236
Albums Rated
2.89
Average Rating
22%
Complete
853 albums remaining
Rating Distribution
Rating Timeline
Taste Profile
2010s
Favorite Decade
Metal
Favorite Genre
US
Top Origin
Perfectionist
Rater Style ?
7
5-Star Albums
3
1-Star Albums
Breakdown
By Genre
By Decade
By Origin
Albums
You Love More Than Most
| Album | You | Global | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|
| My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy | 5 | 3.42 | +1.58 |
| Venus Luxure No. 1 Baby | 4 | 2.66 | +1.34 |
| (Pronounced 'Leh-'Nérd 'Skin-'Nérd) | 5 | 3.76 | +1.24 |
| Slayed? | 4 | 2.89 | +1.11 |
| Physical Graffiti | 5 | 3.92 | +1.08 |
| The Psychedelic Sounds of the 13th Floor Elevators | 4 | 2.96 | +1.04 |
You Love Less Than Most
| Album | You | Global | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Holes and Revelations | 1 | 3.59 | -2.59 |
| Technique | 1 | 3.17 | -2.17 |
| At Folsom Prison | 2 | 3.99 | -1.99 |
| 16 Lovers Lane | 1 | 2.94 | -1.94 |
| Automatic For The People | 2 | 3.82 | -1.82 |
| Californication | 2 | 3.7 | -1.7 |
| Transformer | 2 | 3.67 | -1.67 |
| After The Gold Rush | 2 | 3.64 | -1.64 |
| Getz/Gilberto | 2 | 3.64 | -1.64 |
| Young Americans | 2 | 3.62 | -1.62 |
Artists
Favorites
| Artist | Albums | Average |
|---|---|---|
| Led Zeppelin | 3 | 4.67 |
Controversial
| Artist | Ratings |
|---|---|
| Prince | 5, 2 |
5-Star Albums (7)
View Album Wall
Popular Reviews
The Doors
4/5
The Doors are one of those bands I wish I could hear without the context of their present-day influence. Even just with the first track on this album, it evoked modern bands that strive for this sound as their identity (looking at you Black Keys). But that also means that they did it well enough for that influence to last all these decades later. Obviously the Doors weren't the only artists making bluesy rock music in this way, but their sound is more timeless than some other efforts from that era.
Conversely, though, it's also interesting to think about the time that has passed since this album (released 1971) to today (50+ years later), and that at the time it came out, it was already decades after the blues music that influenced it. Songs like Cars Hiss By My Window really drive you back to those earlier eras, while, like I said above, the more modern sounding blues rock influence can come from other tracks.
To be clear, I am a blues rock fan. I've never really loved the Doors or listened to them outside of their more famous songs, but this album was a perfect introduction to their full-length efforts for me. It hit the right feel of blues, but also rocked. It had variety between slower songs and some with more pep.
I don't consider Morrison to have otherworldly vocal talent, but he still was able to do some impressive things with his voice here. It's one of those situations where the artist fits the song and gives it exactly what it seems to need. I'm not sure another voice would've brought the songs to life as well. The lyrics weren't necessarily amazing, but you could feel what he was singing with them. I mean, who can't appreciate the emotion he put behind "I've been down so goddamn long, that it looks like up to me" in an angry growl. He's gritty, he's angry, he's sad, he's expressive, he's contemplative; he wants you to feel what he feels as he's singing. I definitely like that aspect to a singer rather than the more pop/accessible method that makes things more generic.
I also enjoyed the music. It pulled off a good bluesy rock sound. Guitar-driven tracks will almost always pique my interest, and this album had a lot of that. I felt there was a balance to the instrumental focus. It had plenty of guitar, but also a lot of keys. Solid drums and bass holding it down. There were times when it seemed like maybe they could've done more, but the songs didn't feel lacking even though they didn't. They switched it up a bit for Riders on the Storm, going with a jazzy feel, which was a nice change at the end.
For the negative, some of the songs just weren't as good as others. I wanted to like L'America and Hyacinth House, but didn't get that much from them (especially compared to the rest of the tracks). Their lyrics were the weakest of the album to me. I felt like they brought down some of the following tracks too, since they all felt more similar than some of the vibes on the first half. To add to that, I do think the album would've benefitted from some more variation in style. As much as I loved the sound, the last half really could use something to mix it up. That eventually happened with Riders, but it was a bit late at that point.
To me, this was a really solid album with good blues rock roots and interesting vocal work. It was underwhelming in parts, and probably a little too one-note to be considered an all-time great. Still, a very good one.
Overall: 4/5
2 likes
The War On Drugs
3/5
My best description here would be some kind of modern, atmospheric Bruce Springsteen and Bob Dylan-type inspired music. Strangely, it was pretty good, even though I don't particularly love either of those artists. Whether it deserves to be on this list, I'm not so sure; it seemed like it was a fine representative for 2010s indie music, but maybe not more than that.
I'd say the compositions were focused on the overall picture rather than the individual components, which helped form the atmospheric, ambient nature of its sound. Even so, there was different instrumentation present on all the tracks. Guitars, keys, percussion all filtered in and out to make the greater piece. Most of the album was at a more laid-back pace, though some parts went a little harder.
My biggest issue with it came from the length. I didn't mind the whole album being an hour, but some of the songs felt like they went on for too long without really having a reason to do so. They used that extra time to kinda just go nowhere. Other than that, the sound was a bit bland at points given the overall style was consistent throughout. Some songs stood out a bit, which helped with that issue.
I did like this album and enjoyed the listen, even with its negative aspects. I'm just not sure I'd call it an essential album. Maybe that will be the case with some more time behind it. As of now, I wouldn't say it's more than just solid to good.
Overall: 3.25/5
1 likes
The Jon Spencer Blues Explosion
3/5
Well, I can confidently say this is the first album I've listened to that started with someone just straight screaming at me. Not sure what I expected from a "punk blues" description, but that was not it. I guess it contributed to album's early vibe, which felt like a lot of anger/pointed antagonism being expressed as it kicked off.
I think the album suffered from how it started. Not just with the screaming, but also the first couple songs. I thought there were actively abrasive and it kinda turned me off from the get go. It was a shame since there was some good stuff in there later on that I probably would've appreciated more had I heard it without that lead in.
To be clear, there were a number of songs that I liked. They were more typical blues/rock than the garage punk sound many of the other tracks had. Wail, 2Kindsa Love, Firefly Child were examples. After about the halfway point, I thought all of the songs were fairly strong (aside from Sticky, that is). Unfortunately, there were some other songs really didn't work for me. It's like they wanted to be loud more than be musical. I guess that's the "punk" part at work.
I was hopeful I would like this one when I saw the description. While there were plenty of tracks that I liked, the rest of the songs took away a lot of the listenability of the album as a greater work. As a result, any relistening would come from me returning to only certain songs by themselves. Those songs do make me rate this as more fine than bad, but it's still not something I would call good as a whole album.
Overall: 2.7/5
1 likes
ABBA
3/5
As someone who enjoys ABBA and has been to more than a few disco/dance theme events focused on the band, it's easy to sit back and enjoy this album without thinking about it too much. That said, being a little more critical, I don't really consider it to be anything more than pretty good.
It's almost perfect pop- it's cheery, it's fun, and it gets your feet tapping and body moving. The instrumentation somehow makes the songs what they are without really stealing any of the spotlight from the vocals. Each song is short, but pretty much the perfect length it could be. They leave you wanting more without overstaying their welcome. They all could be sing-alongs after just a few listens given how infectious the melodies are.
That said, they really don't have much actual substance. It's just something to feel good about without a lot of brain activation. Sometimes that's all you need, like here where it's intended to be that kind of pop record. If you're looking for more depth, though, you probably should look elsewhere. There's also the issue of fatigue; for as short as the album is, the consistent style on each track can get a little old by the time you reach the end.
Much like the Britney Spears album, I can appreciate the effort without really thinking it deserves to be rated super high on a list like this. It's just not something I can say is "great" when compared to a number of the other efforts on here. I will give this one a bit more credit than Spears' though, due to the timeframe it was released and the global/cultural impact that it still has. I think it has better artistry, and the band actually wrote the songs themselves. Plus, I found it more fun (personal preference, most likely). That leaves it as a pretty good album in my eyes.
Overall: 3.1/5
1 likes
The Young Rascals
2/5
Another one I'm not sure why is on the list. It's not particularly bad, but nothing about it as a whole seems special enough for me to hear before I die. It had a few good tracks that stood out. Otherwise, I didn't find it very impressive.
As I noted above, nothing on the album was bad. Most of it was just bland. It sounded of its era, with love-focused lyrics and rather boring musical backing on most tracks. Sort of like it was still following the format of 50s pop, but starting to come into the 60s sound at times. There were a few moments of musical intricacy, but not very many. It was easy for me to zone out on it.
That said, it did pick up for the last half, starting with Groovin'. My ears actually perked up at that track, sounding much more distinct and interesting than what I had heard from the first five songs. It got me to keep focused for the rest of the album, which I wasn't able to do for the whole first half. As a result, I liked a number of the songs I heard there, even if I still found them a little bland.
I do think there are some good tracks, but the album as a whole is what I'm evaluating. I don't see it as an all-timer or even all that good. It's just a little too dull for me. I give it points for having no bad tracks and for having a few good ones. I still don't think it's much better than fine, though.
Overall: 2.5/5
1 likes
1-Star Albums (3)
All Ratings
Carole King
3/5
Pleasant, comforting sound with good vibes.
Jeff Buckley
3/5
Some good, some meh, overall not bad.
R.E.M.
2/5
Kinda meh, bland, boring; it didn't hold my attention. I didn't really care for it.
Neil Young
2/5
Not a big fan of Neil Young's voice, so listening to it for the full album was a bit of a struggle. I think I would've liked the songs more with a different voice, and preferred the ones where he was harmonized/paired with less grating vocals.
Highlights: Southern Man, When You Dance
Overall: 2/5
John Coltrane
3/5
Jazzy fun. Not something I'd listen to on a regular basis, but I can see why people who are into this type of music enjoy Coltrane. Very talented musician, just the wrong genre for me to appreciate as much as I otherwise could.
Overall: 3/5
Massive Attack
3/5
I'd describe this as a "cool" sound, especially considering that it came out in 1991. It is neither overly complex nor too pop-ishly simple, but covers a lot of the ground between those types of production. It has some funk elements and unique technique, but also has the hooks and stylings of songs that would play on the radio today. Overall, a fun listen, though I don't know that I'd say I love it or that it was my favorite.
Overall: 3.5/5
Eric Clapton
3/5
I don't have a great feel on this one- my playback volume started super low and had inconsistent levels as I tried to listen, which caused me to have to adjust it multiple times. It was distracting and took me out of the best mindset to evaluate the album. That said, what I was able to hear clearly didn't really make me want to go back and re-listen to what I missed. Nothing was bad, necessarily, but it also didn't appeal to me all that much. I think it's another one that I just found somewhat boring.
Overall: 2.75/5
Neil Young & Crazy Horse
3/5
I liked this better than the other suggested Neil Young album I've gotten (After the Gold Rush). I found his voice less grating- maybe the music suited it better. I also enjoyed the music style more, which maintained some of the folksiness but also had more rock to it. I'd guess it's the addition of Crazy Horse instead of solo NY that made the difference for me. That said, beating the first one was a low bar to cross. I'd consider this album fine to good, with the last few songs being the best part.
Overall: 2.75/5
N.E.R.D
3/5
This album is a lot of fun and is very vibe-heavy in a good way. Something you can listen to and jam with both as your main focus or while doing something else. That said, one factor I put weight on that I question for this album is its repeatability. I'm not sure it's something I'd want to listen to in full with frequency, whereas I could see myself revisiting individual songs more often. It also lacks some range/depth that can really hammer home the impact of certain tracks (and what I think really helps make an album "great"), opting for the aforementioned vibes instead. Even with these qualms, it's a very solid album.
Overall: 3.4/5
Nitin Sawhney
3/5
I found this one interesting (in a positive way). Definitely a bit different than my usual listening, but I enjoyed the variety it offered. I thought the album worked well as a whole, maybe greater than the sum of its parts. Not sure I'll come back to it with much regularity though. Still, a solid album.
Overall: 3/5
Stan Getz
3/5
Pleasant, enjoyable jazz. Simple as.
Overall: 3/5
David Bowie
3/5
As a Bowie fan, I realized listening to this album that the only "record" of his I've ever listened to in full is a greatest hits CD we had in the car growing up. It helped me go into this one with a more open mind rather than already knowing it or having some other to compare it to. Perhaps that was the reason, but I was a bit underwhelmed by the album. Definitely some good ones on there, but others that didn't hold me like Bowie normally does.
Overall: 3/5
Simon & Garfunkel
4/5
Solid all the way through. I like the duo better than the either musician individually, and this album showcases how well they make music as a unit. It's mellow, folky, and a bit melancholy, but enjoyable. It also works well as a whole, even though the songs are good on their own.
Overall: 3.8/5
Machito
3/5
Fun and lively album. The songs were short, but didn't seem to be lacking from the brevity. The diverse mix of instruments remained clear in the composition. This was an enjoyable listen, even if it wasn't my usual style of music.
Overall: 3/5
Willie Nelson
2/5
I found this one to be a little too melancholy for my taste. While I didn't dislike the album, most of the songs felt like they should be listened to on a rainy day while curled up under a blanket. That has its place, of course, and isn't a bad thing, but does detract from the impact the album had when judging it as "great" or not. I think adding more variety/mixing up the vibes a bit would have made it a much more memorable album all the way through.
Overall: 2/5
Mudhoney
3/5
Pretty good rock album. Maybe it's due to hearing it in today's music environment instead of when it came out almost 25 years ago, but I wouldn't say it's more special than that. It would be interesting to hear it in context of the music that was out around the same time when this style of rock was starting to take off; probably would feel much more fresh after a decade of 80s radio rock than listening to it in the 2020s. That's probably my biggest critique of the album, since as a whole it's solid.
Overall: 3/5
Traffic
3/5
Solid if unspectacular; plenty of good and some meh. Nothing that I'd say stood out as great.
Overall: 2.75/5
The Yardbirds
4/5
Honestly, really enjoyed this album. It was long, but kept me engaged. Good vibes, fun songs, enjoyable music. I can see myself coming back to it again.
Overall: 3.6/5
Herbie Hancock
3/5
This one was a lot of fun. I usually feel a little limited when rating jazz albums; I don't love the genre enough to give them high ratings, but don't feel it's fair to knock one down solely for that reason. I really didn't run into that issue here. I think the groovy-ness really helped me get into it even if it wasn't my usual style. The frenetic energy of the songs kept me engaged too- it a situation where I was able to visualize the band ripping it up while the songs were playing. My biggest critique of albums I've had with this generator so far is that they lose my interest or have some meh/boring stuff on there, but that really didn't happen with this album until the end. Unfortunately, the last song was a little slow and felt a bit underwhelming after the energy of the first few. Still, very very solid.
Overall: 3.5/5
TLC
4/5
Really solid album. TLC was getting radio play when I was a little kid, but I can't say I appreciated it much at the time based on my age and interests. I enjoyed this one and thought it was good all the way through. I would say it felt a little dated in some ways; it's hard to describe, but it's almost like you can hear the 90s in the music. I didn't hate that, though.
Overall: 3.6/5
New Order
1/5
Really did not care for this album. The music didn't really impress me, the vocals didn't hold me, and the lyrics didn't seem to say anything all that interesting. As a result, I found it bland and lacking an impact; it was just kinda lame. I felt like the band themselves sounded bored a lot of the time. It did get slightly better as it went on, but the majority of the album suffered from these issues to me. I don't see myself coming back to this one.
Overall: 1.25/5
The Dave Brubeck Quartet
3/5
A nice jazz piano album. Couldn't really get into it as it's not my style, but I was able to enjoy it as some background listening even if it didn't lock me in fully.
Overall: 2.5/5
Public Enemy
3/5
I enjoyed the album all the way through, even with being less attuned to the genre compared to my usual listens. I also thought the songs worked well altogether as a whole, which I always like in an album. It felt like there was a lot of variety even if the style was the same throughout, and it didn't seem too bloated even though there were 16 songs. Maybe one negative was how late 80s/early 90s it sounded; I actually thought it contributed in a good way to the feel of the album and found it to be fitting with the messaging, but does take away from the "timelessness" aspect I find a lot of great albums to have.
Overall: 3.5/5
Jah Wobble's Invaders Of The Heart
3/5
Found this one fun and enjoyable. I liked the music styles and how the songs were composed. It had good vibes and worked as a whole. My knock on it is that nothing really stood out as "great" - just a lot of "good".
Overall: 3.25/5
DJ Shadow
3/5
Another one I'd call "fun", but also another one that I wouldn't consider "great" even though I enjoyed the album and thought it was a solid listen. As someone who doesn't listen to much instrumental hip hop, I found the compositions and use of sounds interesting and well done. I can't say much more about it, though. That probably has to do with the style of music; it's something I could enjoy having on in the background while doing other things, but not something I'd necessarily have on as my main focus for its hour+ runtime.
Overall: 3/5
Ash
2/5
Not sure exactly why, but I really wasn't impressed by this one. It just seemed... sterile? Generic? Uninspired? Like it was made to be played on radio without much more creativity/thought beyond that. Which, to me, meant that while it was not bad, per se, it was not good either. Just middle-of-the-road in every way. I don't think I'll remember a single song off of this album tomorrow.
Overall: 2/5
The Velvet Underground
4/5
Despite having seen the artwork (what seems like) a million+ times in my life, I had never listened to this album in full. I had heard a couple songs in various contexts before, so I wasn't completely blind to it. Even so, I was caught a bit off guard from my expectations- in a good way.
This one felt like a well thought out, complete album. All the pieces came together to make something impressive and impactful. What weak spots there were blended away into another solid, good song. The music composition wasn't particularly complex or intricate, but seemed perfectly fitting for what each song was. A great example of not overdoing it (which seems to plague a lot of music production). When there was something extra on top, it was complimentary (chaotic strings, for example) and added to the experience rather than distracting from it. Reed's vocals fit the content very well, even though I normally don't love his tone. I actually preferred his effort's to Nico's, for whatever reason.
Importantly to me, the album held my attention all the way through. Songs that had long runtimes didn't get old. Songs that were short left me wanting them to go on a bit longer.
There were a few negatives; it did seem repetitive at times, and certain songs definitely were weaker than others. It also trended almost too much toward simplicity, and some parts felt like they could use a bit more emphasis or complexity to bring it out. Even so, this is one that I would say is a great album as a whole. I will be coming back to it for another listen.
Overall: 4.2/5
Kanye West
5/5
This is a strange time to be listening to--and praising--a Kanye West album, but I have to give him credit here. I'll also preface this review by saying that I am decidedly NOT a Kanye West fan, and never really have been, other than enjoying an occasional single. My opinion of him, at least as a person, has only lowered over the last few years. At a time when he was perhaps just starting to show the side of him that would eventually lead to the downward descent he finds himself in now, he released this album. And what an album it is.
Every song is well-crafted, full, and meaningful. There are interesting blends of style/effect in songs and throughout the album, and some callbacks to some of his prior efforts. It felt like a culmination of all the music that came in the decade or so before while still being forward-looking. Even where the amount of things going on made me think it should feel bloated or overproduced, it still worked really well. There are songs that are brimming with artists and their contributions, dozens of instruments and effects, and multiple messages, but they are somehow better as a result. He does a great job of placing emphasis in the right spots to make the songs hit as they should, without wasting anything or leaving the lighter parts feeling empty.
And let's not skip over the lyrical content- it gets deep and meaningful, even where it covers some heavily-trod ground in music (and this genre, especially). Even the more "generic" songs (like "All of the Lights") get into some pretty heavy topics. You can tell that it isn't just pandering or a product for the masses, but a personal perspective or experience that is being told.
I found the weakest part to be "Blame Game", perhaps at least partly because I generally don't enjoy John Legend; combining him and Kanye is a tough one for me. Either way, the song didn't do much for me. The Chris Rock outro went on way too long and felt like a weird amount of self-praise jammed in unnecessarily. Other than that song, I would say that I don't find Kanye's "singing" voice to be very good, and really noticed that at the times he used it instead of his usual style.
In sum, this album had powerful content, well-composed instrumentation/music, and was strong both in its separate parts and as a whole piece. I can see myself coming back to it and enjoying it again. There were some parts or aspects that didn't appeal to me, but even so I would call it a great album.
Overall: 4.5/5
David Bowie
2/5
Not sure what I was expecting here, but it definitely wasn't a head-on funk/soul effort with some songs I might hear on a disco floor. I'm guessing this album had a lot more impact when it was released and Bowie was still known for Ziggy Stardust-type productions than it does in out-of-context listening here. As it is, there are some solid tracks that show Bowie at his best. Unfortunately, there are also plenty of tracks that are rather unimpressive. I guess I have to give him credit for taking on a new genre and style, but I can also criticize that effort for its faults. I can't help but think 90% of the album would've been better had an actual soul singer been performing instead of Bowie. I'm sure the fact that it was Bowie is what made it popular, though.
The strongest songs are the ones I've heard before- Young Americans and Fame. The rest ranged from fine to weak. And what was that Beatles cover? It wasn't awful, just weird.
Overall: 2.5/5
Buddy Holly & The Crickets
2/5
Nice little album. Songs very short and whimsical. You can hear the 50s in the sound, but also hear some influences it would pass on to later music. Honestly, it didn't really hold me or seem very memorable, but it was fine for what it is.
Overall: 2.5/5
Jean-Michel Jarre
3/5
Definitely different from my usual listening, but I did enjoy it even if I don't love the style all that much. This is another album that I'd probably never have picked on my own, so I am glad it came up on here. I felt like it would be good to have on in very specific settings, such as while doing meditation or with fog machines and lasers in an art space. I can't say it is something I'd just put on and listen to, but strangely enough I really dug it. I liked the way it flowed and worked as a whole. The negatives are that it does seem a bit niche and replay-ability isn't high for me. I'm not sure I'd call it great, but it was definitely good.
Overall: 3.4/5
The Smashing Pumpkins
3/5
I have been wanting to explore more SP, so I was happy to see this one come up. Unfortunately, I was left feeling a tad disappointed with it by the end. You can tell all the parts are there- crashing, loud guitars; vocals that range from screaming-in-your-face to lullaby-esque softness; various topics and concepts to keep things interesting. Even so, the overall product felt underwhelming for the most part.
It was a solid album as a whole. It had songs that worked both by themselves and together with the rest. It started strong with Cherub Rock. I think the rest didn't live up to that high, however. It also felt long in a way that's difficult to nail down, as the runtime wasn't really the problem. It just got a little tedious or something. Maybe I would've liked it more if it were a song or two shorter?
I feel like that was a lot of negative analysis, but that probably comes from having somewhat high expectations. I can say the album was a solid "good" even with the critiques above. I should probably come back to it again later and give it another try.
Overall: 3/5
The Offspring
3/5
An all-around solid 90s rock album. Nothing particularly special about it, but that is kind of why it's special (if that makes sense). It is what it is, and doesn't try to do anything else besides get in your face and rock out. It has some bangers and some OK songs, but is never boring.
Overall: 3.4/5
Incubus
4/5
This was my third 90s rock album in a row, but this one was definitely my favorite of the three. I already was familiar with Incubus and knew (and liked) a number of songs on the album. I had not heard the vast majority, however.
While the style was very clearly late-90s rock/metal, it still had some uniqueness and freshness more than two decades after release. It also had varied themes, and felt a bit abstract in how it presented different topics. The vocals were good and kept you engaged. I also like the instrumentality and how it added some different elements than you might normally hear on a rock album. It ranged from the loudness you'd look for to some more quiet, nuanced moments.
I think the weakest song was its most popular, "Drive". Not that it was bad, but it just didn't grab me like the rest did. Maybe it felt a little out of place, even though I did like that it changed up the pace a bit from the rest of the album. It could be one of those songs that is strong on its own, but is hard to place on an album.
I could see myself coming back to this one and enjoying it every time. I'd say it was at the high end of good.
Overall: 3.9/5
Minor Threat
3/5
What on its surface appears to be a hardcore punk rock album is in fact a hardcore punk rock album. Which really is the essence of punk- it is what it is, and is as in your face about it as it can be. If this is what you're looking for in music, you'll definitely find it here.
The album does what it does well. But does that make it one of the greatest of all time? Is it one of the greatest punk albums of all time? It definitely seems to have had a wide influence, as the sound and style persisted and can be heard in some music today.
Part of its strength is in its brevity; only three songs run longer than 3 minutes and the whole album is barely more than 20 minutes long. I think if it had gone on longer, it could've gotten tiresome. Even so, it's appeal is likely limited by the aforementioned style and there being little diversity in the energy of the songs.
Overall, I have to give it a 2.75/5. Because, while not necessarily great, it's good. And while not bad, it's not great. I would probably rank it higher if I was more of a punk.
Led Zeppelin
5/5
I'm already a Led Zeppelin fan, so this one was a bit of a familiar treat more than a new experience. That said, I had never listened to the album in full before. Since I already knew a number of the songs, I tried to expand my critical focus beyond what I might have upon hearing it all for the first time.
The album is lengthy- it's a 15 track double album that runs over an hour and 20 minutes long. Throughout that runtime, it covers a pretty diverse range of musical ground. The album has full-on rock songs, some more epic pieces, acoustic tracks, and even a country song. LZ are at their best when they're making a blues-oriented rock song, and that's clear when you compare those tracks with the rest of the songs on the album. The other tracks aren't bad, but do fall short of what they're able to do in their breadbasket. They are divided fairly well; once you get through some of the more subtle tracks, another big rocker comes up. That is, until the end. It felt like things started to cool off by the time you get to side 4, though those songs are still good and might be better without hearing them after the other 3 sides.
I think my biggest gripe with the album has to do with its capacity. It just felt like there were one or two songs on there that could've been left off and made the album stronger by omission. My other complaint would be lyrical content. While Plant did have some range and usually does a good job when getting into the abstract and fantasy, far too often it seems he only wants to sing about love and sex. Getting more depth and diversity in the lyrics would have made the songs themselves more interesting.
There are many positive things to say, and they outweigh the negatives by a longshot. Sides 1 and 2 are fantastic. The album starts strong with Custard Pie--a cool rock song--and keeps up that quality for a long time. I also liked how the songs ending 1 and starting 2 each have a bit of spiritualism in their themes- one about dying, and one about the heavens. Plus Houses of the Holy is just a fun track with a great groove in general. Kashmir is one of their most famous, and most epic, tracks. The album does slow down a bit on sides 3 and 4, but they still have some really solid tracks too.
The instrumentation and composition is fluid but well done, as is to be expected from LZ. They work incredibly well as a unit to make their music come together. They sound great as a whole, and probably are one of the most cohesive bands in terms of the sum of the parts. This is one of their later albums, so they'd had time to perfect their methods too.
In sum, this is a great album. Not because it is perfect, but because it is memorable, well-crafted, and showcases the talent of its contributors in a way that created something great. It was a bit slow at times and probably could've been a tad shorter, but those are small complaints compared to the things it does right. As a LZ fan, I may be skewing high, but I found it to be an example of a group at their peak making music like they're good at.
Overall: 4.5/5
Frank Sinatra
2/5
As an occasional Frank Sinatra enjoyer, I just couldn't get into this one. I think it was too slow/moody for me. Really needed a few upbeat tracks to break up the melancholy slowness of the album. Without that, it all kinda blended together.
Positive- none of the songs were bad, really. I could see any of the songs having an appeal on their own, but hearing all 16 in a row was way too much.
Overall: 1.75/5
Frank Ocean
4/5
Frank Ocean was a bit of a blind spot for me. I'd heard of him, and probably heard some of his music before without really knowing. I had never sought him out or paid much attention to him, though. Gotta say, I wish I had done so a while ago.
Really enjoyed this one musically, really liked the artistry and composition. It felt like an ALBUM, you know? Like it was produced as a cohesive work to be listened to and enjoyed as a whole. The music was diverse, but well done; the rolling drums on Crack Rock transforming into a electronic dream on Pyramids was a good example of just how different the feels could get in a two-song span. The lyrics were loving and harsh, deep and shallow, literal and mystic at different points. Whatever the song called for, they provided.
Also, the songs hit. The slow ones were purposeful and meaningful. The more upbeat ones were full of feeling. Some were incredibly simple, others very complex. I can't give him enough credit for bringing the songs to life the way he did.
For the negatives, I have to bring it down a bit for the lyrical content despite how strong it was at times. Some of the content just seemed to be bordering on pandering to a lifestyle instead of sticking with the sincerity in the other tracks. The description of the girl we got on Lost, or the girl in Monks, were a bit much for example. It wasn't as over the top as some artists can be, but it still just seemed a little generic. The vibes were definitely geared towards intimacy for listening, so it makes some sense. But it does take away a bit when you're just listening to the album without that setting.
The album also felt a long. While of few of the tracks aren't actual songs but bridges between songs, there are still 17 listed tracks running over 55 minutes. I was expecting it to wrap up at one point and saw there were still four songs left. Those last few songs seemed weaker, but maybe that was because I was ready for it to end by that point. Either way, the payoff for continuing to listen wasn't anything special.
So, I'd say it's a cohesive album of diverse, well-composed songs with lyrics that range from great to unimpressive. It starts strong, but dwindles toward the end. Even so, it's a very good album. I'll listen to it again.
Overall: 4/5
Queen
4/5
I feel like maybe I've not given Queen enough credit (and Brian May in particular). Which sounds weird, since they're often in the conversation of greatest rock bands ever (with one of the greatest rock guitarists). While I never thought that opinion was wrong, I've always personally knocked them for a variety of reasons- inane lyrics, gimmicky songs, etc. This was actually the first time I've listened to an album of theirs all the way through, and maybe that's been the issue.
I immediately enjoyed the first track (Death on Two Legs) and thought it was pretty awesome. Second track less so, but then the guitar in I'm In Love with My Car brought it back to good. And so it went, with the rest of the album, that I really enjoyed the majority of everything on it. The music was pretty great and sounded like it could've been composed in the present, decades later. I even enjoyed some of the change-of-pace tracks that I was not expecting, like '39.
Of course, I still feel like the lyrical aspect of the songs just underwhelms on a number of tracks. For as much vocal talent they have in the band, I wish they were singing about more complex topics and a greater depth of emotions more often. The songs are written by different members of the band, so it's not one person's fault as far as I'm aware.
There's also some of the compositions I just could not get into- Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon and the show tune-esque Seaside Rendezvous, for example, really did nothing for me (conversely, I enjoyed Good Company). The "opera" concept they fed in really was a bit much at times too; it took me until the drop off into the rock riff for Prophet's Song to not consider it an easy skip. Obviously, though, that's more subjective, and the concept worked amazingly on Bohemian Rhapsody to bring the whole thing together.
What the album does well, it does incredibly well. Most of the rest is fine at worst. There are a few parts I would say are not good, but mostly because they they didn't stand up to what they did well on the rest of the album. Even so, the album worked as a whole and did a good job of bringing some unique parts together. Definitely something I can see myself coming back to for repeat listens.
Overall: 4.2/5
Public Enemy
3/5
Much like the previous PE album I got, I enjoyed the album all the way through. I again thought the songs worked well together as a whole, which I always look for. They did a good job with interludes and effects to blend the tracks into an overarching work.
This album also had that late 80s/early 90s hip hop sound, and again I thought it contributed in a good way to the feel of the album and found it to be fitting with the messaging. In the same sense, though, it does take away from the "timelessness" aspect I find a lot of great albums to have. It also felt long, though the 1 hour runtime wasn't anything over the top. I think it was just a barrage that made it a bit tiring by the time it culminates in Fight the Power.
I can see myself coming back to this one. It's a solid listen.
Overall: 3.5/5
The Go-Betweens
1/5
I'm not really sure why this one is on the list. I don't see anything particularly notable or good about it. The music is bland and uninteresting. The lyrics are boring and generic. No single aspect did anything beyond being basically competent. Everything seemed to lack sincerity and feeling.
On top of that, for as short as the album is (10 songs, 37 minutes), it got old quickly. I was tired of it by the time the third song ended. There were some peppier moments later on, but they didn't do much to improve the listening experience. I'm also unsure if they were actually decent songs, or if they just seemed like it because of how little I liked the songs around them.
I'd say this one is pretty close to bad. Nothing special or interesting there, just meh pop music. Very forgettable.
Overall: 1/5
Grandmaster Flash & The Furious Five
3/5
What an interesting listening experience. I'm a fan of funk, there's plenty of grooving happening on this album. There's also familiar samples from many future efforts, so it's kind of fun to see them in an early form. It feels like this was an influential album in general, which makes sense given the release year.
The musical range was also interesting. There were electronic soundscapes, piano pieces, and standard funk instrumentations depending on the track. Vocal styles varied as well, with some soulful singing juxtaposed with group rap. You never knew what was coming next.
For the negative, it did feel dated and as early-80s as it could get at times. There's not much they could do about that, though. I'm sure at the time it sounded cool af.
It appears that the playlist I used had some tracks from the extended addition and not just the original album, so I'll do a sort of two-part critique here. For the original 7 songs, the diversity of songs and composition was really well done, as mentioned above. It culminated in a serious (but strangely fun) "Message", which punctuated it nicely. The extended tracks kinda bloated it, even though the added songs weren't bad. I can understand why they weren't included on the initial release.
I'd say the album is good, especially considering where it came on the musical timeline. But, for me at least, it was not something I'd consider a level up at great. It's fun, funky, and enjoyable, and I would listen to the songs again. I don't know that I'd want to play the whole album with frequency.
Overall: 3.5/5
Blondie
3/5
This one started off strong with Hanging on the Telephone, but devolved quickly into more bland, boring songs. It stayed in that zone for most of the rest of the album. While it never really got "bad" necessarily, very little of it was better than fine.
It offers what you would expect from a pop record. The instrumentation is pleasant, but mostly unimpressive when you listen a little bit closer. It does what the song needs, so maybe it's more of a writing problem than a technical one. The vocals were also nice to listen to without really having a lot of substance to their content. All the songs seemed to have similar vibes and simplicity. I found it a bit interesting that some of the songs felt more like old pop than I would expect in 1978. There was an almost 50s-esque sound, just with updated production, on a couple tracks.
The album worked as a whole given the details mentioned above, but there are definitely songs I'd rather hear again than the others. Heart of Glass is one of those, though was a song I was already familiar with and liked (brought down by this version having an extended "disco" edition that was unnecessarily long).
Was the album fun? Yeah, mostly. Do I see why people like it? Absolutely. Is it anything special? I don't think it is.
Overall: 2.75/5
Elvis Costello
2/5
This one didn’t do a lot for me. It’s hard to pinpoint any specific reason why. I didn’t dislike it, but I just didn’t really like any of it.
Maybe Costello is just one of those artists that aren’t for everyone. I kinda felt about it the way I do Bruce Springsteen. I can listen to one or two of his songs and enjoy them, but any more than that and I’m over it. There’s something grating there that I can only stand for so long. Having to hear 15 of his tracks in a row over 57 minutes was too much for me. The length was definitely a negative, as I was ready for it to end with several songs left.
Also, a lot of it sounded the same. Maybe that’s on me, but I can only recall a few songs individually from the whole thing. Nothing really stood out as something memorable or good (or particularly bad for that matter). It instead was a big blend of mediocre.
Overall: 2.1/5
Small Faces
3/5
Strange listening experience, but I didn't hate it. There were a few songs I liked (Song of a Baker, Rollin Over), most likely because of the more rock-based sound. Others I didn't care for, even if nothing really stood out as bad.
The shift to a narrative on the last half was interesting, though I'm not sure it did much for me. I feel like I'd need to give this one another try at some point, and maybe I'd appreciate it more. Based on just this listening, I'll give it an OK.
Overall: 3/5
The Doors
4/5
The Doors are one of those bands I wish I could hear without the context of their present-day influence. Even just with the first track on this album, it evoked modern bands that strive for this sound as their identity (looking at you Black Keys). But that also means that they did it well enough for that influence to last all these decades later. Obviously the Doors weren't the only artists making bluesy rock music in this way, but their sound is more timeless than some other efforts from that era.
Conversely, though, it's also interesting to think about the time that has passed since this album (released 1971) to today (50+ years later), and that at the time it came out, it was already decades after the blues music that influenced it. Songs like Cars Hiss By My Window really drive you back to those earlier eras, while, like I said above, the more modern sounding blues rock influence can come from other tracks.
To be clear, I am a blues rock fan. I've never really loved the Doors or listened to them outside of their more famous songs, but this album was a perfect introduction to their full-length efforts for me. It hit the right feel of blues, but also rocked. It had variety between slower songs and some with more pep.
I don't consider Morrison to have otherworldly vocal talent, but he still was able to do some impressive things with his voice here. It's one of those situations where the artist fits the song and gives it exactly what it seems to need. I'm not sure another voice would've brought the songs to life as well. The lyrics weren't necessarily amazing, but you could feel what he was singing with them. I mean, who can't appreciate the emotion he put behind "I've been down so goddamn long, that it looks like up to me" in an angry growl. He's gritty, he's angry, he's sad, he's expressive, he's contemplative; he wants you to feel what he feels as he's singing. I definitely like that aspect to a singer rather than the more pop/accessible method that makes things more generic.
I also enjoyed the music. It pulled off a good bluesy rock sound. Guitar-driven tracks will almost always pique my interest, and this album had a lot of that. I felt there was a balance to the instrumental focus. It had plenty of guitar, but also a lot of keys. Solid drums and bass holding it down. There were times when it seemed like maybe they could've done more, but the songs didn't feel lacking even though they didn't. They switched it up a bit for Riders on the Storm, going with a jazzy feel, which was a nice change at the end.
For the negative, some of the songs just weren't as good as others. I wanted to like L'America and Hyacinth House, but didn't get that much from them (especially compared to the rest of the tracks). Their lyrics were the weakest of the album to me. I felt like they brought down some of the following tracks too, since they all felt more similar than some of the vibes on the first half. To add to that, I do think the album would've benefitted from some more variation in style. As much as I loved the sound, the last half really could use something to mix it up. That eventually happened with Riders, but it was a bit late at that point.
To me, this was a really solid album with good blues rock roots and interesting vocal work. It was underwhelming in parts, and probably a little too one-note to be considered an all-time great. Still, a very good one.
Overall: 4/5
Dirty Projectors
2/5
I really wanted to like this one. And some parts I did. But that was the problem- it was only in parts. I don't think there was one song I liked all the way through; some started good and went bad, some started rough and improved, and others oscillated between the two. Anything else was in the "OK" territory of neither good nor bad.
To me, a lot of it felt disjointed. Like the guitar was playing one song and the percussion another, and they didn't really match up to make something cohesive. Or the vocals were in one space and the music was in another. It was like they had a ton of ideas for songs when writing the album, but instead of ditching the worst ones, they kept them all (and combined them) anyway. I'm guessing that's what they were going for, as it was definitely pervasive and was the sound of the album. If so, I'd say they accomplished their goal. I'll give them credit for that.
I'll say I was underwhelmed, but not turned off. I appreciated it more than some of the super bland stuff that I've gotten on here, as they tried to do something different. It was definitely interesting. But still, I can't say it was good.
Overall: 2.5/5
Love
2/5
This one had a few good parts and mostly not good parts. A number of tracks sounded dated to me. Some of the songs were decent, but there were also some that were just bad. Unfortunately for Love, this is about albums as a whole, not just the certain songs on them that are good.
I think the album was dragged down by the mellow-ness of certain tracks. When the songs had more bite to them, they were much better. It was also an interesting choice to have the last song be 18+ minutes of jamming. It was an enjoyable jam, but it kinda seemed like they just needed to fill space instead of having a whole album's worth of songs.
As a whole, it wasn't great. I don't think there are many situations that I would choose to put this album on and enjoy it all the way through. The couple songs that were good were good though.
Overall: 2.25/5
Napalm Death
2/5
Well, that was intense.
Overall: 2.5/5
Eminem
3/5
I never really listened to Eminem until he mellowed out a bit from this era. I was a kid at the time of his early releases, so I think I was too young to be attracted to the anger and violence in his music. It was interesting to come into this one with minimal knowledge of the songs on it.
I still can't say the angry barrage of energy he emits is something I enjoy, but I will appreciate that he is good at what he does. He can unleash a torrid stream of words in each rap, but is still able to insert meaning into every single syllable. None of the energy is wasted.
Whether he actually literally means much of what he says is doubtful, given the extremes that his songs can go to. It seems more like he's highlighting problems that exist in society, but also showcasing that he's seen them in uncomfortably close proximity and experienced them himself in some form. I'd also guess they're more thought experiments, seeing where the thoughts and feelings he has might go if he let them run wild. Or that these are characters, and he's letting them endure the consequences instead of seeing himself carry them out. That's clear from Stan at least, written mostly from the perspective of the fan taking his obsession to the extreme.
There were two tracks, Amityville and Bitch Please II, that I felt showed a good balance between the extreme feelings and songwriting. I felt they were actually better than the singles, which were probably my next favorite tracks.
I also liked the cohesiveness of the album. Regardless of the topic of each track, it felt like they all worked together to make the whole. That was aided in part by skits added in to bridge a few tracks. Steve Berman is a good example, going from an exec criticizing his efforts into a string of songs about his identity and being himself. The central themes never were far, even if the current song seemed to be a tangent.
This was a long album, running around 80 minutes. But it didn't feel too long or drawn out, and I never felt like it was running out of steam. This was likely due to his ability to channel his energy meaningfully as mentioned above.
For the negative, the angry vibe just doesn't attract me as a listener. It felt at times like he was writing in a certain way to try to force a reaction from the listener rather than earn it. It's subjective, but I find that to kind of cheapen the experience. If the song itself can't do it, adding in language for that purpose is a lazy substitute. Some of it also felt ignorant or hateful considering the content (ex: there was a lot of graphic criticism of homosexuality). Given that this was released in 2000, it makes some sense; people's lifestyles were viewed without as much open-mindedness as they can be today. But it's also depicted very specifically at times, which is almost a double-edged attack, since those who are truly hatefully would probably be turned off those details. These critiques could be explained by saying they were tools to stir up his critics, especially given the identity songs mentioned above. I can respect that, but I still think it takes away from the music's intrinsic value.
Aside from the above, I found most of the musical compositions to be bland. The rap is supposed to be the star, obviously, but I think I would've liked the songs more if the music in them was more memorable.
In sum, I found this to be a solid album, and I can see why those who are bigger fans of the genre would hold it in high esteem. Eminem did a lot of things well to craft it, and his energy is undeniable. For me, though, it was hard to appreciate without focusing on the negative aspects. The album is OK, bordering on good, but doesn't go higher than that for me.
Overall: 3.3/5
Led Zeppelin
5/5
Hard to be objective about this one. I love LZ, and love a lot of the songs on here already. That said, I've never listened to this as a whole album, so it was still a somewhat new experience. And as I expected, it was a great one; it's just rock and roll at its finest.
Side 1 is fantastic. Every song is interesting and draws you in. The weakest part was "Thank You", but it worked well as a change of pace to the heavier tracks that came before it. The Lemon Song wasn't great lyrically, but still was a solid, rocking song.
Side 2 was even better. It started off hot with Heartbreaker, which really showcased the guitar and vocal aspects of the group. It went right into another strong effort in Living Loving Maid, which had a more free and fun feel than some of the other tracks. Ramble On was also great, and maybe the best song on the entire album. The last two tracks are also good, but slightly less so than the ones before them.
As a whole, the music is powerful and meaningful. All instruments contribute, but the guitar is the star of the show. And it really shines. The vocals are almost as much another instrument in the mix as they are telling a story; less important is what they say, and more important is how they say it. The parts all come together to make an awesome record so that you feel like you're enjoying one complete work instead of little pieces put in a row.
For negatives, I think the album is a bit homogenous. LZ can definitely range more than they did on II. I actually love the sound and style, but they really didn't stray vary much outside of that lane other than with Thank You. I could see that detracting from the experience for some. Also, not all of the lyrical compositions are particularly strong. Plant's singing is perfect for the band, but some of the stuff he sings about can be inane. He can also have a way with imagery that is incredible, so it's disappointing when he instead gives you a weird sexual innuendo.
Even with those detractions, this was an awesome album. I would definitely listen to the whole thing over and over, and may just do that again now. It was great as one work; each song is great on it's own; each part of each song is stimulating and enjoyable. This as good as a rock and roll record can be.
Overall: 4.8/5
Gorillaz
3/5
This one was fine, with some parts going up to good. I would not call it great, however. I think it's another album that's harder to evaluate out of context, since this came out at a time when rock music was ruled by nu-metal, boy bands were huge in pop, and rap/hip hop was often still overshadowed by both in the mainstream (though not always true). This was notable as a different effort than what was making up the market at the time. I'm pretty sure that was the point of the band/album, so it succeeded in that sense.
The mostly lo-fi music made it an overall easy listen, if somewhat boring at times. There were a few songs that were great with those beats. The almost lyric-less Double Bass was actually one of my favorite tracks on the album. I found the stronger songs were the ones with outside contributors, or that had mixed elements with rap parts and singing parts.
It also worked as a whole because of the musical consistency. But again, it was easy to tune it out at times because of how simple/unintrusive it was. I would've liked a bit more diversity; really, Punk was one of the few tracks that did something that stood out as unique compared to the rest of the album. Even that only lasted 98 seconds. Latin Simone was somewhat different (with the Latin influence) but also similar enough to not stand out much. M1A1 had a more interesting feel compared to the rest. Unfortunately, it was track 15 on the album.
There wasn't much I actively didn't like, but the worst part of the album for me was Man Research (Clapper). I found it really grating and would probably skip it if I listen again.
In sum, I'd say this is an OK album. It is good in parts, and there are very few bad moments. But the majority of it hovers between the two. I wouldn't say there are any truly great parts. It is probably less unique and interesting now than it was in 2001, but it still has a different feel I can appreciate. It's main flaw for me is that it stays low-key for so much of it that it becomes more background music than something to be captivated by.
Overall: 3.1/5
LCD Soundsystem
3/5
This is another one that I'd call "fun"- I think making fun music is something LCD really excels at. It seems like their songs always take a while to get to the payoff, but somehow it doesn't feel like it's as long as it is, and you don't mind the wait because it's a fun ride. The tracks on Sound of Silver pretty much all were in that mold.
In particular, the grooves were good and the music experience was enjoyable. The lyrics and vocals are probably the least attractive part of the mix on most of the songs, but they serve their purpose well. If you consider them as instruments instead of the lead focus of the composition, they work a lot better. The album flowed, even though each song had a fairly distinct feel. It did start to get a bit tedious toward the end for me, though, and I felt like it should've been a bit shorter.
All considered, there's just nothing really here to make it great. Most of the songs are good, though a few fell below that. It probably would've been better overall if there was one fewer song on it. North American Scum and All My Friends were the best tracks on the album to me, but they still weren't better than pretty good. Definitely not strong enough to carry the rest of the album higher. It's solid, but not more than that.
Overall: 3.25/5
The Stone Roses
4/5
Can't say I was familiar with the Stone Roses before listening, so this was a nice find. I liked the sound they had here. It was both reminiscent of older eras but also modern, even decades later. It could've been released as an indie rock album in the last few years with the style and tones used. Its influence must've been pretty swift, since it's got similarities to certain 90s bands as well (Oasis comes to mind).
All the parts worked well together. The guitars, bass, drums, and vocals all complemented each other to make each song a nice whole. In the same way, the songs all worked well on the album together. They complemented each other to make a complete effort that was enjoyable to listen to. Even though some tracks were long and the album ran close to an hour, it never felt like it was dragging or growing stale. There really were no bad songs on the whole album.
That said, there's not a lot here to say it's a great one. It's good, but a little bit boring. For the majority of the record, there isn't much going on but the simple compositions you might expect on a poppy rock record. They do make it a little more interesting for the last couple tracks, having extended songs that were stylistically diverse from the previous 10 tracks. The second half of I Am The Resurrection might've been my favorite part of the album. But that just made me wish they'd added some of those funky vibes in earlier instead of holding them off to the very end. And then making the last track 10 minutes (it was fun, but that was a bit much).
I'll keep this one high on the good scale, but short of the great scale. I'd definitely listen to it again.
Overall: 3.7
Lauryn Hill
4/5
Really good one. Hill is great at messaging, no matter the form. She is able to rap and sing, and combine the two into cohesive parts of the same song. She also travels through different, albeit somewhat related, genres as the album carries on. It's impressive to see her talents on display here.
Also, the content is deep and personal, and resonates in a way that seems to be missing from the vast majority of major productions. She's putting her money where her mouth is, so to speak, and in doing so adds another dimension to the work beyond what you notice on first hearing.
Interestingly, I felt like Doo Wop was one of the weaker songs on the album, despite it being the most famous. To me, it was less personal than the others, and the musical composition wasn't as pleasing. It wasn't bad at all, but didn't have the total impact of the others.
There were some negatives; at times it felt like the music was too similar to the rest and kind of blended a bit. It also ran long, which I noticed even if I didn't necessarily dislike. I thought the last couple songs were very good, even if one were a cover. Perhaps one or two of the middle songs could've been swapped out, though I don't think it's anywhere near a fatal flaw. I did like the interweaving of the narrative by use of the "skits" throughout. They didn't add a lot to the experience, but it was a fun touch to show the theme winding its way to the end.
Hill gets a lot of props from me here for her musicianship and her lyric writing. I can see why this is often considered a great album. There are a few things I disliked, but the good far outweighs the bad.
Overall: 3.9/5
Frank Sinatra
3/5
Ok, this was much better than the last Sinatra album I got. Out with the melancholy, in with the joy. I'm sure plenty of 50s lovers were swingin' 'round the dance floor to this one, as it was fun and lively. The shorter song lengths also made it a peppier listening experience since most of the tracks just breezed by. The album's 15 songs lasted less than 45 minutes, which felt like the right amount of time for it to play.
There was the distinctly classic sound that you get with brass instruments and Sinatra's voice, which made is a pleasant listening experience. It feels like you're in an earlier version of New York when it plays. I had only heard a few of the songs on the album before, but they all felt familiar as a result.
On the other hand, those details meant there wasn't much diversity here. Sometimes it was hard to tell whether I was listening to a different song, or if the previous one was still going. At one point I was on the third song since I'd last looked without realizing the first one had ended. That worked for the feel of the album, but did make it all kind of a general blend. I think the album ending when it did was smart, because any longer and it would've started to get old. It also sounded dated given the stuff mentioned above. Which was great for the vibe, but isn't something that would necessarily mesh with a broader playlist.
In short, it was fun and lively with entertaining music, but it didn't really do anything special for me to say it was great. Vibes are important, just not quite enough on their own. It's something I enjoyed listening to, though I question how often I would want to come back to it. I think if Sinatra had combined some of the songs from Wee Small Hours and this one into one album, it would've been a much more interesting work that I could rate higher.
Overall: 3.3/5
The Isley Brothers
3/5
Always gonna enjoy an album filled with good grooves. It's probably actually more soul and soft rock than pure funk. The vocals were a strong focal point, as you would expect from a group based on the vocalists. But the guitar was a surprise star here for me, cutting through some solid rhythms to deliver a sweet musical experience. The tone was great, and the playing was about as cool as it could be. He really tore it up on Summer Breeze, too.
While their original compositions were the real highlights of the album, I did enjoy their covers and reimagined efforts. I still would've swapped one or two of them out for original songs, but that's my own preference for albums in general (and when rating them in this way). It's probably my biggest issue with the album; there's really only 5 songs, then some covers. Even if the covers are pretty cool, it takes away from the experience and impact.
Had there been more originals for me to judge it by, it may have gone up a few notches. It still gets a good rating because it was solid regardless, and the covers were good. Plus, that guitar was awesome.
Overall: 3.5/5
Manic Street Preachers
2/5
This was fine. Not really hearing anything special to make it a must-listen. Some good parts and nothing that I would point out as particularly bad. That said, it was mostly just fairly uninteresting rock songs.
Looked into it a little and there was a lot of interesting drama around the group and missing band member leading up to it, so maybe the context of the album made a difference for initial reception. I still don't see why it would be considered an all-time great album based on the music. You'd think that would've led to more interesting artistry, but I didn't get much out of it.
Overall: 2.5/5
A Tribe Called Quest
3/5
Pretty much an entire album of low-key hip hop, which made it distinct from the other albums I've gotten from the same genre and era. It flowed in a pleasant way, too; the vocals and music paired well together and carried the vibe.
I think I enjoyed the instrument production the most. For a type of music entrenched in using samples and digitally (or physically) manipulating existing media to create the compositions, this effort felt like the vocalists were in the same room as the musicians they were rapping over. It was almost like you were listening to it in a jazz club instead of a recording session. There were still samples, but they felt more organic than you get on other albums. It was a nice mix running behind the vocals.
As for the raps, they also felt low energy. Comparing it to the other hip hop/rap albums I've had so far, it is far more subdued than Public Enemy, and basically a lullaby compared to Eminem's angry energy. It comes up short of Lauryn Hill's as well, although she did vary in emotional range more. I didn't dislike ATCQ's delivery here, but I'll say I found PE's energy to be more appealing for the style, topics, and era.
My biggest issue with the album stems from the energy mentioned above. It just is a little too subdued for me to really appreciate as a whole work. Each part is pretty solid, but everything together kinda blends into each other a bit too much. There aren't many tracks that feel like they stand out or add something new to the mix. The most upbeat track was the last one on the album, which felt way too late to get that energy (then end the album). I think each song on it's own would be a good listen, but having them all in a row got old without more diverse vibes.
I'll give it solid, but not much higher for the reasons given above. I think I might appreciate it more on a relisten, though I don't feel a strong pull to listen again.
Overall: 2.6/5
Willie Nelson
3/5
I found this to be a much more enjoyable album than the earlier Willie Nelson suggestion. There was a lot more variety to the feeling of the songs than on Stardust. Instead of an onslaught of melancholy, there was some pep in Willie's step. The sadder tracks were still there, but they were broken up by different vibes over the course of the album. The songs also flowed well, and the album breezed by (most songs weren't even 3 minutes long). It didn't feel like a drag at any point. Even so, I still wouldn't say it was something I particularly loved.
I can appreciate the musicianship. While the songs weren't overly complicated or made of unique arrangements, they were full of feeling and used the components effectively. Willie's voice is also just right for the stripped-down mix. The album's simple nature makes sense when it feels like the music is trying to take you to somewhere else. Like you're out west, passing time on your journey, and all you have is music and the environment around you.
I think I may like this album more if I listen to it again. I just don't know that I have that strong a desire to do so. It's possible that I'll grow into this one at some point, but for now, it just doesn't resonate as a special album.
Overall: 2.6/5
Tito Puente
3/5
This one really has the feel. It's exactly what I would expect to hear in a Latin club while sipping on a mojito on a humid night. It made for a very pleasant listening experience. While all of the songs are in the same style and have a similar feel, they still stand out enough for me to like each one as it's own work. I think I liked it more as it went on.
Unfortunately, I have so little knowledge of the genre/style that it's hard for me to give an educated evaluation. Is it influential? Does it have staying power? Is it great? I have no idea. What I do know is that it was fun. I'd listen to it again in the right situation.
Overall: 3.25/5
Otis Redding
3/5
A strong effort from one of the smoothest singers ever. It was a great listening experience. Not a lot more to be said.
Biggest negative for me was that it was overwhelmingly covers. Is it really fair to say an album is "great" when it's an immensely talented vocalist singing songs that are already popular? It feels like cheating a little bit, even though they changed up the arrangements somewhat. His few originals are great, and everything I know Otis has written is a good song. Unfortunately we only got three of those on this whole album.
The covers are what dropped this back down to just "good" for me. Just not enough original work to get more credit than that. But it was still very good.
Overall: 3.5/5
Sonic Youth
3/5
This album had an intriguing, dark sound. I think that was what I liked about it most, as it had a different feel from a lot of the music I've encountered on here so far. It seemed like that's what they were trying for, since it really was the feel through the whole album. And they certainly attained it. Both the instruments and the vocals made it almost unsettling at times.
There wasn't a lot more that really worked for me, though. Some of it was good. Much of it was just kind of... unengaging? Hard to explain, since it was interesting. I could see letting it drone on in the background to get an eerie vibe, but not sure it's great for casual listening.
I wasn't turned off by it, but it didn't really do a lot for me. I may want to give this another try later and see if I like it better. As it is, it's a little hard to rate highly.
Overall: 2.75/5
Count Basie & His Orchestra
2/5
While I respect Count Basie's contributions to music, this was an album I just couldn't really get into. Probably a genre thing, since brass-focused big bands don't entice me all that much. I generally find the style uninteresting. There were some good moments here, and I can't say it was bad music. The compositions really showed how talented the players were. Even so, I'm not really tempted to listen to it again and I didn't feel like it was a great album.
Comparing it to some of the other albums I've gotten in the same general vein, this was one of my least favorite.
I'll give it credit for what it did well, but can't personally rate it very high.
Overall: 2/5
Miles Davis
2/5
I struggled with this one a bit. It was long and eclectic, almost disjointed at times. Some parts felt like the band didn't know what they were supposed to be playing and were trying to figure it out on the fly. There were plenty of good moments, but they got vastly overshadowed by the rest of what was happening in the 90+ minutes of runtime. Unfortunately, I felt done with it before the third song was halfway over. To be fair, that was at about the 50 minute mark (!).
I did stick through and listen to the whole thing. Not sure that was beneficial; it felt a bit exhausting and probably impacted my ability to evaluate the later songs fairly. But, as this is an exercise in albums, it kind of is the only way to do it. I actually did like the vibe of "Miles Runs the Voodoo" even if it got old by the time the track ended.
Jazz isn't really my favorite kind of music so that probably played a role too. I've never actually listened to Miles Davis before, and was interested to hear this one as his reputation precedes him. To his credit, it seemed like there was some interesting stuff happening. I like that he had a diverse mix of instrumentation instead of all brass or piano like some of the other jazz records I've gotten here. Interestingly, I got this generated right after a Count Basie record. Each was very different in composition, but I still didn't particularly like either one. At least Atomic was a more manageable length.
Had the tracks and this album been (much) shorter, I probably would've liked it more. As it was, I felt fatigued by it even when there was still a lot left to go. The good parts were overshadowed by the sheer size of the album, and, to me, there weren't enough of them.
Overall: 1.75/5
Metallica
2/5
I appreciated getting something different here- this was a combination effort of Metallica and the SFSO to recreate 21 Metallica songs with the orchestra added in. It was a live album, recorded from a concert performance. My biggest issue with this effort is similar to what I find irksome about most live albums: you miss out on half of what makes them worthwhile because you don't get the visual experience. Performers at a show aren't just recording music; they're entertaining the crowd of people in front of them. The whole time I was listening, I was wishing I could see the band and orchestra performing together.
The music alone was fine, but didn't seem all that special even with the unique composition. I know plenty of Metallica songs, and to be honest I like the regular versions of them better than with the orchestra combo. Comparing the two versions is weird since I've only ever heard recorded versions of those and the live version of this. I've heard plenty of orchestra-accompanied rock songs that are great, but those came from a studio setting. I think this really needs to be its own thing without the comparison to the regular versions, but that just brings me back to the missing visual component. I can only imagine what an experience it would've been to see it live, but even a video of the show would've added a lot for the listener.
I think one other issue I have is that the orchestra kind of mellows it out. Metallica is not a "sit down and enjoy" band, but a "get up and rock out" band. With the orchestra, a number of the songs lost that vibe for me. The ones that kept the energy made it clear why it's a cool idea that can work, but the majority of songs didn't come through. When the album is 2+ hours long, it needs to succeed more than this did for me to be satisfied. As a result, I'd be much more inclined to revisit certain tracks rather than the whole album.
I liked this conceptually, but was disappointed by the result. I think I would've liked it a lot better if I had been able to see the performance instead of just hearing it.
Overall: 2.25/5
R.E.M.
3/5
The second REM album I've gotten through this, though I can say I liked this one much more than the first (AFTP). There was some diversity to the music that kept it engaging, plus the songs themselves were enjoyable for the most part. There were still a few I didn't like; Stand stood out for that reason (see what I did there?).
I didn't think it was great. But, as someone who doesn't really care for REM, I have to say this was pretty good.
Overall: 3.1/5
Dexys Midnight Runners
2/5
Listening to this resulted in a near-constant "wtf is this" running through my mind. I don't know what I expected; I've heard "Come on Eileen" too many times to count at this point, but still wasn't prepared for whatever this album was (and COE wasn't on it). Interestingly, the thought went from a bad wtf (first few songs), to an OK/fun/almost good wtf (Geno to Seven Days), back to a bad wtf, then to OK again.
I try to avoid other reviews before rating each album to make sure I form my own opinion on them, but this one I had to do some research on. I found the mention of ska an apt descriptor, and that context made sense for the composition choices and overall feel of the album. It apparently also gets mentioned as a soul effort, which I didn't hear myself. The vocals especially seemed way off for being considered soul.
I had to take a break before coming back to the last few songs, which I think helped a bit. The whole album at once was a lot to experience. Still, it probably bumped me up to an "OK" on them rather than thinking they were more wtf bad.
I just can't rate this very highly. I didn't like most of it. I thought a few parts were OK. I don't see myself listening to it again.
Overall: 1.9/5
Aerosmith
3/5
Let me start by saying that I generally do not like Aerosmith. Maybe my opinion is skewed from only hearing them way later than this era, but I find them pretentious and douchey rock dudes who made really mid music, if not just plain bad music. Whatever the reason, it includes a strong dislike of Steven Tyler. I find him annoying and he usually ruins any chance of me liking their music. Even so, I actually enjoyed this album a lot more than I expected.
It was pretty simple, straightforward rock for the most part. Distorted guitars with catchy licks, strong rhythms, and vocals that had some bite to them. A couple songs gave me Motley Crue vibes with how they punched and bit (and I'm sure MC got some inspiration from this album). I think it's biggest strength was that no one element overpowered the others, but everything came together well on most of the tracks. It was probably that lack of pretension that did it for me; instead of it being all Aerosmith-y, it just rocked out.
It did get weaker in the second half, where it seemed like Tyler's vocals became more of a star instead of the whole ensemble feel for the earlier tracks. Get the Lead Out especially reminded me of the Aerosmith songs that cause me to not like them; just a lame music number making me have to focus on Tyler's vocals. The album ended strongly with Home Tonight, though.
I was not looking forward to this one when I saw it pop up, but I was pleasantly surprised. While it's not great, it's definitely good.
Overall: 3.5/5
The Byrds
2/5
This one didn't impress me all that much. I get it, the Byrds are supposed to be an American response to the Beatles. And they had a major impact on popular rock music at the time. But listening today, most of the songs are just kinda meh/bland. On top of that, most of the tracks are covers or reworkings of other songs. Which I guess was a big part of the point, to create something different by combining two styles and genres into one.
If anything, this album was consistent. Pretty much all the songs sound alike given a lack of diversity in instrumentation and the heavy use of group vocals. I found It's No Use to be a good change, but even that wasn't that much different than the rest. It was honestly a little annoying to hear the same musical aspects on every track. The album was probably weaker as a whole as a result.
Honestly, nothing here was actively bad. It just wasn't that good or interesting sounding to me. It's hard for me to appreciate it now, 60 years later, since it's so far removed from its context. Perhaps it was much fresher feeling to listeners then. Instead, it just seemed rather mediocre.
Overall: 2.5/5
Kanye West
4/5
Despite my previously mentioned dislike for Kanye West, and while not as good as MBDTF, this was another strong effort. I'll separate the art from the artist again and give him credit for his talent. The album was full of overall good production and composition, solid rap efforts, and interesting topics that didn't feel like pandering for the most part.
The quantity of artists and musical additions to the album almost make West blend in and disappear into the mix at times, which maybe helps him stay toned down. It makes sense that he worked as a producer for years with these tracks, as they sound well constructed and thought out. Much like his other albums, more is really more for him, and it works. He also uses his singing voice infrequently on this one, which I appreciate since I find it generally weak.
Aside from the music, the album imagery is fitting; the way I understand it, West dropped out of college to pursue the music career, but wasn't widely accepted in the rap world given his background. He didn't fit the more urban-focused packaging that dominated the hip hop scene at the time. So there he sits, the would-be "dancing bear". A mascot meant to enthusiastically depict school spirit. But instead of dancing, he is sadly alone, having isolated himself from the suburbanites by leaving college while still being rejected by the group he wanted to be a part of. The ornate surrounding literally frames this isolation as the art itself making up/driving the album. It's one of the better uses of album art I've seen come up through here.
While there is a lot to like here, it just didn't stand out to me as "great" even it it was very good. Comparing it to MBDTF, I thought this was the weaker of the two.
Overall: 3.75/5
Stan Getz
2/5
Another jazz album that didn't do a lot for me. I don't think it was bad, I just can't say I enjoyed it all that much. It was subdued and quiet, which I liked better than it being overly jazz-tastic. But, it also just kind of blended into the background. It sounded like something that would be playing at a cafe in the morning. That is good in its niche, but isn't really something I like more than that.
I did like Girl from Ipanema, which is obviously a very famous song and I had heard before. I don't know that the other tracks were very memorable. It's also not an album I see myself listening to again.
Unfortunately I think this is another casualty of my lack of interest in the genre. For me it was fine, but not all that good.
Overall: 2.2/5
Shivkumar Sharma
3/5
This was another one that is hard to evaluate just due to my sheer lack of familiarity with the genre. Even so, I can say that it was a pleasant listen and a nice change from the western music I've gotten on here since starting a few months ago.
It wasn't overly complicated in its composition or production, but the parts all worked well together and made satisfying tracks. While the instruments were different than what I'm used to, they weren't abrasive or hard to get a feel for. The parts all went well together to form an album that had a nice vibe to it. It was easy to listen to even without really having any familiarity with the style.
That said, I'm not sure what would make this a great album. It was nice, and I enjoyed it. But without knowing more, I can't evaluate it beyond that. I'm also not sure how much it holds in replay value, since I don't see myself wanting to put this on all that often.
Overall: 2.8/5
Depeche Mode
4/5
I enjoyed this album a lot. Cool vibes, kind of dark sounding but still easy to enjoy. It felt a little dated, but in the sense that it embodied the genre/era in a time-capsule-ish way. Some really good songs on here, with nothing I considered bad. I think it was just an interesting album and it kept your attention the whole way through.
I liked the musical compositions and the vocal additions. I thought they worked well together. I also thought it all sounded good as a whole, and it didn't become bland even though it stayed in the same style. Not sure it reaches the level of great, but it was really good.
Overall: 3.75/5
2/5
Had a bit of an up-and-down experience listening to this album. Certain tracks were good, but others were pretty subpar. Devo's schtick involves a lot of being quirky/weird, so it's not surprising that their debut album would contain some off-the-wall stuff. While it succeeded at being odd, not all of it succeeded at being good.
The flaws showed up early and reappeared throughout. It's good that the album was as short as it was, since I think any longer and it would have grown sour. It was getting grating enough as it was.
For the most part, I liked the musical compositions on the album. It had traditional rock/pop components to the songs, with guitar, drums, bass, keys, and vocals featured. Though not completely similar to contemporary rock and pop acts of the time, the songs stayed true to the general song structure you might expect. What they did in those constraints definitely felt different, however, even decades later. The attempts they made at standing out were clear.
For me, the hardest part to like was the vocals. Even where the song was strong musically, the vocals detracted from it. I'm not sure exactly why; they seemed too theatrical or intentionally over the top or something. It didn't happen on all the tracks, but when it was bad, it was really bad.
I also didn't love how the album was constructed. Putting the cover of Satisfaction as the second song was probably a mistake. It felt like it should've been buried toward the end, or left off entirely. I also didn't find it to be a good reimagining of the song (side note- this is the second style-shifted Satisfaction cover I've gotten, and I haven't liked the alternate in either case). Some of the songs toward the end actually felt stronger than earlier songs, and I think I may have appreciated them more if I had heard them earlier on.
I found this to be another instance where an album is carried by its high points, but overall not very strong. I'd guess that it is remembered for those high points as opposed to being celebrated as a whole work. As I've said before, the album as a whole is what matters for evaluating it's greatness. Here, the good parts are outweighed by the rest, which ranged from fine to not so good. It stays above "bad" territory, but isn't better than OK for me.
Overall: 2.4/5
Iggy Pop
3/5
I found this album to be another that was carried by its good songs, but otherwise not particularly impressive. The majority of the tracks were solid pop rock efforts, with a few tracks that stood out. Aside from those, though, the rest was pretty forgettable.
I think the only track I actively didn't like was Turning Blue, which was also the longest track of the album. Otherwise, the songs weren't bad. I can't say I liked them all, but I didn't hate them either.
The album is solidly in OK territory. Some tracks got up to "good" level, but not many.
Overall: 3.1/5
The Beach Boys
3/5
Is it just coincidence to get a Beach Boys album the day after learning that Brian Wilson passed away? Or is this site less random than it appears? Something to ponder while listening today.
I feel like this album can be summed up as "the Beach Boys get dark." Visually, I was struck by the imagery of the album art and its juxtaposition with the seemingly upbeat "Surf's Up" title. From what I know of the BB's music, they're generally happy, chill, and good-vibe-based. But this makes it look more pessimistic, or at least like dark times are ahead. The music was in this vein as well. Mostly melancholy, versus the generally cheery songs I otherwise would know.
I wasn't familiar with any of the tracks on this album prior to listening to it today. It's interesting that the group shifted to this sound, which felt much more band focused (as in fewer harmonies, more instrument-heavy) than I have heard from them before. They also seemed to have more topical mindset, since the lyrics often dealt with societal and environmental problems.
While I appreciated this approach from this band, I didn't love the album. Most of it was fine, but none of it really seemed better than good. It's hard to pinpoint anything in particular wrong with it, other than to say it just didn't reach the level of being great.
Overall: 3.2/5
Deep Purple
4/5
My first thought on seeing this come up was along the lines of- "Oh yeah, Smoke on the Water is fine. Anything else worthwhile?"
Yes. Yes there was. Deep Purple is another band that I've heard of, but never really listened to. I wish I had earlier. This was a great metal album, but also just an all around solid album in general.
It was filled with rocking musical compositions. Blackmore often gets referenced as a great metal guitarist, and he really showed it off here. Killer riffs on the songs, and really nailing that early metal tone and feel. The organ added a cool element to the music that I wouldn't have expected without listening to it. The drums were pretty good too, and the bass really hit. I felt the vocals were a little weaker than the rest, but, as often is the case for hard rock/metal, it's less about the singing talent and more about getting the energy right. The energy was right here.
While the album was pretty straightforward, they did change it up a little bit with Lazy. It got more bluesy than the other songs and was a nice diversion from the heavier tracks. Never Before felt a little more subdued compared to other tracks on the album, but was still solid. It's hard to say whether any part of the album was better than the rest, as any two-song stretch could compete with another. It was divided nicely to be a strong listen all the way through. Space Trucking was a great finishing song.
The main reason I give this a rating in the 4s instead of higher is that there are better albums out there. Not a knock on this one at all, as it is pretty great. It's just slightly below others I consider better.
Overall: 4.1/5
The Fall
3/5
This was another one I found a little tricky to evaluate. At times it was really good. At other points it was close to terrible. The good parts were far more frequent than the bad ones, but man, those were hard to get through.
Musically, I found the compositions interesting. It often felt like the bass was the lead instrument, or that the guitar was playing a bass part. As a result, most of the songs had one consistent groove line persisting the whole way through. While it might seem like this would get old in songs that often lasted over 4 minutes long, the band did a solid job of taking the line to different places as each song went on. Probably the best example of this was Paintwork, which was really good for the entire 6:38 runtime.
Of course, it wasn't always a success. Some of the earlier tracks, in my opinion, were bad. I wanted to turn them off/skip them and had doubts about the album as a whole when they were on. I'm not sure if the bad songs were less frequent as the album went on, or if I just got more used to the music as it went on. Either way, I thought the album got stronger after the first few tracks.
Other negatives included the vocals and the album length. While some of the tracks felt stronger than others, many times the vocals consisted of barking/weirdly emphasized phrases that didn't add much to the music. With the compositions generally being simpler, it meant there was more room to focus on the vocals and hear those details. Even if they weren't necessarily bad, I didn't think they made the songs better. As to length, the album was pretty long. It's partly because I listened to the extended version running over an hour, but there were definitely songs that felt like they could've been cut to make a better overall record (probably some of the tracks I mentioned above for being notably bad).
In sum, this album had some nice highs and some very low lows. There was some stuff in the middle, but the wide variation makes it hard for me to come up with an overall rating. I thought I would rate this lowly early on, but I think it deserves higher having gone the whole way through. Given there was more good than bad on here, I'll put it in good territory.
Overall: 3.25/5
Slade
4/5
Being unfamiliar with the band before this, I immediately got AC/DC and Twisted Sister vibes when I started listening to the album. So I looked it up, and turns out this album came out at a time when both of those bands had just formed/were about to form. I'm guessing Slade had at least a little impact on them (and countless others), which is likely one reason this band/album is on the list.
As for the music, the album is about as straight forward as rock'n'roll can get. Strong guitar riffs leading the way, rock-style vocals carrying it along, the drums/bass beefing it up, and some extra flair added at times. As a result, there really weren't any bad songs on the whole thing, and it's a fun listen. They threw a softer track in there too for good measure, which helped break up how similar a number of the other songs were.
I think my biggest critique for this album is that there isn't a lot to set it apart from other similar bands/albums, including a few I've gotten on here so far. It's good, but not super unique. Some of those other bands/albums are better than what I hear on Slayed, even if it is good. Of course, there's something to be said about being good at what you do, and this album is certainly better at it than plenty of other efforts that have been put out, both before and since. But, I'm not sure that takes it up to "great" level.
All that to say, this is a solid album without any real weak spots. It's not going to be the best thing you'll ever listen to, but it will be something you can rock out to any time you put it on. That makes it pretty good in my book.
Overall: 3.6/7
Beatles
4/5
It's kind of amazing that the Beatles could put out a 30-track album in the midst of releasing so many other songs, and that the album wouldn't really contain any bad songs. There are some that aren't all that good, but mostly the worst tracks are still OK. Interestingly, there's also not really any stand out "great" tracks on the record either. It is pretty much just a steady stream of good songs, though it does end on a couple weak notes.
Regardless of your opinion on the Beatles, it's undeniable that they were prolific songwriters. They were able to cover a huge range of stylistic ground in writing the songs as well. There's some hard rock, folk, blues, pop, psychedelia, swing, and more on this album. The diversity kept things interesting over the hour-thirty-plus runtime.
The album's main weakness to me is that it is so long. While no song is particularly bad, there are some diversions that really didn't add much to the listening experience. If they weren't Beatles songs, I have to think they would've been regarded much differently, or not at all. Remove four or five of the "meh" tracks from this album and I think it becomes better than it is already. Even just cutting off the last two tracks (the soundscape Revolution 9 and orchestral Good Night) would've solidified the record for me. At the very least, cutting some out would make it easier to appreciate the stronger tracks.
As it stands, I think it is one of the most consistently good albums I've had on here. That said, it never really goes beyond simply being good to me. I had this in the low 4s before the last two tracks but they dropped it down a tad.
Overall: 3.9/5
Roni Size
2/5
Unfortunately, this really didn't do much for me. Most of the tracks were individually OK, but the album itself was overall just too long and specifically-styled for me to say I enjoyed it.
Considering that it's probably much more appreciated by its intended audience, I'll try to be objective. There were some interesting and cool aspects to the album. The drums were relentless and impressive. The sounds added to the mix in a not-overbearing way, but still with some complexity. Different instruments showed up throughout to add new elements to the compositions. The vocals were sparing, though some tracks had them all the way through. The artists clearly put a lot of time and energy into crafting the tracks the way they wanted.
But, I just can't see how the length of the album and songs is really justified by the content. I listened to the full length album (22 tracks running close to 2 hours and 20 minutes) and it was a slog. All of it was based on the persistent drum beat with some additional parts added on, so there wasn't much diversity in the music experience itself. Most of the songs were 6+ minutes long with several surpassing 8 minutes. Even when I thought I was starting to like a track, it just kept going until it wore me out of it. I did find the last section of songs to be more diverse and engaging than the first block, but it was far too late at that point for me to appreciate them to the full extent I might've otherwise.
Had I heard some of the songs on their own, I probably would've enjoyed them much more than I did in the context of the full album. For example, Hi-Potent got me back into it a little bit; I could see myself coming back to that and a couple others in certain contexts. But there's almost no way I could see myself re-listening to this entire album again, unless it's to have on in the background while I do something else.
Evaluating the album as a whole, it gets a low rating. Even though there were parts and tracks I liked, I have to consider the work in its entirety. I would probably have a different opinion if the album was about 75% shorter.
Overall: 1.8/5
Ramones
3/5
Pretty solid punk album from the band that gets a lot of the credit for the movement. This was their first, and it influenced a huge wave of artists to come. For that alone, it is worthy of a listen.
Removing the album's importance, it's still a pretty enjoyable listen. The songs are simple, short, and fast-paced. Some have a little extra instrumentation behind the drums/bass/guitar set up, but most stick to the power rock trio staples. The vocals fit perfectly with the mix and sound they have. The lyrics often repeat or stay to one short phrase, but again that works with the music itself.
Perhaps the biggest negative is the lack of distinction between the tracks. You could listen to three in a row and they all could've been one song. Even with how short it all is, the lack of diversity can get old by the time you're nearing the conclusion; it was all pretty homogenous. If someone were to not like the genre/style, then they would definitely not enjoy this album. Not that the Ramones would care.
It's simple, but simply good. It's greatness comes more from its impact than anything particular to the album itself. As a result, I'll rate it as a good album that I enjoyed, but not that I rank as something necessarily great out of context.
Overall: 3.3/5
Beatles
4/5
Got this recommendation only three days after my first Beatles suggestion (The Beatles/White Album). They have been my first two experiences of listening to Beatles albums in full. While I thought the White Album was solidly good, Abbey Road was definitely the better of the two.
I think my main reason for liking AR more is that its high points reached higher than those on the White Album. There are songs here that actually feel like they are great, compared to just being really good. Something and I Want You were excellent. Here Comes the Sun and Oh, Darling were great too. The medley at the end was really well executed and a great listen, and I liked that a lot. The songs just seemed better, even if some still were simply good instead of great.
As I mentioned in the previous review, the Beatles were great at songwriting. That is again showcased here. The songs have diversity, but work well together. They go from a harder rock to a soft ballad with ease. Songs vary from long and complex to short and sweet, and both types are well constructed. The medley works as one larger piece or as smaller sections. The instrumentation and vocals are expertly composed throughout.
On the other hand, this album did have a few low spots that were probably worse than those on the White Album. I did not care at all for Maxwell's Silver Hammer. Octopus' Garden was fine at best, but not very good. I'm sure there are people who love them. For me, though, they bring it down a bit, even if the album still is really strong overall.
As a whole, this album is really, really good. It could be better, mainly due to a couple songs that were pretty weak. That's the only reason it falls a little short of an all-time great for me.
Overall: 4.25/5
The War On Drugs
3/5
My best description here would be some kind of modern, atmospheric Bruce Springsteen and Bob Dylan-type inspired music. Strangely, it was pretty good, even though I don't particularly love either of those artists. Whether it deserves to be on this list, I'm not so sure; it seemed like it was a fine representative for 2010s indie music, but maybe not more than that.
I'd say the compositions were focused on the overall picture rather than the individual components, which helped form the atmospheric, ambient nature of its sound. Even so, there was different instrumentation present on all the tracks. Guitars, keys, percussion all filtered in and out to make the greater piece. Most of the album was at a more laid-back pace, though some parts went a little harder.
My biggest issue with it came from the length. I didn't mind the whole album being an hour, but some of the songs felt like they went on for too long without really having a reason to do so. They used that extra time to kinda just go nowhere. Other than that, the sound was a bit bland at points given the overall style was consistent throughout. Some songs stood out a bit, which helped with that issue.
I did like this album and enjoyed the listen, even with its negative aspects. I'm just not sure I'd call it an essential album. Maybe that will be the case with some more time behind it. As of now, I wouldn't say it's more than just solid to good.
Overall: 3.25/5
Buck Owens
3/5
I've never been a big country fan, but I've also never really listened to the older standards (outside of a few Willie Nelson recs on here). Gotta say, I enjoyed this way more than I expected I would. It's interesting; I feel like I would've been solidly disinterested in this 10+ years ago. I would've thought it lame or dumb. But I don't feel that way at all now. I guess that's maturity of some kind.
Part of it probably comes from the absence of the douche-bro direction modern country seems to flaunt. This is much simpler and more honest to me, which is really a strength of the album. It's much more Sturgill Simpson/Johnny Blue Skies than Morgan Wallen. I consider that a plus.
As for the album itself, nothing was necessarily great on its own, but it was all still really good. The guitar was the star for me; Don Rich's name sounds familiar, though I don't think I had heard much of his playing before this. He really ripped it up with the country licks on this record. It also worked really well with the backing tracks to form the base music for Buck's vocals. It's another example of the vocals fitting in well rather than being anything amazing, but they carried everything really effectively. Put it together and I guess that's the Bakersfield Sound brought up whenever Buck Owens plays.
Further, I can't really say anything here was bad, even if I didn't like some of it all that much. My biggest criticism is that a number of the songs sound similar and kind of run together. There is a little bit of diversity in here, but a lot of the beats could just be the same thing on repeat. That kind of stands out when the tracks are short like this and fly into each other (though I do think the brevity was a positive for the album).
This is a solid album where the band just rips through their material and makes something enjoyable to hear. There's more to it than first meets the ear. I'm not sure I'll listen to it again, but I am glad I heard it once. While not a "great" for me, it's definitely good.
Overall: 3.4/5
Ray Price
2/5
Despite all the praise I gave yesterday's Buck Owens effort, my second classic country album in a row did not result in the same appreciation. This one reminded me more of the music that blew up the aliens' heads in Mars Attacks, just without the yodeling. Maybe that's why my head remained intact.
I didn't love the presentation. I didn't love the music. I didn't love the "theme" either, and the whole intro part pretty much turned me off to that immediately. It kind of reminded me of an attempt to make 50s swing music into country music instead, and I didn't think it worked very well. There wasn't much that stood out or impressed me about it.
Even with all that, I still didn't hate it or think it was terrible, necessarily. I just didn't think it was good. It seemed like something I'll easily forget after listening to a few more albums from the list, and I don't see myself coming back to it.
Overall: 1.8/5
The Beach Boys
3/5
Another Beach Boys album, just a few weeks after BW's passing? And less than two weeks after my first? I'll take it, but seems a little odd (if not intentional).
I've often heard (especially lately, given recent events) that this is one of the greatest albums of all time, but I can't say I really see why after listening. It does some interesting stuff musically, and felt like it flowed well both in composition and lyrically. Even so, there was really nothing that I can say blew me away. I'd guess it's another example of something that had more impact in context than I get from hearing it on here. Looking into it more, it often gets cited as altering the course of music production, which is harder for me to recognize now, almost 60 years later.
A lot of the songs are fine to good. Similar to what I've written about some of the other records on here, it notably has no particularly bad songs. A couple are very good- God Only Knows is probably the best track on the album and holds its own off of it. Other than that, nothing really stands out as great on its own. It's also solid as a whole album, but again, nothing that strikes me as great.
I'll concede that it isn't my particularly favorite genre/style, which could skew things a bit. Even so, I enjoyed it, and thought certain parts were pretty good. There just wasn't that much else that stood out to me as better than that. As a result, it sits in the high range of good in my ranking, but not up to great.
Overall: 3.5/5
Billy Bragg
3/5
After a rock-heavy few weeks, I'm enjoying getting some different genre exposure. With two old country albums and now something more folky, it feels like a palate cleanser of sorts. Luckily, I've also enjoyed the suggestions themselves.
This was essentially an updated folk album, taking unused Woodie Guthrie lyrics and putting them over modern music compositions. The artists doing the music writing were a British folk singer and an American indie/folk rock band. Perhaps the most surprising thing about it is how seamlessly the project worked. Nothing seemed out of place or forced. Some tracks kept a strong folk feel, while others came across much more indie rock-like.
Despite that, it was a little tedious. The album ran close to 50 minutes, which isn't overly long. But there wasn't a whole lot there to keep it engaging and distinct the whole way through. I realized I was zoning out a lot more for the second half than I did on the first, for whatever that's worth.
This is another album I consider good and enjoyable, but didn't necessarily find better than that. Not sure it's something I'll listen to again in whole. I would revisit some of the songs, though.
Overall: 3.25/5
Wilco
3/5
And now a Wilco album the day after a Bragg/Wilco Guthrie album. This is one that I can't say I get being on here. Is it bad? No, not really. But is it anything special? I'm not sure that it is.
From my listen it just seems like kinda straightforward indie rock music. Maybe this was one of the efforts in that inspired later artists, so is important for its influence. It did come out in 2001, which is earlier than I can say I know of a more general indie rock scene being prevalent.
Most of it was fine at worst, with some tracks being a bit better. I thought the second 2/3 was more enjoyable than the first few songs, and I liked the middle section of that 2/3 the most. Some parts were more involved than others, but a lot of it was pretty low key. I didn't love the singer's voice, and the instruments were mostly subdued (they did come alive a bit on I'm the Man Who Loves You, which was nice). There were a few happy/fun spots, but the rest felt melancholy. It reminded me at times of Bright Eyes, who I don't particularly love either.
I appreciate when an album manages to have no bad parts. But being not bad doesn't really make it good on its own. There should be more to it for it to be a great album. I can't say I thought this was more than fine.
Overall: 2.9/5
Pulp
2/5
Had some scattered thoughts while listening to this one. First, I was surprised it came out in 1995, as it had a more 80s-sound to me. But it also kinda had a Blur sound, and even a more modern sound at times. So I guess that makes sense. Certain points I thought it was a parody/satire effort. Others, it actually was pretty sincere.
To keep it short, I wasn't particularly impressed. The whispering parts were weird, and the lyrical content felt like a mediocre attempt to recreate a Velvet Underground vibe. The music was mostly poppy rock, and didn't do much interesting to me. There were some fun parts, but not enough for me to say it was particularly enjoyable. Every time I thought it was starting to go somewhere better, it just reverted back to the same bland sound.
The album wasn't necessarily bad, but I didn't think it was all that good. I'm not sure why it's an album I need to hear. I think that's the biggest flaw with this project- there have to be 1,001 albums. Not all of them can be winners. Grading this album against the rest on the list gives it some pretty tough competition. It's another one I won't remember after getting through a few others, and I don't see myself listening to it again.
Overall: 2.4/5
Nirvana
4/5
Not a lot I can say about this album that hasn't already been discussed ad nauseum. Mostly that's due to the timing of the performance in relation to Cobain's death, but also due to the way Nirvana performed the songs (and what songs they performed).
I will say that I completely agree with it being on this list. It's got a lot of power, even though it's "unplugged" and acoustic (sort of). The vocals are full of emotion. I think it actually benefitted from using cover songs, though I'm not sure we needed three straight Meat Puppets songs. The Bowie cover is one of the best songs from the set. Their originals are performed with passion and evoke feeling in a way well emphasized by the format.
There are some low points that bring it down a bit for me. And, like I noted for the Metallica/SFS suggestion, live albums just feel like you're only getting half of the experience since you can't see the visual component. Otherwise, I can't say too much negative. There's a lot to like here, even removing the Cobain death context.
Overall: 3.6/5
Rush
3/5
Ah, Rush. Another band I've heard about x100, but never listened to outside of a few songs. I'll note that I didn't really care for those songs very much going into this, but I didn't hate them or anything.
Listening to this album, it becomes quickly clear that they are very talented musicians. The compositions are less vibey and more intellectual. Kind of like a thinking-man's band (...I guess that's what they are). There is strong guitar throughout, and it sounds good tone-wise. The songs had plenty of rocking moments and interesting lyrics too. I didn't notice the rest of the instrument components as much or as often, though.
So what happens when you put those strong guitars, interesting concepts, and well-thought-out compositions together? For me, what I got was disappointment. I don't know what it is exactly, but nothing about it was all that attractive to me as a listener (other than the guitar at times). If I had to guess, I think it may come from their seeming effort to make the music more intellectual. For me, music is more about heart and soul than brains. Especially rock music, which should have a lot of fun in it. Perhaps that's why I appreciate bluesy stuff more; you really feel it when done right. I didn't feel much coming through from this. It's not sterile like plenty of music can be, but it is missing some soul.
I thought the first half was better than the last half. The 2112 segment(s) were cool and interesting, had rocking parts and subtle parts, and flowed well. It was mostly fine with some good spots in it. That didn't really hold true as much for the rest, which felt more pretentious and boring. Even the softer song didn't evoke much emotion for me.
I guess that's a long way to say I found this pretty meh. I know plenty of people like it, and there are parts where I get Rush's larger appeal. But it's just missing something for me. I don't think it's bad, but I can't say I thought it was much more than fine.
Overall: 2.9/5
Living Colour
4/5
Definitely enjoyed this one- very solid rock album. Plenty of heavy guitars, forceful vocals, and tight rhythms. The bass got funky at parts too, which was a cool addition. The compositions themselves mostly weren't overly complicated or involved, but were strong in their straightforwardness. Certain parts did take it up a notch, too.
The strongest part to me was probably the guitar, which showed some interesting flair and range. At times it screamed through, while others was more subtle. It seemed like it started heavier, but expanded as the album went on. It had a slide-like quality to start on Broken Hearts, one of the softer songs on the album, then came back up to rock out a solo. It was funkier on Favorite Color and Which Way, though the latter had plenty of grit when the solo came on. You could tell the player really was skilled based on how it shined through on each song.
If there is a negative, it's really just that some of the tracks weren't very distinct from each other. A few did change up the pace to help with that (especially later on the album), so it wasn't overly distracting. I can't really point out anything as being bad.
The only other critique I have is that there isn't anything necessarily better than very good to me. It's another album that has no weak parts, but also doesn't really hit greatness. That said, it's still quality music and something I enjoyed a lot. It sits near the top of the good range.
Overall: 4/5
Duran Duran
2/5
Pretty much exactly what you'd expect- solid synth pop with mostly upbeat vibes. Some tracks were good but most of the album felt a little bland and without much diversity. It was pretty formulaic. They did add a couple slower songs toward the end, though they didn't really sound that different either.
The songs also got longer toward the end. For me, that made them more tedious. I felt the same about the album; it just didn't have enough distinct songs to stay interesting for the whole runtime. Even if it wasn't necessarily bad or unpleasant, it just got old.
This is one that has some good points, but really wasn't all that impressive to me. I'll call it fine.
Overall: 2.5/5
The Monks
3/5
It took me a while to find this one to listen to it. When I finally did, I wasn't sure what to expect. I can really only compare the experience to being at some sort of demented carnival, trapped in the funhouse with crazy clowns while on drugs. This album is what would blare over the speaker system. For some reason, I still enjoyed it.
There's a lot of energy there, to say the least. I can't tell if the band members knew how to play their instruments before making this album, or if they decided to pick them up and learn as they went, adding some form of yodeling, screeching vocalist to really drive it home. Even with all the chaos it was coherent music, so I think the style was a deliberate choice. It's pretty interesting that this got made in the mid-60s when albums were geared toward studio-driven productions rather than more spontaneous efforts. No to mention using anti-war messaging in that time.
I can see why the article says it's a precursor to punk rock and more modern alt rock. The style is like a weird blend of early and contemporary rock with the garage-esque production and oddity added in. Some points were almost like if 90s Green Day made a Crickets album. There were interesting builds at times and noticeable deconstructions at others. Regardless of the section, the instrumentation and vocals demanded attention.
I'm not sure I would have liked it as much if I knew what to expect going into it. I think the novelty of it is one of its greater strengths, because I don't know how much re-listening value it really has. Additionally, it got kind of grating as it went on, even with how short it was.
This album was weird, but in an interesting and memorable way. It earned a lot more "style" points than substance points, which makes it difficult for me to evaluate. I can't say I found it great, but I did get something from it that isn't present in a lot of other albums. I'm glad I heard it once even if I don't know that I'll ever listen to it again. I will definitely think about it again, though.
Overall: 3/5
a-ha
2/5
I just couldn't get into this one. Yeah, the first song is iconic, and persists. But the rest is about as boring as it gets. It did nothing for me.
I'll give it a little credit for the hit, but the album as a whole does not stand up in comparison.
Overall: 1.75/5
Britney Spears
2/5
This is pretty much the definitive 90s/00s pop album. It was manufactured almost in a lab-like way: come up with catchy hooks, write the songs around them, include generic but relatable lyrics, find an attractive, marketable star to sing them, and then release it on the world. And it worked, incredibly well.
I'm not really a fan of this type of music in that I don't listen to it regularly, but I do enjoy enough of it when it comes on. Even so, I find the formula to be irritating. It's a type of pandering that turns art into consumable goods. Respect to any musicians that are successful and profit from their work, but that isn't the point of music.
Rant aside, it's easy to critique this album from a musical standpoint. Being a pop record of that era, there's not really much emphasis on anything other than the hooks. A lot of the compositions are similar and sound similar. I really don't remember much at all of the music on this album, other than the iconic intro tones on ...Baby One More Time. The voice is good, but not really an all-time great. As I mentioned above, the lyrics are generic, but still somewhat relatable.
All that said, its impact and staying power have to be commended, and I agree with it being on the list. Somehow, there are still some pretty good songs on there, at least from an earworm standpoint. As a 90s kid, I can't tell you how many times I heard the singles on this album growing up. And I still know most of the lyrics to all of them. You can sing along, or just sit back and enjoy the ride. Millions (maybe billions?) of people have had that experience in one way or another, and BS may be the most iconic celebrity of the early 2000s. She's still a cultural icon today, even though I have no idea whether she still makes music.
So, how to rate an album that's value comes only in the least meaningful way from the actual quality of the music? For me, it's not very highly. While this is a fun listen, it's not much more than that. I know what you may be thinking ("Leave Britney alone!"), but holding this up against equally-successful efforts or some of the amazing musical works that have had only a fraction of the success shows that it's really just not great artistry. At least, in my opinion.
Overall: 2/5
Bruce Springsteen
3/5
A decent, albeit quiet and sparse, folk album from the Boss. I hadn't heard much of him like this; most of the songs I know are bigger, louder, and backed by the full band. He toned it down here, with most tracks barely having more to them than vocals and acoustic guitar. I can see this having a big impact on singer/songwriter types, as it showcases how even big artists can produce quieter, simpler music.
Normally, Springsteen grates on me. I can only do a few of his songs before needing to change to something else. That didn't really happen here. I think it being much more subdued led to me having a higher tolerance for the album. Even so, it did start to get old toward the end. The lack of variety in song style probably had something to do with that.
While I appreciated his effort and didn't hate the album, some tracks really didn't work for me. I couldn't get into State Trooper at all. Plus, with the compositions having very little differentiation, some of the songs started to blend together for me. I think that was exacerbated by its quietness; it lost me at times, and I didn't know if it was the same song when it came back or not.
I'm a little torn on this one. There's nothing to really make it great for me, outside of it being different and intimate. There's also nothing really to say it is bad, other than a few tracks I didn't particularly like. It seems like a treat for someone who is a Bruce fan, but not for me, even though I did like the stripped down vibe he went with here. Thinking of repeat listenability, I wouldn't say it is something I'll come back to very much. I'm settling on fine/solid, though I'll probably go back and forth about it after I hit submit.
Overall: 2.75/5
The Damned
3/5
Album rec #100!
I found this one pretty fun. It was like the Ramones, but heavier. Nothing spectacular, just solid/good music.
Overall: 3.4/5
Prince
5/5
Fantastic opening song, fantastic closing song, fantastic middle parts, and really a fantastic album. Prince reached a pop peak with Purple Rain that, even though it feels very 80s at times, stays an all-time great. While I was already pretty familiar with Prince, I've never listed to this album in full (or seen the movie). I can't say I was surprised that he made something this good, but I wasn't expecting to enjoy it as much as I did.
Let's Go Crazy, Purple Rain, and When Doves Cry were the stand-out tracks for me, but I enjoyed the rest too. The only real "low" points on the album were Beautiful Ones and Darling Nikki. Not because they were bad, but just because the rest was better. They were still solid tracks and I wouldn't skip them if I listen again (and I definitely will). Other than that, some of the production felt dated or very 80s. It kind of added to the charm of the album, so it wasn't necessarily bad. I just would've preferred fewer synths. Also, a pet peeve of mine is when artist use letters or numbers in place of words. Prince did that a couple times here. But again, that's more of a nitpick than a real criticism.
Even with the 80s-ness, none of the songs really sounded the same or got lost in the mix. Plus, it had a pretty wide range of depth. He was able to show lots of emotion through the pop haze, either by manipulating his voice into a scream (or a whisper) or by whaling some soulful riffs on the guitar. He also extended song lengths to fit the feel rather than just keeping it in the short-and-sweet pop mold. Those paired well with the simpler songs, which still had some great grooves to them even if they weren't as complex. Importantly, at no point did it get boring.
I could go on. To put it simply, this is an album of just straight up fun, but also very good, music. Even though it's 80s pop rock, it felt as lively now as it did when it first came out. I struggle to find much negative to say about it. To me, this is a great album.
Overall: 4.75/5
Terence Trent D'Arby
3/5
I feel like this album suffers a bit from the era it was made. It's got some pretty good stuff. But the production sounds dated today, and uses a lot of those gimmicks that were very prevalent in 80s and some early 90s music. If he had just toned that back a little bit, I feel like it would be a stronger album and have a better lasting power. As it is, the production choices can be a little distracting from the quality of the songs themselves. Like things are going good, then there's some unnecessary keyboard-y/synth thing that comes in and detracts from it. Just for an example, I felt like Let's Go Forward could've been a much more impactful track without all the reverb and synth taking over its sound. It doesn't ruin the album by any means, but is noticeable, especially when listening to the work as a whole.
Dude seems like a very talented singer. When he shows the skill off, it's impressive. He has a lot of soul and feel behind his voice, which I always appreciate. The songs are also well constructed and have interesting vibes that kept my attention. Minus what I said above, there's not much to complain about. It felt like it got a little weaker at the end, but they may have just been because I'd grown tired from the critiques I had.
It's a good, if somewhat flawed album. I had never heard it before, so I'm glad I got the chance to listen here. I feel like I'll come back to at least a few of the tracks but maybe not the whole album given my thoughts on the production decisions.
Overall: 3.3/5
Jacques Brel
2/5
Another one that just isn't really for me. I didn't think it was bad, but I didn't feel like I could appreciate it fully without more info and context. On its own, it was vocal heavy, instrumentation light, and a live performance. The lyrics were in French, so I didn't know much of what was sang. All that added up to me feeling a bit left out.
The vocalist was lively, so that was a plus. He was emotive and clear, using emphasis to tell his stories. Even without understanding him, I could feel his passion come through. I'm guessing he put on a bit of a show at the concert performance as well. It felt almost more like listening to a musical soundtrack than a concert.
I want to be fair, and I do think it was a decent listen. None of the songs struck me as bad. I just know I am missing out on some of what makes it an addition to this list, and it's not a style I usually seek out. For my experience, I can't say I thought it was more than fine.
Overall: 2.25/5
Lynyrd Skynyrd
5/5
This has to be one of the greatest debut albums of all time. It only has 8 tracks, but half of them are iconic (even though Sweet Home Alabama isn't on this one). The other four are pretty good, too.
The albums displays some pretty awesome musicianship, especially noticeable from the guitar parts. It takes until Free Bird for them to completely unleash, but they really lead you along the whole way through the album. Even the quieter tracks showcase some deft playing, and the piano-led Something Going On takes a break to have a different kind of fun. The vocals fit the music incredibly well, and the lyrics are clearly personal even if a bit simple at times.
To me, the music also kept interest by dipping into bluesy rock and roll along with the more country southern-rough sound. It also had a good range, going from some pretty fast-paced tracks to slower ballads throughout. The second track of the album, Tuesday's Gone, was a 7+ minute ballad sandwiched between two much more upbeat songs. This variety carried all the way to the end, culminating in the combo of both that is Free Bird. I'm not sure you can get a much better closing track than that.
The biggest detractor I can see for this album is the style and iconography that the band embraces. They are southern rock kings, showcasing everything that comes with that. Even though I enjoy the genre for the music, I can see how it would turn plenty of people off from the jump. Along with that, I would say that the music did blend a bit at times given the similarity of style, even with the variety they implemented.
As a whole, this is an incredibly consistent-in-quality album that ranges from soft and heartfelt to upbeat and raucous. Even though it's a debut, it plays like a work made by musicians with years of writing and recording experience behind them. Several tracks are still iconic 50+ years later, and probably will still be 50+ years from now. Even the ones I hadn't heard before were good, and worked well with the tracks around them to make a complete album. There really are no bad parts, only parts that aren't as good as the others. And some of those others are top tier. I can conclusively say I found this to be a great album.
Overall: 4.6/5
4/5
Another album that has been talked about so much, there's not much to say beyond my own experience listening to it for here. I found it to be pretty good overall. Putting aside all the years of criticism and praise is a little difficult at this point, but I found it to be an enjoyable listen.
There were some really good tracks on there. A few weren't so good. But as a whole I'd say the album was pretty solid. The music kept me engaged, the vocals were powerful enough, and the songs had variety and range to keep things interesting. My favorite tracks were Don't Look Back in Anger and Champagne Supernova, both tracks I'd heard before and have enjoyed for a while. I thought the worst song was She's Electric, which was a new one for me.
I'd say this was much more good than bad. I don't think it's a masterpiece, but I do think it was a pretty good album. I enjoyed it more than plenty of others I've heard on here, and I could see myself listening to it again.
Overall: 3.75/5
Crowded House
2/5
I thought this album started out fairly strong, but pretty quickly fell off into something more bland and boring. It's also a bit long, with 14 (and a half songs) running 48+ minutes. It never really got back to being as good as it began, but stayed generally uninteresting.
A lot of the songs felt the same, had similar themes, or sounded alike. The only song that really stood out as different was the last "hidden" track, which lasted barely a minute. While I can appreciate consistency for an album, that made it all blend together into something not very memorable. By the time it ended, I'd forgotten a number of the songs that had just played. I'm not sure I'll remember the rest in a few days.
I wouldn't say it's bad, but it's really no better than fine to me. I probably would've appreciated a few of the tracks more if I heard them on their own. As it is, I don't see myself coming back to this one.
Overall: 2.5/5
Sarah Vaughan
3/5
While I normally am not all that impressed with jazz albums, I did like this one. It was also a better live album experience than some others I've had on here. I thought the format worked well for the most part. There were times when it was clearly missing something from the performance, but not so many that it ruined it. Also the style and era probably made it seem less of a difference compared to a regular recording.
The music itself was pleasant and enjoyable. Vaughan's voice was very smooth and flowed from the speakers in a cool way. The band's music was present, but not really showcased. There wasn't much to the whole show, which wasn't a bad thing in this instance. Everyone just did their thing and let Vaughan shine.
I did get a short version of the album at only 9 minutes; looks like there is a much longer version too. I feel like I would've grown tired of it if I'd listened to it for that long. But I did like the length and content of the version I heard.
I still didn't love it or think it was amazing, but I thought it was pretty good.
Overall: 3.1/5
Morrissey
3/5
I get that Morrissey is polarizing, but this seemed as non-controversial as it gets. Just fairly bland late-80s emo rock music with a slightly British-accented deep vocal. It's not bad, but it's not particularly impressive.
The compositions were similar in tone throughout, so it did have that blending problem I've run into a few times on here. Even so, the songs were distinct enough not to lose me that much. It did cause the album to feel long without more diversity to break it up, though.
The best song for me was I Don't Mind If You Forget Me, which was probably the most upbeat track on the album and a nice change from the melancholy of the rest. I also listened to the song that was originally on the album but removed for re-release, Ordinary Boys, which I thought was better than the one they replaced it with. Most of the other songs were fine to me. The only time he really lost me was when he did that weird ha-ha-ha-haha-whatever it was part on Suedehead. Couldn't tell if he was serious with that vocalization or meant it to be funny.
I haven't listened to enough of the Smiths/Morrissey to form a strong opinion about them/him, but nothing about this really swayed me one way or the other. I didn't hate it or love it, just thought it was fine.
Overall: 2.75/5
Beck
3/5
I thought this was pretty good. Not spectacular, but a fun listen and enjoyable all the way through. I was only familiar with Where It's At before this listen, and I actually thought that was one of the less engaging tracks on the album. There were a lot of interesting compositions on it. I liked that the vocals often felt more like an instrument adding to that rather than the focal point. It worked well for the style.
At its best, it was really good. At its worst, it was still solid. Everything else was fine to good to varying degrees. Given the way it was constructed, it never got boring or dull. Even so, I did find myself zoning out at times. I think that had to do with the length of the album, since it was close to an hour long. Perhaps also related to the length and style, I'm not sure it felt cohesive so much as it just all was together. That's kind of the same way the music itself was designed, though.
I wouldn't consider it up to the level of great, but I did think it was pretty good. Not sure how inclined I am to listen to it again in full given the length, but there were some tracks I'll probably come back to.
Overall: 3.4/5
Bob Marley & The Wailers
4/5
Though I was only previously familiar with one track on this album, I found the whole thing to be a very pleasant listening experience. Reggae is grounded on those simple, persistent backing rhythms that just carry the whole song through, and that was prevalent here. All the other parts on top were interesting and enjoyable. The songs themselves were nice to listen to, plus evoked emotion in different ways throughout the runtime.
On the negative side, the similar structures caused some blandness/bleeding. I know they were different songs, but they still sounded alike at times. If I wasn't paying close enough attention, I wouldn't realize that I was listening to a different song than the one before it. Some songs were unique enough to stand out, but not all of them. I think having more distinction would've made the album stronger than it was.
Reggae isn't my favorite genre, and I'd never listened to an entire album by a reggae artist before. I have to say this was a nice introduction to one of the most famous to ever do it. I thought it was a very good album.
Overall: 3.75/5
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
3/5
I found this album to be mostly fine, but not particularly good. Some tracks were strong, and none were all that bad. The majority were just OK, though. It also didn't really feel like a cohesive album so much as just a compilation of songs.
Almost all of the songs were written by a member individually rather than together as a group, so there was a variety of style throughout its runtime. I preferred Crosby's style to those of the others, and once again just could not enjoy Young's voice. Woodstock, not written by either member but by Joni Mitchell, was one of the better tracks on the album. I also liked the last track, Everybody I Love You, which had writing contribution from CS&N.
I don't want to drag this too much because I really didn't find it bad. I just wasn't all that impressed by it, and it wasn't all that interesting to me for whatever reason. It was solid, but not really better than that.
Overall: 2.8/5
Joanna Newsom
2/5
Going to start by giving Newsom some credit here- she definitely tried and succeeded to make whatever it was she wanted to make with this album. Whether or not that's a good thing is a little more open to interpretation.
As you can probably tell by that comment, I didn't particularly enjoy this very much. It was weird in a way I couldn't get into, and it felt like that was the point more than anything- being weird/different just to be weird/different. If harp is her main instrument, and folk singing is her main style, then that's more than fine. But it sounded like she didn't want people to think it's fine on her behalf, so she did a bunch of stuff to make it seem not fine. But then is also telling you it actually is fine, you just don't get it. That's a lot of assumption on my part, but I guess something about it has that pretentious/privileged vibe to me. Which in my mind doesn't really gel with the folk ideology, a separate issue. Perhaps it just means I really don't "get" it.
I think she likely had a little too much freedom to do what she wanted with the whole thing. It sounds like she had ideas that should've been separated into a number of different songs instead of being crammed into one, or at least pared down and made more cohesive. If someone had been there to reign her in on it, I think it would've been more manageable. There's a fine line between hampering creativity and tasteful direction, so maybe that was a sticking point too. What she made instead sounds like a weird combination of bard's tale/ren faire/folk poetry.
On a more positive note, there were little snippets here and there that I enjoyed a lot. At least one part of Emily and a later portion of Only Skin stood out to me as enjoyable and interesting. They made me think there's a version of this that I would like quite a bit. But those parts were buried in the rest of what was going on, making it hard to give them too much attention. I think that was part of my issue; there was just too much musical rambling going on for me.
I'm trying to use this as list an exercise to broaden my tastes and learn to appreciate different styles/artists more, but I don't think this one is going to win me over. Taking my own feelings out of it, I can say Newsom accomplished something interesting and memorable here. I don't find it very good, though.
Overall: 1.8/5
The Waterboys
3/5
I was already starting to suspect that I liked British and Irish folk music, and this album helped confirm that suspicion. For whatever reason, I enjoy it. Add that into a mixture with rock and we're definitely cooking. I enjoyed the majority of this album as a result.
However, it started to lose me toward the end. The album ran over 54 minutes and had 13 songs, some of which were very long. A number of them sounded similar due to the style. I think they could've cut it down a tad and it would've been better for it. As it is, the length caused it to drag on me, especially since some of the later songs were slower/melancholy.
I was thinking I would give this album 4 stars at about the halfway point, but the way it dragged and the end made me knock it a little bit. I think this would've been a very strong 10-song album. Unfortunately, instead it's just a decently good 13 song album.
Overall: 3.3/5
Black Sabbath
4/5
OK, now I know these suggestions are at least partially rigged. A Sabbath album this close after the Ozzy news? Not that I'm complaining; I will listen to it and enjoy every second I can through the loss.
And... It's really good. I've heard many Ozzy/BS songs before, but never listened to a full album of them like this. Started off strong and didn't let up until later on. The guitar work is heavy and leads the feel for the rest of the band on their metal journey. Ozzy is Ozzy, though you can tell he's not as Ozzy as he would eventually become. I was a little surprised at how bluesy portions of it were. I guess that was a big influence, but I usually just think about the heavier sound I associate with anything Ozzy-related when I consider BS.
For me, the main negative of this album is that it ends with an extended jam session medley. The jam is mostly good, but goes on for a long time and has a couple weak points. The later middle part is probably its worst section, as the first half and last few minutes were pretty good. It causes the album to feel incomplete rather than a full work. Without that track it would run less than 30 minutes. Breaking it down a bit and/or adding something to that time could've made the album better (imo).
Still, I really enjoyed it and would listen again. Regardless of any bias based on recent events, it's a debut album that set a tone for the band and its members that lasts decades later and that they continue to live up to. Not to mention the influence it would have on the world. All in all, I found it to be a very good album.
Overall: 3.75/5
Elton John
3/5
To be honest, I found this album fairly boring. Not really bad, just not all that interesting to me. There were a few songs I liked, but really not enough there to make me consider it a particularly good album. I kept zoning out and nothing about it really did much to pull me back in. I'm not the biggest fan of Elton John or his genre, so I'm sure that played a role. I think the similarity in the style for all the songs was part of that too.
I can't say there was anything there that I thought was worse than fine. Still, I'm not sure why it's something I need to hear before I die. It was more just OK to me.
Overall: 2.8/5
Songhoy Blues
3/5
This album felt very fresh despite being mostly grounded in blues rock. The different perspective/cultural influence definitely played a role and took the music in different directions than the typical rock album on this list. I enjoyed musical and cultural blend a lot even though I couldn't understand the language the vocals were in.
I think this was a strong addition to the list, but I don't know that it was particularly special outside of being unique. The style and background made it interesting even if it was a bit unimpressive at times. On the whole, I thought it was a pretty good album.
Overall: 3.5/5
Derek & The Dominos
4/5
Can't deny how much I liked this one. I'm not a Clapton fan usually, but this was a really enjoyable album full of blues rock goodness. Even accounting for the style being right up my alley, they still pulled it off incredibly well. Pretty much every song just rocked, and the song after it carried the previous one's momentum on, all the way up to Layla. Somehow hearing that song in the context of the album made it even better than I had thought it was before.
The guitar really was great. Clapton and Allman blazed away for the whole 76 minutes the album lasted, and never let up (nor did they have a reason to). It didn't really matter what everyone else did, since their work just kept your attention all the way through. I thought Clapton's voice worked well for the style they had, so it didn't detract from it at all for me. Putting it all together created something interesting, fun, and truly entertaining. It's always pretty amazing when you hear some of these older records and how well everyone plays together when you realize they didn't have anywhere near the same amount of record options and tricks that they can use today. They just went in the studio and pulled that off together.
The only songs I didn't really care for were I Am Yours and Thorn Tree, which were a little more subdued compared to most of the other tracks. I still liked them well enough; maybe they suffered by being surrounded by so many other good songs rather than just being weak efforts. I also actually really liked the long runtimes for the songs and album. Nothing really felt overplayed or stretched too much, and very little of it seemed like filler to me.
I do have to dock it a little for the number of covers since I still think that's cheating a little bit. Even though they were really good, it's hard to give them credit for other people's songs (especially since their own were so good). I think that bite was lessened somewhat since there were still 9 originals, so essentially a full album even without the covers. There was bit of homogeny given consistency of style and construction, but it worked well for me given my preference for blues rock.
In sum, I found this to be a really good album. The songs rocked and had soul, both from the instruments and the themes. While there were a couple tracks that felt weaker to me, they didn't distract from how good the rest of the album was. It ran long, but none of the time was wasted or felt forced. Even the number of covers didn't leave too bad of a taste for me, though I think that's the only reason I found it to be a little short of great. It was very good, and probably the best I've ever heard of Clapton.
Overall: 4.4/5
Waylon Jennings
3/5
Another old school country album that I liked much more than I expected I would. Still didn't love it or think it was amazing, but it was good enough.
It was a little slow/subdued for me, but the points when it picked up made it better. The transition for the second half of Honky Tonk Heroes grabbed my attention pretty early. There were a few other moments like that. I would've liked for there to have been more, since I did find it a little easy to zone out on and have it blend together a bit.
I'll say I found it solid, bordering on good.
Overall: 3/5
Miles Davis
3/5
I can't say I disliked this album, but I struggled to keep my attention on it as it went. I did enjoy it more than the last Davis album I got on here (though that isn't saying much). I liked its sonic/stylistic qualities even if it didn't engage me that much.
There was some good stuff there, but it wasn't really for me.
Overall: 2.5/5
The Sonics
3/5
This was a pretty interesting one to me. Very early punk/garage-type sound. There were shades of the earlier rock sound, but definitely rougher around the edges than the typical mid-60s rock you hear. I enjoyed the listen.
One downside was that the album had a lot of covers. The originals were fresh and interesting. The covers were good, but didn't offer much beyond the distinct sound being applied to them. It was also pretty similar throughout the tracks given the style. There wasn't a lot of variety there.
I enjoyed it and thought it was good, though it definitely had flaws. If there were more originals I probably would've rated it higher. Even so, I'm glad I heard it.
Overall: 3.25/5
The Temptations
3/5
When this album started, I thought I was going to love it. It came in hot with "Funky Music...", which I really enjoyed. Unfortunately my enthusiasm wasn't supported by the whole album.
The funk stuff was great. Good grooves and fun to listen to. But I didn't really like the rest of the tracks that much. Not to say that it was overly bad, but I thought the non-funk tracks were much weaker than the funk songs. Having heard them nail plenty of pop/doo-wop/etc songs before, I felt unimpressed with their efforts on those types of tracks here. They just didn't have the resonating effect that I felt like the group is usually capable of. The group did show that they can cover some musical ground with the variety of tracks on the album. That said, I'm not sure that made the album better.
I should note that I'm personally not that interested by vocal-led ballads and the like, so I'm sure that played a part in my evaluation. It often feels like the music itself gets neglected when the focus is on the vocals in that way. With the music being more "boring" on those tracks here, it was an uphill battle for me to enjoy them.
In short, I didn't find this album bad, but disappointing. I felt like it could have been better in a number of ways. There were tracks I liked while the rest didn't do much for me. As a whole, I didn't think it was much better than OK.
Overall: 2.75/5
Michael Kiwanuka
4/5
MK makes some solid music. He is distinctly modern in his composition, but uses classic styles and techniques to create his sound. What came out here was a really good album full of soul, passion, and thought. I enjoyed the listen and thought all of the tracks were good.
It did a little long, but not overly so that it took away from the listen. Even with a few intro/interlude type tracks, the album flowed well and worked as a whole. I could see it getting a bit boring for some listeners due to the length and construction, but that didn't happen for me. There was enough going on to keep it interesting for the full runtime. I had heard a few of the songs before on their own and thought they were strong both alone and when in context of the album.
It's hard to criticize this one too much. I do wish there had been a few more upbeat moments, but that wasn't really the vibe of the album so I get it. As it is, this was a really good album that I can see myself listening to again.
Overall: 3.8/5
Frank Zappa
3/5
I enjoyed this album and thought it was pretty fun and interesting. It was mostly jazzy compositions and very little vocals, but that didn't take away from the listening experience for me. It did lose me at times, though it kept bringing me back by doing something that caught my attention again.
I thought it was pretty good. Not sure I'd call it great, but definitely a pleasant listen.
Overall: 3.4/5
Aerosmith
2/5
TITA is my second Aerosmith album from the list, and I have to again start by saying that I don't really like Aerosmith much at all. While I did like Rocks despite that, I can't say I enjoyed this one all that much. There were some good parts, but otherwise I found it unimpressive.
To start with the good, Sweet Emotion is a great song. Everything about it just works. The music grooves, the vocals flow, and the way it sounds is just cool. The lyrics are the weakest part (more on that later), but they don't take away from it too much. I also liked Round and Round. Generally, there was some good guitar and bass work throughout the album.
However, the bad stuck with me more. I don't really like Steven Tyler as a vocalist, which made it hard to appreciate many of the songs here. Even aside from his voice, the lyrics were off putting to me. He was 27 when this album came out, but many of the lyrics were more reminiscent of a 15-year-old's thoughts than an adult's. Aside from that, there were a few tracks I didn't find to be good or memorable. I must've zoned out during No More No More because I don't remember that one at all. Their cover of Big 10 Inch Record seemed out of place and an odd choice too, though I guess they get some credit for throwing in something different.
I wouldn't really call this an actively bad album, but I wouldn't call it good and I didn't really enjoy it. It had too much of that douchey "I'm-a-rock-star"-ness I get from Aerosmith in place of actual heart and soul in the music. Outside of one or two songs, I don't see myself coming back to it. Those few songs that are good don't do enough to carry the record for me. As a whole, I'd call it fine at best.
Overall: 2.4/5
Dire Straits
3/5
This album started out hot with three strong songs. Unfortunately it fell off immediately after and couldn't really regain that form. The rest of the album was mellow, softer rock ranging from jazzy to folky. Plenty of blues influence persisted, but it never really "rocked" again after Walk of Life. Brothers in Arms came the closest (though it still fell short for me).
Of course, there was lots of good stuff happening. The guitar was expert, the music had lots of interesting qualities, and the vocals were engaging. Perhaps if they had broken up the tracks so they were spread out more among the softer/slower ones, it wouldn't have felt like such a nosedive. I may have liked those songs more if they hadn't followed up the three best songs on the album in succession.
While I didn't find the overall length to be a problem, it didn't help that so many of those songs were 6+ minutes long, sometimes just because of an interlude of sorts. I think they could've easily left one of those middle tracks off and had a better overall album. The LP version apparently is shorter, mostly because it cuts off sections of the longer songs. Maybe the cut time would make it a better listen, but I really think its the quantity of the songs rather than their length that's the issue. For example, I prefer the long version of Money for Nothing.
All that said, I didn't hate this album or find it bad. I just felt like it was a let down after the first third and got boring. I doubt I'll listen to it in full again, but I will definitely come back to the tracks I liked. They definitely carried it and are the main reason I give it a positive rating.
Overall: 2.8/5
Radiohead
2/5
Man, I just cannot get into Radiohead. I don't see it, and by "it" I mean whatever it is that causes people to like them. The band gives me "better than you" vibes and they think you're welcome for it. I'd only heard a few of their songs before this recommendation, and listening to the album did nothing to change my opinion.
The music is boring. The vocals are whiny and annoying. The lyrics are pretentious. There's nothing there that gets my attention and makes me want to listen. Yet, the album is nearly an hour long. It felt like I was listening to an extended lullaby trying to put me to sleep, but that didn't because it was somehow too bland to be comforting noise. It also seemed it was trying to be somewhat disconcerting, which kind of took away from the effect to and instead make it cringey.
Positively, I didn't hate Go to Sleep and Myxomatosis and actually kind of liked There, There, so that's something. I guess there had to be at least a couple tracks I could like when there were 14 there to pick from. But the few that were good did very little to elevate the rest of the album for me.
I've probably graded this a little harshly since I had a negative expectation going into it. That said, it easily met that negative expectation, and I was still disappointed. I found it dull with only a few tracks doing anything that caught my interest or were memorable. Those tracks brought it up from the bottom. As a whole, though, I can't rate it very highly. A 2 feels a bit too high, but a 1 would feel too low.
Overall: 2/5
Judas Priest
3/5
Pretty solid hard rock record. You could see how it would inspire/influence some of the classic metal bands and albums that came out in the years following. You could also hear the influence of some of what came before it. There were a few pretty good songs on here, and the rest were solid at worst.
The only negative I can really say about it is that I didn't find anything here particularly great. It kind of hit a ceiling at pretty good. But the overall quality of the album stays at that level pretty much the whole way through.
The main reason I don't rate this higher is just that other albums on the list did it better. Not taking away from this on being good; it just wasn't "great" and wasn't as good as some of the other hard rock stuff I've gotten here from that era. Still, I enjoyed it and could see myself listening again.
Overall: 3.4/5
Thin Lizzy
4/5
Pretty darn good rock album. I don't have many notes. It ran a little long, but it was good enough to warrant the length. As I've mentioned before, I gotta knock a few points off for it being a live album given it's really only capturing half of what's happening. There apparently is/was a little dispute about how much of the album is actually "live", though.
Overall: 3.8/5
Paul Simon
2/5
I don't really get why this album is on the list. Seems pretty mediocre. Rather bland/boring compositions under typical Simon lyrical and vocal efforts without much new or interesting to engage you. It's pleasant enough, but nothing special. It doesn't stand out at all to me. The only song that really made an impact was Cars Are Cars, but that was for negative reasons (it was pretty bad).
Simon has some decent stuff, but I didn't find much of it on this album. I wouldn't say the album was awful, I just found the whole thing to be forgettable. It's no better than fine.
Overall: 2.1/5
David Bowie
3/5
The most disappointing aspect of this list so far is that I haven't really liked that much of the Bowie music from the recommendations. This is the third album of his I've gotten, plus a couple others he produced or was otherwise directly involved with. Having grown up listening to his hits quite frequently, it's a bit of a shock how little I like the records as a whole. Of course, I still haven't gotten some of his best yet, so maybe it's just the selection rather than Bowie in general. For the ones I have gotten, this might actually be my favorite, whole album-wise.
To me, the album is an odd inclusion on the list. It's Bowie, but not really the Bowie that everyone thinks of. Instead, it's him older and pretty far removed from the height of the game. In some ways you can tell; he sounds aged, the lyrics are more retrospective, and the music is a bit less inspired and more modern-generic sounding than you might normally expect. Even so, it's not really bad music. It's just not really special like Bowie can be. And that makes me wonder if there's any other reason for it to be on the list other than it being a Bowie "comeback effort" album of sorts.
That said, I found it to be an enjoyable listen if a bit bland. The tracks vary from fine to good, but don't seem to overly suffer from the negative aspects I mentioned above. It is a bit long with 14 tracks running 53 minutes, though that didn't really seem too much. As you would expect from Bowie, there's enough variety in the songs and styles that it doesn't stay uninteresting for too long.
The end result is a nice enough album to listen to. I just don't think it's something I had to hear before I die. I also don't think it's the best representation of Bowie, even if I have liked it better as a complete album than some of his others. I'm putting this one down as "fine", but even that might be a bit higher than it would deserve without the deeper Bowie context.
Overall: 2.6/5
Barry Adamson
3/5
I'm not entirely sure what this was, but I did enjoy it. That's partly because it was different from the slew of pop, rock, and pop-rock albums I've been getting, and also because it was fun to listen to. The album took you on a strange yet interesting journey from start to finish. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts, as I'm not sure how it would work if just listening to certain tracks on their own.
It seems to embody the point of this list in that it's something I probably never would've heard otherwise and showed me something new as a result. That doesn't necessarily mean it's an all-time great album, but that's OK. I'm still glad I listened to it.
Overall: 3.5/5
Don McLean
2/5
This one was fine, but not really anything special to me. The title track stands on well on its own. I just found the rest to be mostly boring. It didn't really keep my interest or attention. The melancholy sound carried through the whole album without much to break it up.
Overall: 2/5
Fairport Convention
3/5
Another cross-pond folk album that I like more than I might've expected. It has some rock qualities as well, which I think made it more suitable for my tastes. It's a well-rounded effort and an enjoyable listen.
I liked the style of the music and the vocals. Each track was distinct enough from the one before it to keep my interest throughout. There were a bunch of covers on it, most of Dylan songs (that apparently were unreleased before). They were good enough, and I thought the originals were pretty good too. I even liked the 11-minute rendition of A Sailor's Life well enough.
There are a few reasons I don't rank this higher. As noted, a lot of it is covers/unoriginal, which is always a knock for me. Also, it didn't seem like it really came close to greatness. It was pretty good, but for me bordered closer to fine/OK most of the time. While I enjoyed it, I didn't see it as much more than that.
As a whole, it was a pleasant listen and a solid album.
Overall: 2.9/5
Alanis Morissette
3/5
A very personal and honest album. I found it a nice change of depth from the more generic rock and pop albums that usually dominate the airwaves. Not sure I loved all of it, but I did like most of it.
The music style was very 90s. It had some grunginess with alt rock attitude in the way that really flourished during that time. She also changed it up with slower, more acoustic-based songs a few times. The vocals weren't my favorite due to the pitch range and her style on some parts. I was able to look past that mostly.
As I mentioned, the lyrical content was interesting and grabbed your attention. That content is really what made the album worth the listen. Whether or not you can relate to her and her experiences, you can feel what she's saying and tell the impact of what she's been through. Putting the words together with the music style, it really just worked to make something memorable.
I do think this album suffers a bit from listening now, 30 years later, compared to when it was fresh. I don't necessarily just mean that it's dated, but also because it doesn't land the same way as it did then. A lot of its impact comes from that first impression, when you're not sure what to expect. This isn't a pop record? Where's the angst coming from? etc. That impact has been dulled a bit by the exposure it got and the efforts of other artists taking inspiration from it. Which I guess says a lot about the album itself in that way.
And, to immediately contradict myself, I will note that it does stand out today in certain ways, perhaps even more than it did then. It seems like most modern women power artists are pop-focused without much 'edge' compared to what AM did here. In contrast to this album, it feels like they're playing it safe instead of taking risks. Everything is more generic and polished than the personal, emotional cuts on this album. Current artists might have a song or two that goes to that place, but not a whole album with material as hard to swallow as this Jagged Little Pill.
All in all, I can't criticize it too heavily. There were only a few tracks I didn't like all that much, and they were balanced out by some really good ones. As a whole, I think this was a solid album and has a lot of power still. I enjoyed the listen.
Overall: 3.4/5
The Mothers Of Invention
2/5
So, uh, that was interesting. It's a little difficult to rate something I didn't particularly like, per se, but found entertaining in a very strange way. The only song I could say I really liked was Trouble Every Day, most likely because it was a pretty straightforward blues rock song. There were other tracks I somewhat enjoyed, but not to a very high level. The rest... I'm still not sure exactly how I feel about them, other than that I didn't really like them.
That said, the value here doesn't come from how good/likeable the songs are; it's about what is happening, both in the songs and outside them. This is just an off-the-wall album in many ways. It's progressive in some aspects, regressive in others. There are doo-wop breakdowns and weird experimental sections that go on for seemingly longer than they should. The lyrical content goes from nonsensical to point-blank honesty. How to even describe the instrumentation? I'll just note it features a kazoo heavily on certain tracks. Can't say I've listened to an album that had that before. Perhaps the wildest thing they do is slip in the standard rock song in the midst of all the craziness. Through it all, you can hear some of the ways it would influence later artists, and I'm sure it helped many of them to take more risks.
In all, it's a good inclusion on the list. Definitely something people should hear and experience. But there's not really a lot of what I'd call "good" music there for me to rate it all that high. Also taking a few points away for the length-- it's pretty long, not really in a way that makes it a better listen.
Overall: 2.2/5
Led Zeppelin
4/5
Really good all-around rock album. Not LZ's top one, in my opinion, but still a great listen with some awesome songs. It's worth some added consideration since it's their first ever album as a group.
I've already talked about LZ and my affinity for guitar-heavy, blues-based rock quite a bit in prior reviews, so not a lot new for me to say here. That makes up the majority of the album, so I was happy. I'll note the added instrumental track, Black Mountain Side, was an interesting change up from the rest of the album. Being more critical, I have to again note the number of covers/re-arrangements take away from my ranking. As happens often with LZ, there is some dispute about how much of their work is truly original compositions. Even so, they still do it incredibly well.
For me, it's pretty simple- just listen to it and rock out. It's a really good record for that. Just a few minor qualms keep it out of 5-range for me, especially comparing it to some of their other albums.
Overall: 4.25/5
The Smiths
3/5
Thought this was pretty good overall. A little down/melancholy for the most part, but that's to be expected from this group. And it wasn't done in a way that made it bad. I enjoyed the listen.
There were aspects to it I didn't love (singer's voice got old; it was somewhat bland as a whole; the tone as mentioned). It also never really changed up the style at all, which made it a little more one-note than I would like. There were some songs didn't really do much for me. Even so, I thought it was a pretty solid album. Most of the songs were enjoyable and kept my attention well enough.
It's not something I'd call great, but I thought it was a decent-to-good album. I'd probably come back to certain tracks rather than the whole thing again, though I wouldn't hate a re-listen.
Overall: 3.3/5
Gotan Project
3/5
I found this album enjoyable even though I didn't particularly love it. It was nice to get something a little different than the long streak of Anglo/American rock and folk records that've come up for the last couple weeks. Instead, I got to hear a fairly modern jazzy French record.
Even though it was more mellow than my normal preference, I wouldn't call the music bland. That said, it was a little boring. It was also pretty long, both in song length and album runtime. I found it be more suitable as background music rather than something to focus my attention on. It worked well in that function.
Despite its negative aspects, I had a positive listening experience with this one. I don't view it as a "great" album, and, while I'm not sure it is something I needed to hear before I die, I did find it pleasant and rate it as solidly good.
Overall: 3.2/5
Korn
2/5
Ah, Korn. To paraphrase one of their quotes from the wiki, Korn is a dumb name, but the music makes it cool. I definitely thought Korn was pretty cool 20ish years ago, so it's interesting to listen to dive into one of their albums now. Not sure I really can say I feel the same way I used to.
Stylistically, the music is pretty intriguing. I know that it is considered a metal/nu metal album, but it actually felt more like a heavy style of funk/jazz/reggae at times. Some hip hop aspects too. There are a lot of unique movements and choices being made to create the songs, usually showing up in the rhythm. The vocals have a gritty, impactful quality that really adds to the whole package.
Lyrically, though, it's often rough. Plenty of inflammatory language and outdated ideas, a lot of them seemingly homophobic/misogynistic. I found it the worst on All in the Family, which was exacerbated by the appearance of Fred Durst to offer his unwanted input. I can't tell if its supposed to be an indictment, or some type of confrontation/denial of their own feelings. Whatever personal strife is included is a bit hard to decipher, which is true for most of the tracks.
Really, there are only a couple songs here I would say I actually like. Freak on a Leash is still pretty good to me, and Got the Life is close to it. I think I tuned out a bit after All in the Family, as that was a put off. I can't say much for the later half of the album as a result. But, that also means it wasn't strong enough to bring me back in. The album was too long to not have more strong songs than it did.
To rank it here, I can't put it very high. There are a few good tracks and interesting music choices, but the album mostly is unimpressive. Parts were downright bad. While I'll probably revisit the tracks I liked, I don't see myself listening to the whole thing again.
Overall: 2.25/5
Nico
2/5
I didn't hate this, though I honestly can't tell if I liked it or not. It had a weird way about it that I enjoyed. That said, I really didn't think much of it was very good. I really don't even know what to say about it. Maybe that's why it's on the list?
Overall: 2.3/5
Green Day
4/5
This might be the first album recommendation I've gotten that I've already listened to in full before. It came out when I was a toddler, so most of my memory of it comes much later, when my sister and I were in middle school and she would play random albums her friends had burned for her on her stereo. Funny how well I can remember that part of it, especially since I haven't really listened to it much recently.
It really fits the pop punk description well. The instrumentation has the punk-rock aspect, but the song structures and composition are pretty poppy. Where grunge and alt rock dominated the early 90s, often with compounding noise or intricacy, Green Day simplified their music in an intentional, guided way that didn't neatly fit into either of those other categories while also sitting somewhere between punk and pop. Interestingly, I found it to have an almost Irish-folk-protest quality to it. Something about the vocal inflection and presentation just makes that connection in my brain.
Lyrically, it is punk in a different way than that had previously meant. Punk music started with a very proactive nature; it was "damn society and stick it to the man" at its core, full of momentum and attitude to get out in one way or another. Here, it takes the form of a passive movement. Yeah, still damn society and the man, but like, I'm just going to smoke weed, watch TV, and jerk off about it. Rather than going at it with a fight, doing nothing is my protest. Maybe writing some songs with clever lyrics if I feel like it. Slackerism was at the core of Green Day's punk mindset.
Putting it all together, they came up with Dookie. It's definitely not dookie, but something fun and memorable. So many of the tracks have stuck in my head for the last couple decades and still hold up. While only a few really are close to great songs, the vast majority are good. A couple weaker tracks here and there don't bring it down too much.
Maybe (OK, probably) I'm a bit biased by nostalgia and personal experience on this one, but I found it to be a pretty good album. It's got a lot to offer for how simple it can be. Some of it's dumb, some of it's bad, some of it is forgettable. But much more of it is good than not.
Overall: 3.75/5
Sabu
2/5
Couldn't totally get into this one as it's just not really my style. Not that it was bad; I actually thought it was pretty fun for the most part. It was also nice to get something a little different in style to listen to, but it felt more like an album I'd only want to hear in certain situations rather than enjoy whenever on its own.
The instruments were nice, if a bit repetitive. The vocals worked with the music more like an instrument than as a focal point. The percussion almost seemed to be the main instrument(s) for a lot of it, which was different and cool. The parts all meshed together well. That said, I didn't really find it all that impressive.
I don't know enough about the genre/music to see its importance for being here. I'm sure there's a reason. As it is, I can only rate it on my listening experience. I have it as OK, but not really something I'm likely to listen to again.
Overall: 2.25/5
The Young Rascals
2/5
Another one I'm not sure why is on the list. It's not particularly bad, but nothing about it as a whole seems special enough for me to hear before I die. It had a few good tracks that stood out. Otherwise, I didn't find it very impressive.
As I noted above, nothing on the album was bad. Most of it was just bland. It sounded of its era, with love-focused lyrics and rather boring musical backing on most tracks. Sort of like it was still following the format of 50s pop, but starting to come into the 60s sound at times. There were a few moments of musical intricacy, but not very many. It was easy for me to zone out on it.
That said, it did pick up for the last half, starting with Groovin'. My ears actually perked up at that track, sounding much more distinct and interesting than what I had heard from the first five songs. It got me to keep focused for the rest of the album, which I wasn't able to do for the whole first half. As a result, I liked a number of the songs I heard there, even if I still found them a little bland.
I do think there are some good tracks, but the album as a whole is what I'm evaluating. I don't see it as an all-timer or even all that good. It's just a little too dull for me. I give it points for having no bad tracks and for having a few good ones. I still don't think it's much better than fine, though.
Overall: 2.5/5
Black Sabbath
5/5
Having just reviewed a BS album a few weeks ago (self-titled), I won't go super long here. I'll try only to repeat myself to the extent of expressing RIP Ozzy.
I found this album to be better than Black Sabbath, their first album, for a few reasons. Definitely having a full album of songs instead of a half-album and a jam was part of that, but also because the songs themselves were well constructed. You could tell the group was growing and gelling musically here.
I already knew many of the tracks on Paranoid, as a few are iconic in metal (and really music in general). They stand up as great songs decades after they came out. The whole album's influence and lasting power also speaks for itself. Even the songs I weren't as familiar with were good. There wasn't a whole lot here to dislike, though I could see the genre/length not working for some listeners. They were part of the enjoyment for me.
I consider this album in the high-good/low great range. I thought about keeping it at the high 4-star level, but I can't come up with any real reason that it doesn't deserve to get up to 5 from me. It just rocks. I'd definitely listen again, in full.
Overall: 4.5/5
The Jon Spencer Blues Explosion
3/5
Well, I can confidently say this is the first album I've listened to that started with someone just straight screaming at me. Not sure what I expected from a "punk blues" description, but that was not it. I guess it contributed to album's early vibe, which felt like a lot of anger/pointed antagonism being expressed as it kicked off.
I think the album suffered from how it started. Not just with the screaming, but also the first couple songs. I thought there were actively abrasive and it kinda turned me off from the get go. It was a shame since there was some good stuff in there later on that I probably would've appreciated more had I heard it without that lead in.
To be clear, there were a number of songs that I liked. They were more typical blues/rock than the garage punk sound many of the other tracks had. Wail, 2Kindsa Love, Firefly Child were examples. After about the halfway point, I thought all of the songs were fairly strong (aside from Sticky, that is). Unfortunately, there were some other songs really didn't work for me. It's like they wanted to be loud more than be musical. I guess that's the "punk" part at work.
I was hopeful I would like this one when I saw the description. While there were plenty of tracks that I liked, the rest of the songs took away a lot of the listenability of the album as a greater work. As a result, any relistening would come from me returning to only certain songs by themselves. Those songs do make me rate this as more fine than bad, but it's still not something I would call good as a whole album.
Overall: 2.7/5
Fairport Convention
3/5
Second Fairport Convention album on here and I've liked both. I liked them both for similar reasons, but liked this one a little more than the last. Something about the style and presentation just pleases my ears. However, also like the last one, I'm not sure I'd call it a "great" album, just pretty good.
Overall: 3.3/5
Morrissey
2/5
I feel like I've already said as much as there is to say on Morrissey's music in the other reviews I've done for him/The Smiths. This one is again just too much bland and melancholy for me to say I really enjoyed it, even if it's not bad. I'd probably appreciate him more in a non-album listen since it wouldn't grate as much in a shorter session.
Maybe it's because I've heard a few already, but I liked this less than the other albums I've had of his. Hard to say how I would've felt had I heard this one first. Apparently there are still quite a few to go, so we'll see how I feel about those.
Overall: 2.3/5
Jack White
3/5
There's nothing particularly bad about Blunderbuss, but I don't find it all that special. Jack White has made better and more memorable albums outside of this one, either solo or with one of his groups. There are a few memorable songs, and I guess it's notable as his first solo effort. Other than that, nothing about it really stands out. It didn't grab and hold my attention like he has done on numerous other efforts.
I liked it well enough to say it was solid/good. I just can't really give it a better rating than that, even as someone who is a fan of JW.
Overall: 3.25/5
Emerson, Lake & Palmer
2/5
Can't say this did much for me. It was kinda like that Rush album where I can respect their musical prowess without really enjoying it very much. I liked this album less than that one, though. There were parts that had a more rock sound that I would've preferred the whole way through (subjective, I know). It was almost like Cream decided to make a keyboard-focused prog album, and it didn't go very well.
Even if none were awful, there really just weren't any songs I liked here. Some were OK, but didn't really do anything for me to say I thought they more than that.
Overall: 2.3/5
The Dictators
2/5
This one was kinda interesting. Very rock-vibe heavy and straightforward, but also went some weird places. It wasn't bad, just not necessarily something I found good. It reminded me a lot of KISS in the style/presentation. There's probably a lot more that can be said for it, though I don't really feel strongly enough to go deeper.
I thought it was mostly fine, but not really something I think I'll listen to again. It just didn't do a lot for me even if it wasn't bad.
Overall: 2.5/5
The Who
3/5
I generally don't like the Who. I've never really heard anything by them that made me think they were actually that good. They also strike me as rather pretentious, which is a big turn off for me--that's not what rock is about. Seeing their name come up here, I kinda knew I wouldn't care for whatever played. But, having listened, I think I would've liked this album a bit more if it had been by a different band.
There were some pretty good songs here. I found a number of them engaging, and actually felt a little disappointment when a couple of them ended (mostly because they were short and felt like they were about to go somewhere interesting with them). The genre was interesting, as it had a lot of old-school rock/pop/doo wop to it. Other parts felt like more standard 60s rock. I'm sure they got a lot of comparisons/contrasts with the Beatles.
That said, none of it really struck me as all that good. It just seemed fine for the most part. I found a number of songs boring, and didn't love the straight-up covers of some of the classic songs. While their style was interesting, I didn't find it particularly strong. Personally, I wouldn't pick it over other efforts from the same time frame.
In sum, this album really wasn't bad, at least not as bad as I was braced for it to be. I may have even liked it if I didn't dislike the Who as much as I do. That said, I didn't think it was very good or special. Not sure I needed to hear it before I die.
Overall: 2.75/5
Amy Winehouse
2/5
Even as someone who has never particularly liked Amy Winehouse's music, I found this album pretty interesting. The sound varied from an older, jazzy style to more modern 90s/00s tracks. At times it reminded me a lot of Miseducation of Lauryn Hill, others more like Billie Holiday. Winehouse has a strong voice and singing style that stands out from the crowd. Hard not to recognize her talent.
All that said, I still didn't really like this album that much. I found it pretty boring despite its positive qualities. It was also long, which exacerbated the boringness for me. The songs had too much of a focus on the vocals and too little on the music for me. The horns/brass did come in for fills at times, but still were rather subdued on the whole. That's a product of the stye and production, which is likely why I don't love this style very much. Mr. Magic was probably the song I found the most engaging, and that was the last track- a bonus/hidden track at that.
The lyrics also felt a bit juvenile at times. To go back to the Lauryn Hill comment, I think that is a big contrast between them. Hill sang about very mature, adult events and experiences. Winehouse's songs feel much more of a youth/naive mentality. I've mentioned it before for other albums, but it's an issue for me as a listener. I guess that's to be expected given how young she was at the time this came out.
So, while I can appreciate the talent involved here, I still just don't like the album all that much. A lot of that had to do with the style not really being something I enjoy. There were a some good songs here, and there was nothing on it that I would say was plain bad. I didn't hate it, but I didn't find it particularly good.
Overall: 2.3/5
Meat Loaf
3/5
I feel like this is a perfect addition to this list. Not because it's really a "great" album, but because it truly fits the idea of something you need to listen to at least once in your life. It's theatrical, it's whimsical, it's dumb, it's absurd, it's fun. At no point is it boring. That's probably what you should expect from an artist named Meatloaf, especially considering this started as a musical/play concept on Peter Pan. I think over-the-top is an apt descriptor, for better or for worse.
Everything about it is in that mould. Just starting with the title and artwork, you'd think this was something hard and heavy (as I did for a long time before hearing any of it). It'd be like, I don't know, calling a movie "There Will Be Blood" and creating a imposing poster with gothic font for it, when the movie is just 3 hours of people disagreeing about land (I kid, I kid. Well, sort of). I feel like that setup matches the tone perfectly for what they were trying to accomplish, though. And the presentation of the music and vocals is complete theater. Kind of like getting the porn parody of a medieval epic instead of the real thing.
That said, it's not all fun and games. The style and performative nature makes it a bit polarizing, I'm sure. Opera and theater aren't for everyone (including me, even with the rock context). Also, the novelty would almost certainly wear off quickly with any attempt at a re-listen. Even so, that first listen is quite the experience. Regardless of whether you like it, it's not something you'll quickly forget.
On my part, I can't say I loved it. But I can say that I couldn't avert my ears from the experience. It was an interesting ride, and gets credit for its gusto and being mostly enjoyable. I didn't think it was all that "good" as a whole, though.
Overall: 2.8/5
Sonic Youth
3/5
I liked this overall and found it interesting, but it kinda just became noise after a certain point. Like the last SY album I got on here, it somehow wasn't very engaging to me as a listener even though I thought it was decent.
Overall: 2.9/5
The National
3/5
Thought this was solid. Kinda surprised how much I liked it since I don't really love what I'd heard from the band or singer before (not really a fan of his voice). It's another one of the modern-ish indie-rock efforts where the music is more atmospheric and melancholy but with the purpose of building as it goes rather than being constantly present throughout. As a result, there's less happening than you think at times, then more happening than you think at others. I guess I'd call it deceptively boring. Or deceptively interesting, depending on where you're at. It was a tad long for the experience, but didn't drag too much.
It's fine, maybe even good. Not sure I'd say it's something you need to hear before you die, though, even if I liked it well enough.
Overall: 3.25/5
Beck
3/5
I'll consider this one "Beck gets sad". Because that's pretty much what it is- a sad album, without anything else really to break that up. Even so, it was pretty good listen as a whole. Nothing here will blow you away, but it will make you feel something.
My biggest issues with it were the constant melancholy tone and the length. I think it was a song or two too long, especially since it didn't have anything to give a break from the sadness. There were even a few songs where I thought "this sounds like a closing song", but then another one started playing.
Even with its flaws, it was enjoyable. He traversed some different (as yet, for him) musical ground, with pared down, simpler instrumentation and styles. Some tracks sounded more country, others more folk, and some closer to straight acoustic rock. There was a lot of quiet and atmosphere. Perhaps it was seeing this other side of Beck, without the wackiness and strange music and lyrics, that made it more interesting. Maybe this type of music coming from him is what made it seem more meaningful. Either way, it was refreshing.
I give this one points for its honesty and the quietness of its power. There are some issues with it, but not enough of them to make it bad. I found it pretty good on the whole.
Overall: 3.4/5
Portishead
2/5
This was one of the more musically interesting albums I've gotten recently. It was more unique in style, composition, instrumentation, and arrangement than most of what I've been recommended on here. A lot of it just felt like noise, though. I found it to have some good parts, but otherwise it didn't really strike me as all that good.
I wonder if I'd have a better grasp on this album if this list were more diverse. So many rock/pop albums come up on here, that it's a bit hard to separate them from something like this. The closest comparison I have from my recent listening in the Barry Adamson record a few weeks ago. I wouldn't call it a straight comparison, but it was a change-up similar to this one. I did like that album more than this, for what it's worth.
I'm not sure what the main issue here was. It was interesting, but not in a way that required my attention. It was eclectic in a controlled manner, but not in a pleasant one. The vocals meshed well with the music, but not in a way that really made it better. It also felt like it ran long, even though it wasn't really all that lengthy. I felt relieved when it ended, which isn't a good sign.
[Side note- I recently went to a show and the opener was a band called Dummy. Their sound kind of reminded me of this. Looking at the Wiki, Portishead's previous album was called Dummy. I'm guessing that wasn't a coincidence. Not sure which band I liked less, though I'm not inclined to listen to either again.]
I'll give this credit for being different and changing things up in a refreshing way. I can't say a lot more that's positive about it, though. It had some good parts mixed in, but for me, the rest was only OK to bad.
Overall: 2.3/5
The La's
2/5
Another album that doesn't really strike me as anything all that impressive. Not sure why it's on this list. The most interesting thing about it for me was that it sounded more 60s than 80s/90s. Having listened to the Who's My Generation recently, I was surprised how similar they felt to me at times. I didn't really like either of them all that much, though.
Nothing was really wrong with the album, so I'm not knocking it for being bad. It just seems like another album on here because of its one hit, which does not do enough to make it an important album for me. As a whole it was fine at best.
Overall: 2.5/5
Missy Elliott
3/5
I enjoyed this more than I expected to based on the artist and genre. It was a fun listen, even with some awkward topics and occasionally cringey lyrics. It was easy to bop along to it as it played, which was probably its best quality for me.
My negatives stem mostly from the norms of hip hop rather than being specific to the album. As is common, the music is beat heavy and exists to support the raps, meaning it's often unmemorable in the song. That wasn't as bad for me here as it can be, and I thought the second half of the album had stronger music than the front half for whatever reason. It can be a problem if the raps themselves aren't up to snuff, though, since that means there's really nothing there to save the song. Other than that, my main complaints come from the lyrics being inane and obnoxious at times. Focusing on the album itself, I thought it suffered from the narration breaks as they made the album feel longer than it needed to.
Despite those issues, I still had a good time listening. There were some really enjoyable songs on here. Even if there were some cringe-worthy lyrical moments, it didn't make me want to turn it off. As a whole, I'd say it was a solidly good listen.
Overall: 3.4/5
U2
3/5
As someone who doesn't really like U2 (to put it nicely), this album caught me by surprise. It was overall solid, and I actually enjoyed most of the songs on it. There were still a few that I didn't like at all, the worst of which being One. The album didn't make me more of a fan of the band, but I guess I have a little more appreciation for them as creators than I did before.
While I could see myself coming back to a few of the tracks on here, I don't think I'd listen to it in full again. Not only because of the songs I didn't like, but also because it's long. I can only take so much U2 at a time. Honestly though, take off One and another song or two, and I think I would've liked this quite a bit (somehow, still not sure I believe it). So, I gotta give them credit here for making something pretty decent.
Overall: 3/5
Traffic
3/5
Didn't love it, didn't hate it. Some interesting musical choices and direction. Occasionally folk, jazz, blues as it went. I'd say it was better than it was bad, but not something I found all that great. I did enjoy it for the most part, though.
Overall: 3/5
The Bees
2/5
Going to call this album fine. I'd say very fine (as in more fine, not more than fine) if that was actually a thing. Sort of like an extra medium shirt size, which doesn't make any sense.
What I mean is, it's another album where nothing is wrong with it, but I don't really get why I would need to hear it before I die. It's pretty chill and easy to listen to. But it's also very bland and uninteresting overall. I am not going to remember it after getting through a few more albums.
Overall: 2.3/5
1/5
Might get a little harsh with this review, but man. I thought this was pretty shitty. I've never cared much for Muse, so I was hoping this album would change my opinion on them as a mediocre-at-best band. Unfortunately, it only solidified it.
My biggest issue with this album is that it's just bland pop masquerading as more complex rock music. Then, they make the lyrics alien and celestial to try to hide that from the listener further. It's like a movie studio turning an intricate sci-fi concept into a big budget movie. They have to remove all the interesting context and heavy ideas in order to make it appealing to the mass audience and make money. There's no actual depth or feel to it.
While I don't think this was meant to be a concept album, the issues become more obvious when you compare it to some of the other sci-fi-inspired works I've had on here, namely Tarkus and 2112. I didn't love either of those albums either, but they actually committed to the ideas they wrote around. Unlike Muse here, which just turned it into something corporate and cold with dance music underneath. While I do think the Rush/ELP works lacked some soul, I don't think this BHAR had any to begin with.
Yeah, that was pretty negative. But that's my take. To end with something nicer, there were a few bright spots spread throughout the album that made me think they have the ability to come up with something good and interesting. Still, this one was bad.
Overall: 1.3/5
The Teardrop Explodes
2/5
Felt mostly meh about this one. I thought their sound was interesting, kind of like a mash up of something I liked (the Doors) and something I didn't (Dexy's Midnight Runners) and added horns. What came of it was fine, but didn't stand out as anything all that great. I don't really remember most of the songs on it already.
So, while it wasn't actively bad, I can't say it was particularly good either. I'll give it an OK.
Overall: 2.4/5
Stevie Wonder
3/5
For whatever reason, this album didn't really stick with me. I thought it was good, but not special. The music and words were a bit too... puffery? Cotton candy? Not sure how to describe it. That said, Superstition is an all-time great song, so I gotta give him some points for that. I also liked the closing song, I Believe. The rest were mostly fine. I think I would've liked it better if he'd gotten more of that funk/groove with some of them.
Overall: 2.9/5
The 13th Floor Elevators
4/5
I thought this album was pretty good. I had heard of the band before, but never actually listened to them. Easy to say I enjoyed this listen.
It started out strong and didn't really let up. I liked the sound profile and how the vocal work meshed with it. But, the biggest negative for me was that it was pretty much the same sound all the way through. Even though the album was only 34-ish minutes long, that made it seem to drag toward the end. Changing it up more would've made it a stronger listen for me.
Still, I'm going to give this one a pretty good. I'd listen to it again.
Overall: 3.6/5
Bob Marley & The Wailers
4/5
Another really strong effort from Marley. Much like the last album of his from these recommendations, the songs were built around solid rhythms that carried the song along. I felt like there was more diversity in the songs this time, though; I didn't get as lost in the mix as I had on Catch A Fire. A lot of it felt funkier than I was expecting it to be, which was a positive for me. Just solid grooves everywhere.
I was already familiar with a number of songs from this one, plus there were some on there I liked a lot on my first listen here. So Much Things to Say, Exodus, and Waiting in Vain were new to me, but I was fan by the time they ended. Others, like Jamming/Three Little Birds/One Love, were songs I already knew fairly well. I wouldn't say that I loved any of those songs before but I liked them well enough. I was interesting to hear them in their album context on this listen. Even the songs I didn't like as much were still pretty good.
My main negatives were more due to the genre and style than real criticisms of the album. I still don't love reggae, though I can listen to it here and there. I do wish the instrumentation was a bit more involved at times or there were more upbeat moments, but I felt like that wasn't that big of an issue on this album.
There was much more good than bad here. I liked it and found it to be a fun listen.
Overall: 3.9/5
The Stooges
3/5
Overall a pretty solid album. I liked it better than Iggy's solo work that I've heard. I thought most of the tracks, a couple of which I was already familiar with, were good, though a few of the others didn't really do much for me. It seems like it's stood up against time better than some of its contemporaries.
The sound was definitely cool and influential. I liked the guitar tone they had here and how the music was a little more gritty than some of the other 60s rock albums on the list. I did think the droning parts got a little old and the songs were better when they kept them tighter.
I'm going to say it's solidly good, but not something I'd consider a great.
Overall: 3.3/5
The Band
2/5
Found this one fine, but not really better than that. There were some good songs while others really dragged. I think it was just a little too somber on the whole for my liking. I might put this on if I wanted to take a nap or have something calm going in the background. Otherwise I don't think it really does much for me.
Overall: 2.4/5
Marvin Gaye
3/5
This was good, but I wouldn't say it was better than that. It had soothing parts, fun parts, and deep parts. That said, much of it was just kinda boring/bland to me. Nothing here was bad, I just didn't find it very interesting as a whole. Right On was probably the track that stood out the most due to what it did with the instrumentation. Having more like that would've made me like it more.
Overall, I enjoyed it but can't rate it super highly.
Overall: 3.1/5
The Mothers Of Invention
2/5
Much like I said of the last Mothers album, this is one that I found interesting but didn't particularly like. It was like a weird trip, and you never knew what was going to happen next. That kept it engaging, but didn't really make it a good listen.
I want to take a second to note the title and artwork; "We're Only In It for the Money" is certainly a title for what I can only presume to be a complete commercial nightmare. There are no clear singles, no pop structures, and nothing that would make the casual listener want to buy the album save the novelty. They put it under a parody of the Sgt Pepper's cover picture, but dingier in a way. It all adds up to show this album is not something to be taken seriously at face value.
Getting to the music... yeah, it's out there. It keeps your attention just by being strange and experimental. I have to assume either Zappa was trying his hardest to make it weird, was incredibly high and thought it was coherent music, or just is strange enough to like it himself. Either way, I guess he succeeded. For me, it was a bit too much. I didn't hate it, but it was hard to enjoy it other then to marvel at its weirdness.
I can't say I liked this one even if I found it intriguing. Probably won't be listening to it again. But, I give it credit for being different and unique.
Overall: 2/5
Big Black
3/5
Not really sure why, but I liked this one. A bit metal, some punk, very industrial. I could hear NIN and Metallica both in it at times. I think it being different helped it keep my attention.
For positives, the sound was interesting and mostly enjoyable if a bit abrasive. I struggled with the vocals at times, but they suited the music well. Negatively, I got worn down by the time it ended. Though the album was only about 37 minutes long, the style was a bit much for me to have going for that long. Even so, I never disliked what was happening.
I wouldn't call it great, and I can see why it wouldn't be for everyone. But this was different and heavy while still being an interesting listen. Not sure I'll listen to it again, but I'm not mad I heard it at least once.
Overall: 3.25/5
Pink Floyd
4/5
Thought this was pretty good, but not really great. Given all the praise and accolades it gets, I thought it might be something better. I wasn't necessarily disappointed, just wasn't super impressed.
I've been wanting to listen to some more Pink Floyd, as I do like all of their music that I've heard. From this album, I had heard Have a Cigar and Wish You Were Here previously. I like both a lot. The issue for me was that I didn't find the rest to be as good. Shine On was mostly solid and had some really good moments, but the first part was a little meh at times. Welcome to the Machine was probably my least favorite track.
There's not much I can say about the album itself that hasn't been discussed for the last several decades. To keep it short, I found parts of the album were on the higher end of good while other parts were simply fine (or a little better). The majority of it was in the good range. Very little on it really struck me as great, though.
Overall: 3.75/5
Curtis Mayfield
3/5
I liked the music on this one more than the vocals. The high singing (falsetto?) was too persistent for me. I get that it's a signature part of his style, but I prefer when he doesn't overdo it. The songs themselves were pretty good, though not particularly memorable.
It's a solid, pleasant listen. Just not sure it's anything more than that.
Overall: 2.7/5
Bruce Springsteen
3/5
I didn't find this as grating as I normally find Springsteen. It seemed a bit more generic/poppy of an album than some of his others, which may have helped me get past it being him. I also knew most of the songs already. I guess that made it easier to tune him out a bit. I actually liked the last section of the album the best, which is surprising to me since I thought I'd be over it by then.
The songs I liked most were I'm Going Down, a song that was completely new to me, and Dancing in the Dark, one I know very well. I didn't really think any of the others were bad, either. That said, I don't really see what the mass appeal is for Springsteen and his music. I find it mostly fine, but nothing special. The way people love him, I would expect something more than I ever get from his albums. I'm reminded of an international student I had as a college roommate who was obsessed with "the Boss" and left school to follow his tour for a week. I didn't get it then, and I still don't get it now, 15 years later. Along with that, I usually get pretty tired of him after listening for more than a few songs.
In all, I thought it was a solid/good album. I still didn't love it, but I liked it more than I expected going into it.
Overall: 3.2/5
Fatboy Slim
2/5
It's a vibe. I mean that both as a positive and negative. Positive because it's fun, enjoyable, and has some addictive grooves. Negative because it's repetitive and has little distinction as it goes-- it just kinda persists.
I think the album runs way too long for what it is. Not sure I need to listen to it for an hour+. That said, I probably would enjoy it more in much smaller doses. There are a number of songs on here that I like, including some I knew and already liked. I don't think they were stronger in the context of the album, but work well on their own. Some new ones (to me) were also good, but again didn't really gain much from listening to the album as a whole. There wasn't anything that I particularly disliked beyond just getting a bit tired of it by the end.
Considering it in full, this isn't something I'd consider a great album. I think it has a lot of staying power, and it stands out considering that came out in the 90s. The songs retain listenability. Even so, considering it as a whole makes it seem less impressive; it's basically just fine when you listen to it through. It's probably a situation where, if this style of music is your vibe, you'll love it. But if not, you won't be all that moved. I fall into the latter category.
Overall: 2.3/5
KISS
3/5
Not sure why this one his here. It's fine but doesn't seem like anything special enough to make the list. KISS always struck me as being more about flash over substance, and I didn't get a lot of substance from this album. It's as about as deep as a puddle, as they say.
Still, it's not that bad. I enjoyed a number of the songs. It seems more like something to just turn your brain off and enjoy than anything meant to be analyzed.
Overall: 2.6/5
Dion
3/5
I liked this a lot for whatever reason. It was soothing and pleasant. The style varied but had soulful parts, folky parts, and plenty of others mixed in. There weren't really any standout songs on it, but it was a good whole-album listen.
It didn't do too much for too long, which I think was a strength. Had the album been longer it may not have been as easy to listen and enjoy. My least favorite song on there was probably the Whole World in His Hands rendition, but still liked it here better than a more traditional version. Songwriting credits list a number of people as the writers other than Dion (who was only listed on a few tracks), so I'll take some points away for that. It also was a bit easy to zone out on given there weren't many attention-grabbing moments on it.
In sum, I found this to be a strong, complete album even if the songs didn't stand out on their own very much. The style was pleasant to me and I enjoyed it. I'd rate it pretty good as a whole.
Overall: 3.5/5
Bob Dylan
3/5
As someone who doesn't particularly like Bob Dylan, I actually thought this was a pretty decent listen. A number of songs on here are iconic, even as a non-fan (Don't Think Twice and Blowin' in the Wind are probably the top two). The rest of the tracks really aren't that bad either.
Part of my issue with Dylan is that his voice/style is very grating. I can listen to him for a few minutes, but the longer he goes, the worse it gets. Generally, even when I like his songs, I prefer versions of them by other artists over his own. Here, the issue was muted a little bit, as he really wasn't as overbearing as I am used to. When he started to get too bad, he often broke it up with a song that soothed the feeling somewhat. That said, I think I would've liked the album more if it were shorter. A few songs really didn't add very much except making the runtime longer (and my tolerance thinner).
As a whole, the album was solid-to-good, with very little I would call plain bad. Notwithstanding my feelings for Dylan as a performer, I liked many of the songs here. I'm not sure if I'll ever listen to it again, but it at least was a good listen this time.
Overall: 3.3/5
Girls Against Boys
4/5
Ended up liking this one a lot. Not sure why it's on the list, but it was definitely suited to my tastes. Don't have many notes here.
Overall: 3.6/5
Blur
2/5
I do not get this one at all. It started super poppy, and stayed mostly poppy, but felt like it thought it was more serious that than. It didn't make a lot of sense to me. Like, why is there carnival-esque music sometimes? Is it because we're in a park and carnivals can be in parks and that's #parklife? A lot of it felt dumb and other parts snobbish. It's honestly hard for me to articulate why it turned me off so much. Best I can do is say it sounded like something I would like if I had no personality.
I guess there were two or three songs that I did enjoy, but the album was 16 songs (and 52 minutes) long. I found the rest bland, boring, and/or lame. While this isn't a list of 1,001 "cool" albums to listen to, I would expect the albums on it to have more style than this. Or, at least, be better.
Overall: 1.9/5
The United States Of America
2/5
Very weird, though I'm not sure if it was in a good way or a bad way. At times it felt like I was floating through space, at others like I was stuck at a carnival (sidenote- why do carnival themes pop up so often on these albums?). This kind of music with a bunch of almost random stuff happening at once isn't really something I often like. I didn't hate it, but really didn't enjoy it very much either outside of a few solid tracks. I think some drugs would've helped.
I can see why it's on here given the style and year it came out, but not sure it really stand out as good outside of that. I think it'll stay on my mind for a while, though.
Overall: 2.25/5
Deep Purple
3/5
Solidly good as far as live albums go. I've had three or four other live albums already, so I again will note that it feels like only getting half the experience. Even though the music was good here, I am left missing the visual aspect of the performance for the show.
I'd already gotten Machine Head as a rec, so a lot of the songs here were familiar from that. I gotta say I prefer the album versions for a random listen. Not sure I'd really listen to them from this unless I wanted to hear the live album again. It seems more suited to someone who's a fan of the band rather than as a one-off listener.
The performance was pretty good, I'll give it that. It had the old school heavy rock vibe, the super long solos, and even a vocal-instrument mimic sequence. If you want to listen to a 70s metal live album, you'd be hard pressed to find a better option. But I'm not sure that makes this album something I needed to hear before I die.
Overall: 3/5
Spiritualized
2/5
For a production with so much going on, I found this fairly boring and unengaging. It felt like they had initial ideas for songs, but didn't really know how to execute them. So we ended up with tracks that dragged on or meandered when they could've been tighter (and better). I was hopeful from the album description that this would be pretty good, but unfortunately I didn't find it anything more than fine.
One of the best things about it was that it varied in style throughout the album. Some songs were quiet and spacy, others loud and eclectic. Sometimes it changed up during the song itself. It kept it from turning into straight background noise. Even so, certain sections were pretty similar and dragged.
While I liked a few tracks, others were a downright slog to get through (Broken Heart probably being the worst example of this). It didn't help that the album ran over 70 minutes long. I don't think they said/did nearly enough on the record to warrant that length of runtime, especially when a portion of that time was filled with slow musical movements that didn't seem to serve a purpose other than just adding length. I was pretty over it by the end, though I did like Cop Shoot Cop to an extent (even then it should've been 10 minutes long instead of 17).
Honestly, I really didn't see anything all that great here. I didn't hate it, but the parts I actively liked were infrequent. It's hard to appreciate something that felt like it should've been 45 minutes but got stretched to 70. Not sure I needed to hear this one before I died.
Overall: 2.1/5
Red Hot Chili Peppers
2/5
At multiple points during this listen I just had to go "what the fuck" under my breath. I don't mean that in a good way. This is my first time listening to a full RHCP album, and I don't know if I ever will again. The lyrics are often terrible (uhh, yeah, ding ding dong dong, dude. California California.) and juvenile. The vocal style and quality doesn't help. The instrumentation and music can be good, but for whatever reason often sinks down to the lowest level it can reach. It ends up being pretty annoying and unimpressive overall. Listening to the album in full just made it worse.
I've never been much of a fan of RHCP other than enjoying a few of their singles. This album pushed me further away from fandom for the reasons mentioned above. Even the parts on here that were good were vastly outshined by the complete mediocrity of the rest of the album, which might not have been as bad if it weren't 56 minutes long. I'll keep my opinion of RHCP as a band that I don't really care for, but that can write some decent songs every once in a while.
This album wasn't very good for a number of reasons, but mostly for me it was the lyrical content and vocals. Sadly, the music often seemed to be trying to fight its way down to that level. There are some strong moments, and Scar Tissue remains an iconic song. There was just way too much bad on here for me to consider this anywhere close to something good.
Overall: 1.75/5
Pixies
3/5
This album had pockets of songs that I thought were good, and others that were fine. I liked the opening songs and closing songs groups the best. Here Comes Your Man is a song I already liked a lot, and it fit in well. The rest wasn't bad, but didn't catch my interest as much.
The music/instrumentation was probably the best part to me. Even if the guitar felt a little harsh, it ended up resulting in a cool sound with the rest of the band. It was very punk, indie, garage rock in style. There were even parts that had a country-ish sound. The vocals fit the mix well, but weren't particularly impressive. Coming together as a whole, the album had a much more 90s sound than 80s. I'm guessing it helped usher in that sound for the coming decade.
The main weakness for me was the lack of diversity in tone for the majority of the songs, which became more noticeable as it went given the album has 15 tracks on it. The one that stood out the most to me was the penultimate track Silver, having more of a folk/country feel. That shift was probably why I liked the track as much as I did. Some of the others got a little lost.
I found the album to be solidly good on the whole. Worth a listen for sure, and there are some memorable songs on there.
Overall: 3.3/5
James Brown
3/5
I can only repeat myself so many times about live albums. We're only getting half of the experience! I'm sure the half we're missing was great, given the reactions of the audience captured with the music here. Aside from those reactions, I'm not sure there was much more here to make it stand out.
Noticeably, this album doesn't follow the usual trend of live albums by running long. It's short and sweet save the last three tracks: Lost Someone (running 10 minutes), the medley (a bit over 6 minutes), and the closing track, Night Train, which is still short (3.5 mins) but runs a minute longer than the next longest tracks. There are a couple songs that aren't even 2 minutes long.
The quick changes (and lack of the visual half of the performance) made it a little hard for me to stay engaged as a listener during the middle portion. I also got lost in the runtime of Lost Someone (nominative determinism at work?) for the opposite reason. I thought the medley was the most engaging section of the album, but that too had some ups and downs. Night Train was a strong finish, though.
While this album was enjoyable, it didn't really strike me as all that special. That's probably got something to do with the number of live albums I've had on here recently, and I may have liked this more with some separation from those. Even so, I found it a little hard to stay engaged with despite the short runtime. Instead, I'm again left wishing I could see what was happening in the performance. I'll give it a "good" and move on, hopefully getting a break from these live albums for a while.
Overall: 3.1/5
Talking Heads
3/5
While not bad, unfortunately I found this album pretty boring. I generally like the Talking Heads and already liked a few of the songs on here. As a whole, though, it just didn't do much for me. Some songs felt almost like they doing a poor imitation of Bowie, which fell flat. I'll still like the band and their music, but I'm not sure I'll come back to this one with any frequency.
Overall: 2.9/5
Fever Ray
3/5
For whatever reason, I mostly enjoyed this one. While I wouldn't consider it better than good, I found it to be a pleasant experience. It was atmospheric and had some cool vibes. My biggest negative was that it blended together a bit. It did run kinda long, and I found myself zoning out at times. Not sure if I will listen to it again, but I thought it was a fine listen at least this once.
Overall: 2.9/5
George Harrison
4/5
I liked this album a lot. It was a really pleasant listen. The sound was consistent throughout but had enough diverseness to not get boring in its run (notable too because of the length). For me, it's up there with (and possibly better than) the best of the Beatles' offerings as a whole group.
While I'm not the biggest fan of the Fab Four, George is probably my favorite Beatle. Lennon and McCartney seem a bit too snobbish and controlling together or separate. Lennon likely started off the strongest, but kinda fell off with all the personal stuff as he went. McCartney has a ton of talent, but some of the songs he wrote were the worst the group put out. Ringo is not as good of a songwriter/performer, and I think he'd probably agree with that himself. George was pretty good at everything, even while being overshadowed by other members of the band (but probably still outshining Ringo). His talents started to show up more in the band's later works, and they are on display here.
Even the "jam" tracks at the end were good, though make more sense as a bonus album than as part of the actual track list here. They showed more the bluesy rock side, whereas the majority of the album stayed in a poppier rock, folk rock, and spiritual rock vein. Their style is appealing to me, even if I liked the style of the rest of the album too.
The biggest negative for me is the length. I feel like it's important to be able to listen to an album all the way through at one time in order to evaluate it and appreciate it fully. That's a bit of a struggle with this one given how long it is. And, despite liking pretty much all of the songs, there were probably a few that could've been left off to make the album more manageable.
As it is, I found ATMP to have some really really strong parts, including a few great parts, surrounding a few less-strong parts. Considering the jams as part of the album probably brings it down a few notches just because of the length they add to an already long work, but I thought they themselves were strong too. Importantly, I didn't find anything here to be bad, or really all that close to it. It was good all the way through, except the parts where it was better. Make it a bit shorter and it's unquestionably a great album, though I still I have it as a really good, close-to-great album.
Overall: 4.25/5
Ananda Shankar
3/5
I just have to take a second to appreciate the all-time burn dropped by a critic of this album, calling it "'touching' – but in a way that would put an old man in a children's park away in jail for life." Just wow.
While I might agree that I didn't find this album all that moving, there is something really interesting about it. At least a part of it is just that it's so different from all the rock/pop, US/British albums that come up on here, at least in terms of instrumentation/arrangement. Beyond that, the mixture of rock and traditional Indian music was engaging and kept my attention. The cover tracks on this album aren't all that great, but the original songs were mostly strong efforts. I did get a bit weary listening to the 13-minute Sagar, though.
I didn't love this album, but I enjoyed it enough to say it's a solidly good listen.
Overall: 3.1/5
Muddy Waters
4/5
Oh yeah, this is the blues. I love how he basically has two voices on this record- his actual voice, and the way he makes the guitar talk. Even if it were only one or the other on the recording, you would be able to feel the music and message he's telling you. The other instruments compliment those voices incredibly well, especially the way the harmonica adds to the whole feel. And feel is what the blues is all about.
My only real negative is that it does get repetitive. There wasn't much diversity in the tone or instrumentation for the album's run. It wasn't that bad listening to it, but the style causes a number of songs to blend together rather than feel distinct. That's more of a quibble than a real criticism, since the simplicity is part of the beauty of it. Other than that, it's more just personal preference, since I generally like a little more "rock" mixed in over straight blues. Still, this had a decent amount of rock feel.
Really, really good record.
Overall: 4/5
The Thrills
2/5
Pretty bland honestly. It reminded me of a strange mix of Bright Eyes, Wilco, Billy Bragg, and the Flaming Lips. So basically pretty typical indie rock plus some Irish folk and FL (mostly because of the singer). I don't care for two of those bands/artists, and the other two are on the outer edge of my likes. Needless to say, this wasn't really for me.
It's not necessarily a bad album, but I don't see much here that makes me think it's anything that good. Instead, I found it pretty forgettable. I doubt it is something I needed to hear before I die.
Overall: 1.8/5
Liz Phair
3/5
Some albums showcase artists that are great songwriters and musicians. Some show a lot of musical talent but not great writing. Some have great writing, but are lacking in musical ability. Some have none of the above. I think this album is in the third category- Phair clearly can write and has ideas for songs, but the execution is not all that impressive.
Despite her writing talent, Phair's not super vocally strong or a musical virtuoso. It's more in line with Kurt Cobain than Prince. I don't think you'll find many people talk down Cobain's presence and impact, nor should they about Phair. Both will give it to you raw and unashamedly (phrasing!). Funnily enough, I assume Cobain was a big fan of this album. For me, though, it falls a little flat.
While there was plenty on here to like, a lot of it just felt meh and muddled. Listening to the whole album was kind of like walking in mud to get to solid ground. Portions dragged at times before showing me something I thought was fully good. There was value to those muddy portions, but they were harder to get through. I think it goes back to how Phair seems to have good concepts of what she wants to do, just maybe falling short of executing to a higher level. It works for the toned down vibe, but gives it that muddy aspect for me. Perhaps it's even more a fault of the style than the execution. The length probably contributed as well, as listening to it took an hour, maybe a d- erm, 56 minutes.
I can't help but compare this to Jagged Little Pill, which came out only a couple years later. In both, the artists powerfully stated a woman's perspective on life, love/sex, and personal reality that was often overlooked or downplayed in media/music. Phair's effort is more indie, sounding closer to a bedroom-studio recording than a polished album. Morrissette went more grunge and pop, but with a more refined sound result. Both succeeded in presenting their perspectives, having a widespread impact with their albums that persist today.
What it all boils down to is that I found this album mostly OK-to-good. I thought the writing was the best part, but different execution could've made it better. Listening now probably has an impact on that, as it feels much more appropriately placed being a debut album in the early 90s. It makes sense on this list, even if I wouldn't consider it great.
Overall: 3.2/5
Solomon Burke
3/5
Great voice, with great feel. Really gave it the "soul" in the title. I did find the soul was more prevalent than the "rock" aspect, though it fits that descriptor when considering it in the Elvis-era of "rock" over something more modern. Some of the songs had more of it, too, especially on the later half. Regardless of the genre, his vocal efforts filled each song with passion and emotion that made it worth listening to.
My main negative is that it was mostly boring outside of the vocals. The instrumentation wasn't all that interesting and really seemed to be there just to accompany the vocals (which, again, were great). That made it feel less engaging as it went, even though it was pretty short. Also gotta knock it down a bit since the artist didn't write the songs, which is my preference in these evaluations.
Still, giving it a lot of credit for the performance and execution. It was a good listen.
Overall: 3.5/5
Alexander 'Skip' Spence
2/5
Thought it was mostly fine. Pretty low key and stripped down sound for a lot of it. Could be haunting at times, but plenty boring at others. One of the riffs sounded like Sunshine of Your Love.
So, yeah. Bunch of random thoughts on this one that don't really help me come up with a rating. But I guess incoherent thought fits pretty well for this album.
Overall: 2.4/5
Cocteau Twins
2/5
Found this fine but rather unengaging. I wouldn't call it bad, just mostly bland and a bit boring. I think it was just a bit too dreary and empty to really stick with me.
Overall: 2.2/5
Drive-By Truckers
2/5
This album is a bit of a conundrum. It's absolutely southern rock, which makes sense with the name. But it more seems to both embrace deep south American culture while also offering critiques of some of its unsavory facets. Theoretically that makes for an intriguing album. To me, though, their effort was pretty disappointing.
It comes off as a bit snobbish. Listening, it gave a vibe of "only I can say this because it's about my heritage which I deeply understand while you simply cannot". Or maybe like someone being overly defensive in a way that make it suspicious. The sheer length of the album solidified my stance on this, because why would you need to do it for 90+ minutes? I guess that makes sense for a rock "opera", if that's really what they consider it. To me, it felt more like a kind of inside joke that for some reason got turned into a double album even though they expected only a few people would get it.
Each individual song was probably fine. If I heard them on their own, I think I'd appreciate them more than I did on this listen. I actually liked the music and guitars quite a bit. Listening to them all together was a slog, though.
Jason Isbell wasn't in the band at the time of this record, but I feel similarly to it the way I do to his music. I can see there's talent and passion, it's just that what he does with it just really isn't that impressive. Same with Dave Grohl, which, fittingly, reminds me of a quip at him I once read saying that no one puts more effort and passion into making completely mediocre music.
I had hoped to like this one due to the genre and knowing people who are big fans of the band. I guess I can't say this was bad, but I really didn't find it that good. The instrumentation was the best part for me, and the vocals had some good tone that fit the vibe well. Unfortunately none of those parts were really better than fine, plus the messaging fell flat. That's hard to overcome when the album is an hour and half long. If they'd condensed this by about half I think I could rate it higher. As it is, I can't give it anything better than a 2.
Overall: 2/5
Joan Armatrading
3/5
There was a lot to like here. I enjoyed Armatrading's voice, which reminded me of Christine McVie to an extent. I also thought she did a good job of mixing up the sound throughout the album, sprinkling in different moods and elements to change up the feel from song to song.
As a whole, it kind of gave me a similar feeling as Tapestry by Carole King. Maybe that's fitting, since Tapestry was my first album recommended on this list and now I'm celebrating #200. Both albums had a good flow and were pleasant to listen to. However, they also both fell a little bit flat for me. I think that is likely due to their genre not being my favorite more than them actually having any big flaws. I can (and did) still enjoy this album, and I liked most of the songs on it well enough. I just wouldn't say it is something I subjectively found great.
Even so, I do think it was a strong album. I had never heard of Joan Armatrading before, so I enjoyed hearing something new to me and interesting. I put this one solidly in the "good" range. It was a worthwhile listen.
Overall: 3.4/5
John Lennon
2/5
Having recently gotten Harrison's first post-Beatles solo album on here, I am a bit struck by how differently they handled the production styles. ATMP was very polished and structured. In contrast, POB is very raw and stripped down. Harrison delved more into spiritual themes while Lennon went with personal experiences. Unsurprisingly, the results were two very different albums. I have to say that I liked Harrison's more. Maybe it's because Harrison was able to compile all the material he'd worked on that was rejected from Beatles albums over the years while Lennon was more writing from scratch. But the songs on ATMP just felt stronger and better written.
My personal opinion is that Harrison grew as a musician and songwriter as he went, likely in part from working with the other Beatles so closely. By the time the Beatles broke up, he was able to rival the leaders he'd been following for the decade before. Lennon had a lot of talent from the start, which certainly matured as the band went on but didn't necessarily grow too much. He then expanded into other genres and artistry, as he became pretty famous for with Yoko. That's not intended to be a knock on either of them, just a thought on their progression.
Specific to this album, it didn't sound all that inspired to me. It instead sounded painful, as though it were intended as a release valve to for an artist who was going through a lot. Parts of it reminded me of that scene in the Wedding Singer when he is way too upset to be performing but plays a song anyway. Emotion that strong can create really meaningful art, but I didn't get that from this. Maybe he was trying a little too hard to express those emotions and it fell flat. And, while I didn't dislike the simplified musical arrangements, I think the lack of other musician/artist input was detrimental to the work, which is noticeable when comparing this to his songs with the group.
There were a few songs here I liked. I think my favorite track would've been Well Well Well if not for the screaming break in the middle. That really took me out of it. I did like his use of gradual buildup to screaming on the opening track, Mother, which felt like a real expression of his feelings compared to the other instance. Outside of a few tracks, the majority of songs here were not very memorable to me. The whole thing was kinda unappealing and lackluster. Beyond the music itself, there are plenty of issues surrounding Lennon without needing a lot of context to know this one is controversial. Even so, I found it pretty unremarkable other than the rawness of the emotion on it.
Honestly, I don't know that this album would've made the list if not for it being the first John Lennon post-Beatles effort. I didn't find it all that good.
Overall: 2.1/5
Venom
3/5
It kinda reminded me of KISS, if KISS was a little heavier and wrote about satanic themes. Which they sort of do, in a tenuous way. I don't really like KISS that much, but I did like this well enough. It was fun in that dark way, it had some head-bang ability, and it was entertaining even if over the top. While I probably won't listen to this album on repeat any time soon, I wouldn't be upset to hear it again.
Overall: 3/5
Björk
2/5
I think I'm getting a little burnt out from this list. This is album suggestion #203, and I feel like I could barely retain any of it. Maybe it was that boring of an album, but I don't think so. At least, not just that.
Parts of it were cool. There were some jazzy moments, though for the most part it felt more electronic and house. While it was an interesting blend, I didn't connect with it much mentally. It felt more like it plodded along rather than carried me through like I'd expect from a good album.
Sorry if this one's more me than the album, but I don't see much here that I like. Giving it some points for the style and composition. Not much else really worked for me.
Overall: 2.2/5
CHIC
3/5
Pretty fun and infectious. The point of the album seems to get people to dance, and it certainly is effective. It's all grooves and vibes.
I find disco music loses its luster quickly when you look at it a little closer, but this one is pleasant regardless of how critical you want to be. All the parts work well together for what they are. It's not meant to be taken too seriously, so just sit back and enjoy the show.
Overall: 3.3/5
Wilco
3/5
Ah, another Wilco album. Yay (sarcastic).
Yet again they've made an album that is fine. It's like the ham sandwich of music; there's nothing wrong with it really, but it is in no way exciting and it gets old pretty fast. The boringness of the music is more prevalent here since it's a double album that runs so long. It's like all of the songs were so similar in OK-ness that they couldn't decide what to cut and what to leave, so they just kept all of it. Any interest I had was gone well before it finished.
To quote myself from the last time I reviewed a Wilco album: "I appreciate when an album manages to have no bad parts. But being not bad doesn't really make it good on its own. There should be more to it for it to be a great album. I can't say I thought this was more than fine." The sentiment holds true here again. I'm ranking this one slightly lower given how long it was, though.
Overall: 2.6/5
Mike Oldfield
3/5
A little surprised that I enjoyed this one as much as I did. On the surface, I figured it would be pretty boring. But it actually was fairly interesting the whole way through and didn't drag on despite the length and composition. There were enough change-ups during the runtime to keep it engaging to the end.
I also liked the instrumentation. While not exactly a genre I seek out, most of it came together nicely. It kind of reminded me of some more modern alt-rock stuff that you might hear where there is a lot of space between some of the instruments, yet they still combine into the whole coherently. The guitars were the highlights for me. Though not really in focus very long, I thought they had a really cool sound that elevated them in the mix.
Even so, it's not really something that I can say I'd want to listen to again. It was a fun experience, but I don't see my self enjoying it nearly as much on a repeat. I do appreciate how it stands out as different and interesting, especially considering it was basically just a 19-year-old throwing it together. All told, I'm rating it more as "OK" than good.
Overall: 2.7/5
Snoop Dogg
4/5
If you can get past the lyrics/topics, this is a really enjoyable album. The music isn't anything special on its own, but is pretty well crafted to drive the songs. The flows are executed exactly right for the tracks. I liked Snoop's rap style more than I expected to. There are a lot of guest spots on there and none of them feel like they're too much. Maybe the skits/interludes were unnecessary, but I still felt like they added something to the whole. It all comes together to be a really fun listen.
Going back to the lyrics- that's the main reason I take points away. They're really not anything too far outside the norm for rap music, especially of that era. But problematic lyrics are problematic lyrics and should be called out as such.
Regardless, there are a lot of bangers on here. The whole album makes me want to cruise around SoCal with the windows down and this playing. I just can't listen to the words too closely while doing so.
Overall: 3.8/5
Jane's Addiction
2/5
I wasn't particularly impressed. Maybe it stood out more when it came out. The music wasn't all that interesting and the vocals weren't engaging. Some of it was fine, but the rest felt mediocre. It reminded me more of Korn than true rock/metal.
Not something I'm inclined to listen to again even if I wouldn't call it outright bad.
Overall: 2.2/5
Funkadelic
4/5
Liked this one a lot. It's funk, it's rock, it's a good time. The guitar work is top notch; starting from the very beginning it grabs your attention and never lets go. At times it felt Hendrix-esque. The grooves and vibes are immaculate with the rest of the instrumentation too. There are some all-time great songs as the album goes, and it never gets boring.
Also, I want to celebrate the album artwork a bit. What an image and title for the music here. Not sure if it's deeper than just a comment that the music is a proverbial ear worm stuck in your head. In this case, though, the worm is going to get in your brain and eat it up. I'm not complaining, for what it's worth (maybe the worm has taken control...).
The biggest critique I have with the album is that there are two tracks that are essentially just long jams. They start and end the album, taking up close to 20 minutes of its runtime. I enjoyed both of them, but the album felt short since there were only 5 other tracks. I guess the real issue was that I wanted more.
Overall: 3.8/5
Siouxsie And The Banshees
3/5
Pretty solid rock album even if it wasn't something I'd consider a particularly great album. Fun to listen to and not a bad moment on it. My biggest negative is that it never got better than being "good", which is where I would rank it.
I'll also note that the sound and style hold up well for an early 80s record. Listening to it today, I felt like some of the songs would feel at home on a Last Dinner Party album. Thought that was pretty cool.
Overall: 3.5/5
Bee Gees
2/5
If I were to rank these albums using letters of the alphabet, this one would go under Y. Not for yes, but Y as in WHY is it on the list? Nothing about it really stood out as impressive or even all that interesting. It just seemed like a rather bland pop rock album, which this list seems to favor heavily.
Knowing plenty of Bee Gees songs are out there that I do like, the tracks here were disappointing. Most of it sounded like an imitation of the Beatles. Some of it was almost country, but not done all that well. One song, which was probably my favorite on the album, sounded like a rip off of The Weight by The Band. Nothing about the songs really made the album seem like a worthwhile listen.
Another issue is the runtime. This is another record that almost certainly would've been better if it wasn't over an hour long. It apparently started off as a concept album, but ended up as a double album that may or may not have kept the concept. Included in what they did keep were three instrumental tracks. While I'm not someone who hates instrumentals, I think that if you need to fill that much space by including three of them on an otherwise vocal album, maybe you shouldn't be making a double album. By the time I got to the third one (the final track), I was over it.
That's a lot of negative criticism, which may be a little unfair since, as a whole, I don't think I would say the album was outright bad. To me though it just wasn't very good or memorable, as I feel like an album should be to have a spot in this list. This one doesn't get more than a "fine" from me.
Overall: 2/5
Cee Lo Green
2/5
I don't think I needed to hear this one at all, let alone from a before-I-die list. Nothing about it seemed all that good to me. Plus its over an hour long... why? There might be a fun, short album in there somewhere. Dragging it out that long just made it seem even worse.
I have to think this might be some kind of satire effort. Just the name is over the top dumb. But also a bit oxymoronic; a machine can't make soul music since it is inherently missing the necessary soulfulness. If parody was the intent, though, it fell flat. Instead, I was getting second-hand embarrassment listening to someone show off mediocre rapper skills for so long.
There were a couple bright spots, but I can't say I enjoyed this one. Cutting it by half would've made it much more manageable and maybe even enjoyable. Even so, I don't think a short version would be worth having on this list. I guess one "compliment" I'll give is that there's probably worse out there.
Overall: 1.75/5
The Allman Brothers Band
3/5
Should've known another live album was coming since it had been a few weeks. (Insert my general complaint about live-albums lacking half the experience here). Ah well, at least this one was pretty good.
The album started off really strong. The first few tracks were good and made me think maybe I'd found a true live album that would crack the five-star limit. Unfortunately, that's when the jams started. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of jam bands generally and I enjoy going to shows where the bands do jam sets. But there's a big difference between experiencing a jam live and hearing it recorded. Here, the combination of the tracks being recordings of concert jams is just too many steps removed for me. If I had been there for this show, I'd probably think the jamming was awesome. The recording unfortunately doesn't translate the feeling of the experience all that well.
That aside, it's easy to appreciate how strong the music is. Just solid blues rock from some of the greats in the genre. The talent is showcased on the jams too, even if they aren't as evocative through a recording. Really gotta listen to more of Allman's guitar work; between this and Layla I realize I've been missing out on him. If I were that talented I'd probably jam my ass off and make everyone listen to it too.
In sum, what was almost certainly a fantastic live concert experience makes for a pretty good recorded album. Despite the negatives, I enjoyed it well enough.
Overall: 3.4/5
2Pac
4/5
I ended up enjoying this one a lot. The music was simple, but it was really about the raps anyway. They were interesting and impactful, for the most part. I haven't listened much Tupac before and this was a nice introduction. My biggest negatives were the nature of some of the lyrical content and the length of the album (66 minutes). Even so, there were a lot of songs on there I liked. The rest weren't bad either.
Overall: 3.7/5
Tom Tom Club
3/5
This was an interesting ride. It felt like an alternate take on disco and dance music, focusing on a different vibe than either of the two. It was intriguing and kept my attention the whole way through, even if some songs went on for longer than they probably should have.
Without a doubt, the musical choices and weaving vocals make it pretty iconic. It's ethereal and atmospheric at times, in your face at others. It could feel bubblegum pop-ish or funky depending on what part you were listening to. That said, even with its range, it never really sounded too different from one song to another.
I can't say that I loved it, but I appreciated it and thought it felt fresh. And it's hard to argue against its widespread impact just considering the number of times Genius of Love has been sampled by different artists over the years. I personally found the album solid but unspectacular.
Overall: 2.75/5
Peter Gabriel
3/5
When this album started off, I thought I was going to rank it pretty high even with the 80s pop label. Red Rain into Sledgehammer was a fantastic start to the album. It slowed down after that into a ballad, then pepped up a bit for That Voice Again. Unfortunately, side 2 was where things really started to drag for me.
Aside from In Your Eyes, I didn't care much for the last half of the album. It felt much more boring and drawn out compared to the liveliness of the first side. Similar to what I said about Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms, I think they needed to break up the track listing a little more to mix the upbeat stuff and the slower stuff better. I felt So was better about that, but still had sections that just got boring as they went. That brings down the relisten-ability for me.
So, I ended up with a mostly so-so opinion about So. I liked Gabriel's voice and the diverse instrumentation he used. There were several songs that really were top-tier on there. That said, the rest of the album ranged from mostly fine to just meh. I'm much more likely to listen to the few songs I liked rather than the whole thing again. I still think it was good generally, just not as good as I had hoped it'd be from how it started.
Overall: 3.3/5
John Mayall & The Bluesbreakers
3/5
Pretty solid in that it's enjoyable blues rock, but there's nothing special about the album. What's worse is that it's mostly other people's music. So we have some white British dudes playing blues covers. Even though they do it well, their takes aren't really all that impressive. It's also a bit problematic, including for their own songs (the lyrics about/to an 18 y/o girl written by a 33 y/o guy comes off pretty poorly).
As someone who loves blues rock, I only thought this was one was OK. Some of it is good, and I wouldn't say any of it is bad music. But it's also not really all that great. There are way better albums out there than this.
Overall: 2.8/5
Goldfrapp
3/5
For something I wouldn't have sought out on my own, I thought it was pretty decent. Very chill, but not necessarily boring. Mostly pleasant if a little bland. It was a nice surprise.
The biggest issue for me was that I didn't really care for the style that much. As a result, it didn't resonate as strongly as it might have otherwise. I still enjoyed it and thought it was good, but can't say I'm really drawn to it or will have it stick with me beyond this listen. I wouldn't mind having it on in the background, though.
Overall: 2.75/5
Nightmares On Wax
2/5
When I was in college and had a big assignment due, I would find a playlist of epic soundtracks to put on while I worked. I remember LOTR, 300, and the Halo games had some good ones that I used. With that playing, I could churn out a half-dozen pages in no time. This album had a similar effect. By the time it was over, I realized I'd just researched and written 500 words about strategic maneuvers in the Revolutionary War's Chesapeake Bay naval battles.
I kid, of course. But it really was pretty good music to have on while getting work done. I'm a little torn on it, since it was a pretty cool vibe for the background and I enjoyed the listen. I'm just not sure that makes it something that should be on the list.
Overall: 2.25/5
The Band
3/5
Well, I at least liked this better than the other the Band album I've gotten on here. I thought the first half was pretty strong. The second half fell off a bit and felt more boring. Still, I thought it was mostly solid, with a couple really good songs.
Overall: 2.8/5
Mike Ladd
2/5
Some of it was good, but a lot of it did nothing for me. It was also long and had me zoning out at times. I appreciate getting something different, I'm just not sure what makes this deserving of the list.
Overall: 2/5
Kelela
2/5
I mean, it was pleasant enough. The low-key, chill vibes flowed well. I don't really see anything that makes it something I need to hear before I die, though. It seemed like something that is fine to have on in the background instead of commanding my attention. I didn't hate it, but wasn't really that impressed.
Overall: 2.1/5
ABBA
3/5
As someone who enjoys ABBA and has been to more than a few disco/dance theme events focused on the band, it's easy to sit back and enjoy this album without thinking about it too much. That said, being a little more critical, I don't really consider it to be anything more than pretty good.
It's almost perfect pop- it's cheery, it's fun, and it gets your feet tapping and body moving. The instrumentation somehow makes the songs what they are without really stealing any of the spotlight from the vocals. Each song is short, but pretty much the perfect length it could be. They leave you wanting more without overstaying their welcome. They all could be sing-alongs after just a few listens given how infectious the melodies are.
That said, they really don't have much actual substance. It's just something to feel good about without a lot of brain activation. Sometimes that's all you need, like here where it's intended to be that kind of pop record. If you're looking for more depth, though, you probably should look elsewhere. There's also the issue of fatigue; for as short as the album is, the consistent style on each track can get a little old by the time you reach the end.
Much like the Britney Spears album, I can appreciate the effort without really thinking it deserves to be rated super high on a list like this. It's just not something I can say is "great" when compared to a number of the other efforts on here. I will give this one a bit more credit than Spears' though, due to the timeframe it was released and the global/cultural impact that it still has. I think it has better artistry, and the band actually wrote the songs themselves. Plus, I found it more fun (personal preference, most likely). That leaves it as a pretty good album in my eyes.
Overall: 3.1/5
Bob Dylan
3/5
Something about the vibe of this one appealed to me. The sound style and bluesy folk feel gave it an intriguing comfort quality that I enjoyed. I think it distracted from it being Bob Dylan, which was good for me since I don't normally love his performance. In fact, I usually dislike his songs unless someone else is singing them. I didn't really feel that way here, but instead liked the character he brought to the tracks.
That said, I wasn't particularly impressed with the album. It was somewhat bland and dragged on, causing me to lose interest a number of times as it went. The last track ran over 16 minutes, taking the album itself to 72+ minutes. I actually liked that last song, so I don't think that one alone was the problem.
I guess this is an example of something I like sonically, but don't love the substance of. Kind of like Springsteen's Nebraska (though I think I liked this one better). I'm not sure I'll listen to it again even though I found it mostly fine.
Overall: 2.8/5
Yes
3/5
I thought this was decent enough. Reminded me of Rush, but better.
Overall: 3.3/5
Lou Reed
2/5
I've mentioned it before, but I don't really like Reed's voice. That came into play here during my listen. Even though it was fine as the album started out, it grew tiresome by the end. I wouldn't say this one was bad, but it just kinda got stayed the same/got worse as it went. Having started out as merely good, that didn't leave a lot to prop it up.
Reed made a good solo career out of making mostly OK music. This is a prime example of that at work.
Overall: 2.4/5
Johnny Cash
2/5
I guess the greatness of this one is lost on me. I didn't really think it was all that special outside of the setup and the banter. The music was fine and the performance was fun, but it never really did anything impressive. I think that's in line with the nature of Cash's music, though; so much of it is structured in the same way. It just gets a tad old after a few songs. And I say that as someone who generally likes his music.
Also, it's a live album. It is missing half of what makes it special. I do think this was a much more interesting instance of the live performance recording than most others I've gotten on here, but still. At least the crowd reaction/interaction was preserved well. I'm sure it was pretty awesome for them to be part of it. I just can't say the same based on my listen.
Overall: 2.1/5
Prince
2/5
For as much as I loved Purple Rain, this album went in the opposite direction. I found it much more bland and mediocre than most of what I know Prince for. He's a great artist and musician, but this album seemed to suppress that. It was easy to tune out, which I thought was surprising given Prince has a penchant for grabbing your attention. It didn't help that the album was 80 minutes long.
Even with the length, I actually found the last section of songs to be the most interesting and enjoyable. Unfortunately, getting to them was a slog. Some songs did well with a funky, rock feel. Most of the rest were boring and forgettable. More than a few had a cringy-ness to them from the overly 80s vibes. None of the tracks stood out to me as something great, even the ones I enjoyed.
While I never really found the album bad, I didn't care for a lot of it. I'll probably stick with Prince's other works that, in my opinion, are much better. This one was merely OK.
Overall: 2.4/5
The White Stripes
3/5
At the time of release, this was probably my least favorite White Stripes album. Not really because it was bad, but more because I was into the garage-rock sound and feel they had on their prior releases. GBMS didn't have much of that and felt kinda lame in contrast. My Doorbell made me roll my eyes and sigh with boredom.
Looking at the album now, I can appreciate it more. The album's diversity is really its strength. GBMS includes piano ballads, marimba pieces, folk music, and some of the harder tracks they were known for. No two songs on here sound much alike, and any section of three you pick will cover at least a couple distinct areas of musical ground. Even with the distinct musical differences, there is still a feeling that they all belong on the album together.
My two favorite songs on here are two that exemplify the differences- Blue Orchid and Ugly As I Seem. The first is pretty much a metal song, with distorted guitar running the show. The second is a soft acoustic track lamenting how the speaker views himself (despite what others may see instead). Most of the other tracks are good too, regardless of their style. I still think My Doorbell kind of sucks, though.
So for the real question of whether this is something that I needed to hear before I die? Honestly, I'm not so sure. As someone who has listened to a lot of White Stripes, I'm probably a little biased in their favor. But, even with how much I like some of the songs on this album, I would consider it more as OK/good than good/great.
Overall: 3.3/5
Ramblin' Jack Elliott
2/5
I liked this more than I thought I would. That's not really saying a whole lot, though. It just isn't really my kind of music. I'll appreciate it for what it is and move on.
Overall: 2/5
ZZ Top
3/5
Another strong blues rock album, this time with a bit of a Texas twist. And beards. Long, flowing, beards. I feel you don't need to know anything about ZZ Top before hearing this album to know the guys who made it had some great facial hair.
When Tres Hombres is strong, it's really strong. La Grange stands the test of time for a reason- it is a prime example of blues rock guitar done well. A few other tracks also showcase what it's all about. The remaining songs are just kinda there, though. They don't add a lot to make the album great all the way through. Even if they aren't bad, they're mostly forgettable. They also don't change up things too much, making it a tad bland as a whole.
Despite the negatives, I rate this one as pretty good. I'd probably be more inclined to listen to the top songs on their own than sit back for the whole album again, though.
Overall: 3.4/5
Happy Mondays
2/5
Seemed fine, especially if dance-pop-rock is your thing. At certain points it gave me the Pixies vibes, at other times Blur. A few tracks were almost disco-esque. Some of the songs were pretty catchy and fun. Most of it was bland, though.
I don't have anything overly negative or positive to point to. I just didn't really find it that interesting as a full album. I'd say it was OK, but I don't think it's something I would seek out to listen to again.
Overall: 2.4/5
Talking Heads
3/5
This was a pretty solid album. There weren't really any standout tracks, but everything stayed at a consistent level of good. I enjoyed the listen.
Overall: 3.3/5
Buena Vista Social Club
3/5
Not really for me style-wise, but still a fun listen. I put it on and enjoyed the vibes as it played in the background. It did run a bit long and felt like it relied a tad too much on the vibe/cultural pocket at times. That's probably hard to avoid when you put the number of musicians they had together to play music they are passionate about (which is a pretty cool aspect of the record in itself). Comparing it to another Latin Caribbean music album I've gotten on here, Tito Puente's Dance Mania, I preferred Puente's. His grabbed my attention more than BVSC did.
I can't say too much bad about the album outside of my personal preference and tastes. If I was more into the style, I'm sure I'd have a better handle on it's quality. As it is, I'll rate it as solidly OK.
Overall: 2.6/5
Fred Neil
3/5
Pretty fine album. As a whole it was fairly subdued and stripped down, but there were a few flourishes and intricate moments to add something to it. I liked his voice and the overall sound he got here; the mostly acoustic instruments with a bit of gruffness to the vocals gave it a powerful quality despite the understated style. I found the last half better than the first half, with tracks 6 > 7 > 8 being the part I liked best. There wasn't much I disliked other than to say it was a bit boring and bland as a whole.
My main issue is that I didn't see much special about it. Even the parts I liked I wouldn't say were more than OK/good. It's solid, but not more than that for me.
Overall: 2.8/5
Jimi Hendrix
5/5
Are you experienced? I am now.
This is my first time listening to this album in full, and, really, what is there to say? Jimi has to be one of the most captivating musicians of all time. So, perhaps unsurprisingly, his effort here is one of the greatest albums of all time--even though (or perhaps because) it's his debut. Every song on it is something special. While it's pretty much all rock, there's a lot of diversity in the songs with different genres and flavors that flow in and out. The cover art is pitch perfect too. As a whole it's interesting, stylish, and insanely cool. There are a few moments where it gets a little noisy rather than musical, but it's a 60s rock album so whatever. Any issues I could come up with are more nit-picks than real flaws.
I am older now than Jimi was when he died, but I still want to be him when I grow up.
Overall: 4.9/5
Prefab Sprout
2/5
Really didn't know what to expect from a band called Prefab Sprout and an album called Steve McQueen. I guess an 80s indie pop record is about right.
To be honest, I didn't love it. It started off fine, and I liked the first couple songs well enough. But it just never really went anywhere or did anything very interesting. There were a couple songs that changed up the vibe; one was jazzier and the other had a similarity to Bowie's Modern Love. The rest unfortunately was just bland and a bit overly pop for me, especially with the 80s stylings.
I did find it interesting how the music and writing were matched up. It seemed very much like it could've been singer-songwriter-y, but then had all that production thrown on. I wasn't sure if I liked it or not at first. It was another thing that grew old as it went on, though. Some of the lyrics were pretty bad, too. (Turkey hungry but chicken free? I can't breakdance on your knee? Uh... what? That one lost me.)
On the whole, there's not much there that's particularly bad or good. I wouldn't consider it something I need to hear before I die. It's just an OK record.
Overall: 2.2/5