The title track and passage to Bangkok are probably in the conversation for Rush's finest work. It's absolutely a shame that the majority of the second half isn't as memorable
Great, sags towards the end - Witch Hunt does nothing for me, Vital Signs never gets into top gear but still enjoyable and Camera Eye is a bit drawn out but not so much so to be unlikeable.
It's very spotty; like most Muse fans. It has plenty of bad Depeche mode and queen pastiches. Some moments are likeable but not loveable. Exo-politics onwards is forgettable as. Knights of Cydonia brings it back around a bit.
Lots of catchy songs, but that's not necessarily meaning you'll have a good experience. The tracks with Shara Nelson are the highlight. Other vocalists are misses. I don't REALLY get trip-hop/downtempo, but guess this must have sounded mental in 1991.
Bloated song lengths, oversexualised, obsessed with violence and pointless intro and interlude skits; as per usual I find east coast hip hop and gangsta rap to suffer the same ills. When I find a track I like, I can enjoy it very well, but most stuff on here that just washed over me. Flow is great as is the rhyming around vowel sounds, just the lyrical content turns me off so badly.
Ubiquitous though SNA is, it's still a banger. It's aged a lot better than I thought as a whole. Where the songs are upbeat it's still a rip-roaring rock album. Quieter, meg led, downtempo and acoustic tracks don't hit so hard. It could've been a perfect record if a tiny bit shorter?
I absolutely LOVE REM, but as has always been the case when listening to this - which I know is highly acclaimed in their back catalogue - I am kind of ambivalent to it. I think instead of being a great realisation of where they would end up and the accomplishment of where they started it's just TOO transitional. It misses the soaring poppy art rock highs of their later work, and the austere jangle of their early records.
I WANT to like it, but I just don't like very much of it at all. Yes, Faster & This is Yesterday are brilliant; the rest of the album shades between being forgettable, inoffensive post-punk and horribly bad confessional indie
It's a dissonant piano freak out on the title track from being perfect; but is it as good as Ziggy or Hunky Dory? I'm not sure.
The greatest commercial hard rock record of all time? Probably. Album tracks could've been viable singles for many other bands. They play cheap tricks; but by God are the tricks powerful. It's puerile but isn't it good to be every once in a while.
Some phenomenal highs; but is mostly forgettable albeit enjoyable folk. Probably a victim of overstated importance.
I think this is probably unfairly maligned because of David Thomas' voice and the timbre of some instruments. It's not one to playlist but I genuinely liked more than half of it. Judge this by the yardstick of being a post-punk record and you can see it's potency. Judge this by it's accessibility and it looks like a fish climbing a tree
It's an imperfect classic; iconic voice with some signature tracks here. Maybe could've benefitted from being finished properly? It is still however a classic.
I had no idea what to expect; I enjoyed a good chunk of this. It's inhibited by the nature of being a compilation from different sessions. The performances are consistently good and her voice is great; I'll be rating this positively despite the quality of recordings and musical timbres varying more wildly than I would have liked.
I can't believe this is the Shuggie Otis album that made the list - but nonetheless its excellent. The title track is the highlight here, with some great (in their own right) jazzy pieces closing out. A meandering way to close out the record, especially when the work with sung vocals was very strong.
I didn't know anything other than Brass in Pocket which I've never liked. This was a dull way to spend almost 50 minutes. I disliked almost every song because of how insincere it sounds; biggest offender are the vocals. I liked Space Invaders though.
Meditative synth experiments at the early wave of ambient music, it's an absolute trip but hardly a hoot. I wouldn't reach for it very frequently because it's an austere experience - but I very much enjoyed rediscovering it.
The title track and passage to Bangkok are probably in the conversation for Rush's finest work. It's absolutely a shame that the majority of the second half isn't as memorable
Arguably one of the best live rock records and the most important jam band album of all time; prototypical, even! It's a little long but for the most part it's a massive joy to hear such abundant talent and genuine improvements to some studio cuts.
You can question how authentic it's anti-capitalist credentials are; but you can't question the potency. The only time the album dips is Settle for Nothing - I could really take it or leave it off the album. It's not a bad track per se, but it changes the pace without necessarily improving the output. An easy decision to make it a 5/5, it defined a genre and it was never bettered by them or anyone else.
It's the ugly, angry cousin of their big three records but there's some fantastic arty highs despite being less euphoric and consistent than the predecessors. Will be more often in my rotation than it was, as it's a lot better than I remember it being, although Seductive Barry could be their nadir.
Dave Formula's scooby doo keyboards don't always hit the spot, but there are enough good songs to call this an enjoyable experience!
Having bought this on release, listened to it once and shelved it during 2016, this has been an absolute joy to rediscover. I don't think Cohen could've had a finer swan song. His delivery of sparse lyrics, the rattle of his voice, the understated instrumentation, the various genres covered and in some cases - fused, the brevity ensures none of his final moments on tape were wasted. A 5/5 - an incredible surprise - and will trigger me re-evaluating his other work.
Soon Forgotten sums up the story of the first couple of tracks on this. The performances wind up to a great second half that doesn't end perfectly, but is much better. It's a significant recording, maybe a little homogenous, but I'd call it satisfactory and influential rather than enjoyable and groundbreaking.
I love the fact you can hear both eras of Waits in this album. The horrid grimy and strange beast to come, the straightforward songwriting of his earlier work. It's not perfect, but it's well beyond good.
I wanted to give this a five and say it's made me re-evaluate my opinion of grunge and I was regretful for not being an Alice in Chains fan before. Unfortunately, I just thought it was OK. I love the way the record sounds; but I don't love a lot of the songs. The song lengths feel quite bloated, with little development over five or six minutes.
I was shocked how little I remembered of side one when I remembered pretty much all of side two. I went into this thinking its not their best album. The highs are high enough to praise as their best, the lows although still incredible are less memorable.
Final boss of AOR, who am I to argue?
It has been my favourite Bowie album for the longest time. No change to that on a re-listen.
The melodies and song directions are interesting, but not always the most effective. The concept is really well embedded and still feels relevant. I will definitely listen to it again, it might become my favourite of theirs.
If every song was shorter, and F*cking in Heaven was removed, I might have enjoyed this. It was a tough listen with a couple of highlights.
I only knew X from Los Angeles' title track. This is very much in the same vein. Considering this came out in the early 80s and was so heavily aped, I can see how this would be a landmark recording. The punk blues parts are brilliant, I'm less sure of my enjoyment of the lyrical content. Those harmonies are best described as hypnotic, again I'm not sure if that's good or bad! I've playlisted a few tracks - so it gets a positive score.
Extraordinarily tough listen, it's like it's covered in molasses, it's so sweet and slow moving. Makes the achievements of Pet Sounds only a year later even more stratospheric. Help Me Rhonda and Do You Wanna Dance are enjoyable. Some flashes of enjoyment elsewhere, but subpar for me. I'd rather listen to Phil Spector production than an attempt at it.
Bowie's best rock record, it's literally perfect.
Long and plodding. It reminds me of rainy Sunday afternoons. How Ella and Louis or Porgy and Bess gets overlooked for this archival behemoth is nothing short of absolutely mental. The hit rate is low, but it's not unpleasant. I wouldn't dream of ever listening it to again, nor any of the other songbooks.
I'd agree with Jon Landau, it's probably the best solo output from any Beatle. It's not quite perfect, though.
Final boss of disco, but she's out of my life and I can't help it let it down
An extremely welcome rediscovery, I absolutely loved pretty much every note.
I had a massive urge to turn it off, I hated the vocals, the polyrhythms were nice but the instrumental parts were uninteresting. Like Anohni and Foals but less good than either. Bad Sparks impressions
In their classic run, I've often thought this is the weakest - and another listen didn't change my mind. It is the weakest because it is so uneven, and probably as a result of the fact it's the only one in that feted run that couldn't be argued as a concept album. I liked some of the tracks very much, and the ones I didn't particularly like just passed me by.
A really fun pop record with spiky edges and massive hits. There are some weaker tracks but they don't drag it down too much overall. Solidly above average. Still think Debbie Harry needs a good wash, rammy.
Non-descript Britpop/Power pop, why is it so compressed? I didn't hate it, but it didn't do much of anything for me and I probably wouldn't listen again.