of, but love this album either way.

I like the idea of symphonic metal; however, I usually find the execution lacking. I think metal is perfectly capable of creating huge-sounding, epic songs on its own, so adding orchestral arrangements tries to fix a problem the genre doesn't have. I also feel like Metallica’s strong suit is energy and groove and not epicness. The problem with this album is that it’s just Metallica songs with a layer of orchestral music added without much thought, when the songs were not originally intended to give off the vibe it adds. They do have some epic song like The Call of Ktulu or Master of Puppets, and they sound great on this album, but the original versions are already phenomenal, in my opinion, so I have a hard time calling this recording better. I still like this, though. Outside of the gimmick, this is still Metallica’s early music, of which I am a huge fan, but I don’t think the orchestra adds much to it, to be honest. It’s also too long. The novelty of the gimmick wears off pretty quickly, and the fact that it’s 2 hours long just drags the experience down. 7/10

Montana Song is way too epic for a Disney princess introduction. To be honest, I kinda dig this. Definitely not my type of music, but it's just so lush and pleasant. This feels like cozy fantasy music (especially the last song, which is beautiful, by the way), except the fantasy land is, like, America (not that different, I know). Too much on the slower side for me, though. 7/10

Samba-rock is a thing, I guess. Gotta love the humanity’s propensity to look at any genre and go, “How can we make rock out of this?” Not complaining. Wasn't expecting to like this album, but it pleasantly surprised me. It's chill yet incredibly fun, lush, and energetic music with an engaging atmosphere. I don't understand a word he's saying, but the vocal delivery is very passionate and endearing. There's nothing groundbreaking here, but I enjoyed it a lot.

This album certainly has some creative stuff, but for some reason, not enough punch. A lot of the songs feel like they're constantly building up towards something, and then just nothing happens. The hard rock tracks here have significantly more energy, but most of this album is not hard rock. These some very fun songs here (Overture, Christmas, The Acid Queen, Underture, Pinball Wizard, Go to the Mirror!), but others are just fine. Still enjoyed this album, but it definitely could've been better. 7/10

A sonically pretty dark post-hardcore album, which is usually not my thing, but this one managed to capture me with its satisfying rhythmic riffs and great drumming. Pretty much every song made me nod along to the rhythm, which is more than most albums can do. I really like when the drums are mixed so forward, especially when they're this good (Spiderland moment). I wish more rock records did that. Despite the sombre tone, this album still has a great deal of energy and is pretty engaging. I thought it was going to become stale after a while (which is what usually happens with dark post-hardcore, in my experience), but the atmosphere here was great and it stayed fun the whole time. This is a kind of record you put on high volume without much hesitation and enjoy the ride. I don't think there's a song that particularly stands out on this record. None of them are exceptional, but the average quality is very high.

A folk rock album with more forward instrumentation and detailed production than usual, which I like. Her voice is unique, and unlike a lot of folk rock, actually interacts with the instruments (not just accompanied by a monotonous guitar in the background). Nothing particularly impressive, and this album definitely has some downtime when the songs were too quiet for my liking, but better than average. 7/10

There are plenty things I like about this album when it comes to groovy instrumentation, rhythmic vocals, and writing (mainly in the first four songs), but it is overall still feels like background music. I know that it's supposed to be relaxing since it's reggae, but I just don't enjoy music that is this quiet and devoid of energy that much. Also, the first half is way better than the second one, and it's not even close.

Brian Eno’s music makes me irrationally angry. I feel like there’s so much unique and imaginative stuff in his work, but everything in between is just… whatever. Like, this album is so close to greatness, and the good moments are very good, but it doesn’t have good enough structure to hold them together, so I found myself just waiting for the next good part and not engaging with the music much. He experiments too much, so what ends up happening is that some songs are right ip my alley, and other are way outside of my taste. Also, since he’s the inventor of ambient music or whatever, a couple of ambient tracks had to be on here… and they’re pretty boring. It isn’t really Eno’s fault, thought. It’s just that ambient music is fundamentally incapable with my tastes. I like music to be more exciting, and that’s just not the point of ambient. 7/10

A "trust me, it gets better" album. It's like Tarkus, except the good part™ is at the end instead of the beginning. I gladly gave Tarkus a pass despite half of the album being meh because the title track, in my opinion, is exceptional. But here neither the big song nor even the filler is as good. The title track mostly consists of different solos played one after the other with little to no backing from the rest of the band, when, or course, as anyone who listens to jazz would tell you, the correct way of approaching this is playing all of them together at the same time. The solos themselves are pretty catchy, but there’s nothing holding them together, and the song sounds a bit dry. But overall I still like it. As for the rest of the songs, they are just... there? There's not much to them. It's very obvious that they were an afterthought and only put there to reach that album length. Are You Happy is alright, I guess.

The way rock albums were mastered in the 60s makes them extremely hard to enjoy, to be honest. No matter what the vibe the artists were going for, it all just sounds so recessed and lifeless. And it feels like that the moment the 70s came, everything started to sound fine, for some reason. Off the top of my head, the only technically good-sounding rock album from the 60s I remember is In the Court of the Crimson King, and it came out close to the end of '69. This particular album is fine. Nothing really special, and I forgot all the songs pretty much immediately after listening. Kind of bland but not bad at all, just not very interesting.

I knew I was going to like this the moment I read the genres and descriptors for this album on RYM, and unsurprisingly, I did. Great riffs, incredibly fun and engaging songs. Definitely not the peak of music, but this is a "dumb fun" album done extremely well.

The opening song is a banger, but the rest don't really do anything to stand out. I like the atmosphere of gothic rock and the pleasant vocals, but this album is a bit monotonous and becomes repetitive rather quickly. 7/10

Electronic music has a lot of potential since with electronic modulation tools you can make pretty much any sound imaginable. And since you don't have to know how to play any instrument, it is very welcoming for new artists. However, that accessibility (especially in the recent couple of decades) very quickly oversaturated the genre. I'm not the biggest fan of electronic music precisely because a lot of the artists don't seem to know what they're doing and use the simplest, most regurgitated compositions possible that for me, who used to listen to a lot of electronic music in my teenage years, became stale years ago. And even new trends tend to fall into the pit of mediocrity and self-cannibalization extremely quickly and ultimately fail to evolve (look at something like dubstep or, more recently, drift phonk). But when you encounter an artist who knows how to realize the potential of digital tools, you can discover some of the most interesting experimental music out there. This album is one of the examples. The highs here are very high. I like the satisfying bass and the heavy, noisy sound with constant switch-ups and, apart from one song, no vocals, which I prefer. However, not all of the the tracks are as good as some of the highlights. And that's my main problem with experimental music in general. Sure, some artists can go on for hours, but what usually ends up happening is that some ideas turn out to be a lot better (Genesis, Phantom, DVNO, Stress) than other (Let There Be Light, Waters of Nazareth, One Minute to Midnight). Still, although this album is no Discovery, it is extremely unique and fun. Definitely worth a listen.

Oh, it's the person who made Johnny Cash's most famous song! I don’t what it is about this album in particular, but most songs here are extremely memorable. Before relistening, I’d only heard it once a bit over a year ago. I’m terrible at remembering music, but here most songs almost immediately made me go, “Oh, I remember how it goes.” This is some really powerful noisy music that is produced so well that even on high volume, the loud parts are not painful. Despite being about 50% longer than an average album, it doesn't feel drown out; but the second half is quite a bit weaker than the first. It just slows down later on, with the songs becoming more personal and sensual. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, but I preferred the more loud, angry sound of the first half. On a side note, whenever I see someone talk about this album, I always hear Danny Brown in my head. "And it's a downward spiral / Gotta figure it out, out / I gotta figure it out, out."

The fact that this album is of huge historical significance doesn't mean that music in it is good by today's standards. I don’t believe that good art is timeless since any idea can be built up upon, improved, or evolved; and after some changes, the original iteration usually wouldn’t feel that good in hindsight. That is how I feel about this album. Sure, he basically invented rock, which has been my favorite genre by far since the start of my musical journey. But 70 years later, the genre has changed and evolved so much that the “original” rock album seems incredibly underwhelming. That’s definitely not entirely Elvis’s fault, of course. He didn’t have the decades of output to draw inspiration from (although, of course, he used other genres), and he had no access to the slew of technological advancements musicians have right now. The culture in the 50s was also entirely different. What today feels tame and basically sterile back then was seen as rebellion, and it certainly didn’t translate well. I don’t really like this album. It’s not awful, but it’s a relic of its time that today feels uninspiring. Both vocals and instruments are not very fun, and in terms of energy, it basically has nothing even on a lot of rock albums I would consider to be on the slower side. I wouldn’t say that Elvis is a bad artist or whatever. It’s just that he was treading on new ground of a genre that hadn’t been studied before him. The only reason I didn’t rate it lower is because it’s short. 5/10

Reggae is just not my thing, what can I say? It is supposed to be chill and relaxing, but I listen to music for entertainment, and that's just not what I find entertaining. It's kind of hard to assess this music by its merit (not that I usually do that anyway) because I'm just not that engaged when listening to it. It's a Bob Marley album, and it sounds like a Bob Marley album. If you like him, then I guess this one is for you. It has some interesting writing and good vocal performance, but other than that, I was quite underwhelmed. The title track is pretty fun, through. 5/10

Most of the songs here are too minimalist and way too drown out. If you're into this sort of relaxing music, than you're probably going like this, especially considering that there's some great guitar work here. For me through, this was quite underwhelming and at times boring. 5/10

As this was released well into my lifetime and played pretty much everywhere you would expect to hear music, this is the exact type of music that made me dislike pop. Not all pop is terrible, of course—and this album is also not exactly the Ed Sheeran–level of awful—but a lot of popular music is such a slog to get through. It's fine to hear one song on radio and realize that it's virtually indistinguishable from the dozen other pop songs of a similar style, but hearing 48 minutes of only the highest-grade slop in a row is certainly not an experience I would ever look forward to. Like, this is not terrible. She can sings, and the album is well produced since, like, 50 engineers worked on it and probably millions of dollars were spent. But it is so uninspiring. It's the same tone, same structure, same themes over and over again. Saying that this music makes me feel absolutely nothing is an understatement. It's so unimaginative and so boring.

I don't like chill music. This album is too laid back and repetitive for me. Not bad, but feels just like background music and is not particularly engaging. 5/10

Certainly in the better half of folk rock album I heard. Some songs still have the tendency to disappear into the background, but the core of this album is pretty fun a satisfying, with pleasant vocals and instrumentation. Chill but not boring. 7/10

To be honest, I was hesitant to check out The White Stripes because I'd thought they were your typical pop-ified rock band. What I heard on this album, however, was quite a bit more interesting. There's nothing groundbreaking here, but it's pleasant rhythmic music with a decent amount of variety. However, most of the songs feel like they're missing something. It is way too minimalist (although not quiet or slow), and I think the songs would've benefited from more layers. But overall this is still good and a pleasant surprise by a band I wasn't expecting much from. 7/10