Prince was undoudbtedly a highly talented singer, instrumentalist and stylist, but the songwriting in this album is mediocre, using predictable and overused patterns. There are moments of interest, typically in background instruments suddenly doing something brilliant, but all in all it's a very long bore.
Sounds like it's trying very hard to sound modern and cool. The production is good, the lyrics & composition are trying so hard it sounds kind of pathetic. This is an album that tries to ride on the wake of better, more authentic albums, and will ultimately be forgettable.
Sure, songs are repetitive to the point of absurd, but with almost every one of them being unforgettable even decades later, this is a definition of a 5.
Most songs are good, some are great. Well crafted and executed, a pleasure to listen to.
Happy 50 years to this album!
The album starts with its weakest track, so stick to it for a bit longer before judging.
Overall musically this album is very solid, diverse, well crafted and made me curious about the band and their other works. I don't like the combination of punk and ambient - I understand this is kind of experimentality, but 50 years later of modern music development, I prefer more cohesive listening experiences. I don't mind variety, but punk+ambient is a bit much.
For being a 50 year old album that still sounds relevant and interesting this is almost a 5, but enough songs don't land that it's a 4.
But this is definitely the kind of musical discoveries I'm here for.
The guy can sing, but the music is mediocre and uninspired. In addition, some of the lyrics I managed to catch aged like a lecherous old man.
Overall this album is nothing memorable, just a good singer making mediocre music with an annoyingly repetitive back-choir. It's a nice one-off listen, nothing more.
Two negatives make a positive? I'm not a fan of neither post-punk nor disco, but turns out the post-punk disco is definitely a thing!
Really interesting combination of groove, hypnotic rhythms and weird (in a good way) sound design
Feels like the work of a great musician playing to their strength, effortless and good.
Overall I enjoyed most tracks here, both the catchy and the quirky ones.
Smooth sound and top notch mixing, but the music itself is not doing it for me at all. I listened to the whole album, couldn't tell one song from the next, and had a distinct feeling that if I don't hear it ever again I won't be missing out on anything.
I'm awarding it 1 additional start for craftsmanship, I might cue this album up as a reference track when I'm making my own music. But for an entertainment product, this isn't going above 2 stars.
The biggest problem of this album is the mixing. Wikipedia says the band and the producer didn't agree on the sound - to me it sounds like the producer isn't a heavy music listener and he just mixed this as a pop album. If it was my band, I wouldn't agree with it either.
The result - everything is too clean for thrash music, especially painful with the back vocals totally not fitting in.
But overlooking the the unfortunate mix, the music is pretty cool and interesting. It's mostly carried by the strength of the guitar, that still sounds interesting and fresh today. I agree with other reviewers that the singing isn't what I'm looking for, but it's not as bad as some people say it is.
Overall, I'd probably go back to listen to this again at some point!
The review is for the "normal" edition - The deluxe edition is way too long and has really really bad songs: Typical girls (blink style dub) was so full of clicks it was painful to hear.
It's a bit too much avant-garde/arthouse for my taste, but even despite that, it's still a fun interesting listen, and there are some truly great songs there. The reggae with punk influences was new to my ear (at least, the way it was done here) and it was very well pulled off.
These girls sound like they know how to freewheel it in style and pull it off, that's a rare talent.
I am definitely going to listen to this one again.
Not a good album - some songs were okayish, others were bad. There was not a single good song. The singer's voice isn't good, and the mixing choice was to put it upfront and center, which further reduces the album's quality.
This album is a big no thank you from me.
Cookie cutter songs that were manufactured to satisfy a specific clientelle. They are well made and well performed, but the album is musically bland. It's the kind of music you'd expect in a rock/biker bar, makes for a nice background and that's about it.
To me it sounds like they're easily capable of better and therefore it was probably a conscious decision to maximize the commercial aspect of the album.
The good: The singer can SING. Some of the songs have cool riffs and are worth revisiting.
The not-so-good: The lyrics are really bad. They're not even good in a campy way. Just bad. The mastering is awful. Beside the 2-3 songs that are relistenable, the rest isn't.
Clearly created by someone who understands grooves, hooks and the power of a great bass line. Not all songs hit, but those that do are really well written. The production is quite basic to my taste (stock drums, sparse soundscape and preset-sounding sounds), but the songwriting more than makes up for it.
Some songs are literally annoying to listen to, I was considering deducting a star for the 2-3 bad songs, but i'll just pretend that the album didn't contain them.
While I hear a lot that influenced later music, this was not an enjoyable listen for me. The self important yet droning vocals, the grating industrial sounds, and the kind of bland songwriting made time stretch. When I felt I just about had enough I looked at the playlist to discover that I'm only halfway through. o no, I felt.
The best part of the album was a song that started with 1:30 mintues of instrumental. Once the singing resumed, so did my time dilation.
Personally this is a 1 for my own taste, but i'm giving it a second star in recognition that it did have a significant influence on other artists.
For better or for worse, this isn't a product, this is art, and so it can land very perfectly or not at all. I can hear later singer-songwriters productizing this style for wider consumption, and by doing so, cheapening it *coughsufjanstevenscough*
Within 2 songs I thought the album would quickly overstay its welcome, but, damnit, if Old Legs here ain't grown on me and I enjoyed it till the end. I can imagine this to be something to dive deeper into, with the lyrics in hand.
The music does its job while being a little too predictable, yet has flashes of genuinely creative moments to spice it up, which in my opinion is a recipe for 3-4 review.
But the experience is ultimately mostly carried by the lyrics. Considering that most albums I've heard on this project so far had throwaway lyrics that bordered on the laughable, this is a very welcome change, and that alone pushes this to 5 for me.
Some interesting musical moments , but overall, this is first and foremost a pop album, so it relies on a driving a hook home, and except one song, they're not driven home. I feel the artist was capable of doing something more interesting had they chosen to.
Mixing-wise, vocals are too upfornt and overall the sound is very hyped and tough to listen to for a prolonged period of time. It'a as if they try to make you like the music through sheer repetition and aggressive mixing.
I do think they have a lot of talent as musicians, but the feeling to me is that they consciously chose a very commercial path and for me that doesn't make for timeless music.
Servicable, enjoyable music, but at least on first listen, not more than that. A song or two feel like a 4, but the rest aren't, so the album as a whole doesn't make it to 4 territory.
Feels like a step back compared to previous albums - I feel that whatever made Elliottt Smith an interesting musician wasn't really captured here, and I wouldn't choose this album as a representative of him for new listeners.
Started as an interesting mix of singer-songwriter and electronic music, but as the album progressed it leaned a lot more to singer-songwriter. Too bad, this album could've earned its place in this list if it leaned harder into this innovative direction.
But despite that, pretty good and enjoyable songs. There were maybe 1 or 2 songs I felt an urge to skip, but that was it.
Love the cover art.
Just straigthforward good music. Love the hammond sound, the fact that the album is not overstaying its welcome (I've had trouble with some of the albums on this list having 15+ songs where a lot of them were obvious fillers).
Listening to this I immediately thought I'd be happy to own this on vinyl. That's a 5 in my book, even if there's nothing exceptionally flashy goingo on.
I think the first song of the album inspired the title music of Transport Tycoon Deluxe? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmL4HoG5ehQ&list=PLB0C4CF334E53E241&index=1
Wow, what a great album, everything works, and literally banger after banger. Controversial content aside (not gonna go into a debate here on whether the controversy is justified or not), the lyrics aren't braindead as they are for some other bands in this genre, and therefore don't subtract from the experience.
I think a lot of metal fans have a problem with this album because it's more Hardcore Punk than Metal. To me, it's the best of both worlds, but I can see how someone who has a problem with HC Punk would struggle listening to this.
I see this was produced by Rick Rubin, gives me some idea for why he's such a celebrated producer. This guy really understands so many different genres and how to make them work, rather than trying to copy the recipe of genre A and apply it to genre B.
Simple and formulaic music, pure packaged product to satisfy the masses. No innovation whatsoever - the significance importance of this band isn't in its music, but in its architecture as a "band that writes its own music". I appreciate that, but that can't be worth more than one star
Performance-wise it's good, but the music just makes it a slog. Even for a relatively short album, I got tired of the formula halfway through. The last song fortunately pick up the energy a bit as a payoff for the listen.
Amazing debut album from basically teenagers. Easy & fun listen, ambitious and experimental. Not everything lands for me, but enough lands that it works, and some tracks are pure fire.
I'm not a huge rap fan, but I prefer positive-minded rap like De La Soul and this gave me similar vibes. Not quite making it to the 5-star sphere, as it is still somewhat sophomoric, but well deserving of a place on this list.
With music, the harder it tries, the more it fails. This is where the comparison to Radiohead fails - Radiohead is just are. This album, it's trying so hard it just sounds pathetic.
Honestly, it's been a while since I've heard an album I disliked so much. I hated every second of this album, which is quite an achievement! Here's hoping this band elbowed only one album into the list.
Let's be real, this is a single masquerading as an album. Hello is a killer song and adele has the perfect voice for it. The rest of the album is pure filler with strong disney vibe.
The album feels as a whole like a 2 for me, it sounds great and she obviously has an amazing voice, but the music is very very middling and forgettable. Hello is such a massive song, though, that it adds a whole star on its own.
Totally not my style of music, but I can appreciate that it's a good album: The music is interesting, the singer is good, the production is pretty creative (though not always landing for me), and the album itself is braving into conceptual territories despite being a pop r&b album.
I'm curious what R&B listeners make of this, whether this is "yet another" album, or really a standout album that should be included in this list. I am not familiar enough with the genre to make this call.
In the beginning I was leaning towards 4 but as the albums progressed the appeal kind of wore out.
In 2200's edition of 1001 albums, this one will still be on the list, because if there's any band of this era that may still be talked about in a century or two from now, Radiohead has a good shot at being that band, and OK Computer would be the reason. Not just for its historical significance - but for its own rights as a musical piece.
Nearly 30 years old and still entirely relevant, this album has everything: ambitious songwriting, great performance, meaningful lyrics, and an overarching vision. No song is equally great but there are no fillers.
I swear I'm not a die-hard Radiohead fan, but I feel something in my gut every time I listen to this album.
The Beatles fully deserve their legacy as the most influential band in modern history. But while this is a good album for its era, isn't not a representative for why the Beatles deserve this legacy.
Too many songs are forgettable, a lot of the good ones are covers (though the best one: All my Loving, is original), but it's still a good listen from start to finish. Unlike many albums of the same era, this one doesn't suffer from same-ness. It sounds to me like there was thought given to the overall listening experience, rather than just a string of songs, and therefore there's enough variety is peppered through that when the album was over I was not yet tired of it.
Overall, a good entry to the Beatles discography, but not an album I'd go back to regularly.
Jazz isn't exactly my genre and it's tough for me to trace what modern Jazz is drawing from this album, but I imagine it's a lot since I've heard so many student bands trying their hand at this kind of improvisation, and it's not easy to get it to sound good. This one sounds good.
However, while I think the piano is great, there's way too much sax and the sax isn't that great. I really want to hear more of Monk's piano, and this album gives only a taste of it. As it stands, this album has its moments, but that's about it.
Neither timeless or memorable. I'm struggling to relate to those who claim this is an essential album. For me this is nice background music that passes through without any impact whatsoever.
You wouldn't pin the Beach Boys as Psychedelic music, yet they can be far more trippy than any psychedelic music I can think of: This album in particular is like watching a Disney movie on acid.
This isn't my favorite of the Beach Boys but it's definitely an interesting work with very strong moments ('Til I die)
I don't know what's going on with the mixing/mastering of the album, but some songs are really suffering from imabalanced mixes and inelegant distortion. Bordering on being bad enough to deduct a star.
2 radio hits surrounded by 7 passable fillers. You've probably heard what this album has to offer without ever listening to this album, making this a "non essential" listen.
Very 70's rock&roll, very of its time.
Not sure how i feel about the album. I like the stripped down sounds where everything is in its place and there are no unnecessary frills, and I appreciate that the musicianship is very hgih. But I am not really jamming with the vocals and the songwriting.
I can tell it's not your average rock album, but it's not for me. I understand the 4-5 ratings but I will not be returning to this album.
The album started off sounding like 5 to me: incredibly modern right off the bat, and taking into account Apple was only 18 when this came out, already makes this pretty incredible. But the second half of the album is noticeably weaker. There are some great songs, Fiona Apple is obviously a very talented musician who knows how to channel her emotions to effective musical output, and I love her voice, but I feel this album is stretched a bit with a few songs that should've been cut.
Very far from my musical taste, but listenabl, well written and performed. I think the album shows its age, it's quite laid back and old fashioned, also like for other listeners, everything kind of blends in for me, I think due to the vocals and instruments being pretty much the same throughout.
I think it wouldn't do amazing if it was released today, and I definitely am not going to go back and relisten to this voluntarily, but definitely deserves a place on the list due to its historical context, importance and overall production.
Another entry to the list of "glad I heard it but I'm not going to rehear it". It has significance as a historical album, but it does almost nothing for me today. The monotony of the vocals and the genre creeps up quickly: The eponymous song is the best in the album, and it has no singing.
Oh yeah baby. This album is kind of fire? This is coming from someone who could hardly be more removed from this genre.
What I like is the organic improvisational style fills, the clever songwriting defying expectations in pleasant ways, and overall just a fun listen.
The main problem is that the album is front heavy and back light (the best songs are all at the front). Still, I would put this vinyl on from start to end and feel good about it. A classic 5.
Totally not my musical taste, but it's overall enjoyable start to finish, with Waterfalls obviously being a bona-fide classic. I feel it's very close to a 5, but to want to relisten to this I'd need a bit less filler.
This sounds like rock and country's bastard child: Taking the clichés of each genre to make music that tries hard to feel anthemic but falls short. Instead, it demands Springsteen's vocal chords' heoric effort to imbue the music with a feeling of gravity.
The lyrics come off as a romantization of "I'm just a simple Joe and life is rough", an experience im not sure Springsteen is actually personally familiar with.
If I was a teenager I could see thinking this is cool. As it stands this funk-rock comes off too juvenile and thus a bit hard to listen to, particularly with so much of it in one album.
However, they clearly know how to write songs (even if they tend to the repetitive side), and the production is super tight and creative (one thing I learned from this project is that I'm a Rick Rubin fan).
I think it's very telling that the best songs are not funk-hiphop, but ballads (like Under the Bridge). If only they did more of that.
It started promising, but as it was playing it faded into the background. It's an enjoyable listen since I like the genre in general, but it's heavily generic, taking absolutely no risks and just delivering predictable, listenable music.
I listened from start to finish and haven't had a single song catch my attention or stick in my memory, but at least I didn't suffer through it.
Well, this album was a chore to listen to. It started out nice, but very quickly it devolved into self indulgent performant masturbation.
It insists upon itself.
I love the cover with the album name - really captures the experience of being a musician, and gives an idea that the band is taking things lightly but puts an effort to well-craft that lightness. The listening experience matches this assessment - well crafted songs that aren't too self-serious .
That said, I'm not a big britpop fan and I'm not a big fan of the vocals. Also the album has a gritty noise to it that makes it a tiring listen from start to finish. I can imagine the singles being fun to listen to, but I can't imagine putting the vinyl from start to finish.
The mixing of the album doesn't sit with me. The drums sound like they're coming through a screen, the kick sounds like someone hitting a speaker cone, the bass is only hinted, and the guitar is heavily reverbed and overly panned (I understand it's the idea is to bring VH's playing to the front, but it's a bit heavy handed, especially in a continuous listen to the whole album on heaphones).
The songs themselves don't feel anything special to me, just generic hard rock with more shredding than usual, with the exception of Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Love which is a song I'll want to relisten to, and Runnin' with the Devil a distant second (it has a great starting riff but that's about it).
IMO this album sounds exactly like what it is: A debut album of a band that's better at playing than writing, and packaged in unfortunate mixing. I think VH got better later in their career in songwriting. This one leaves me wanting.
Well, it was a fun listen, and I probably wouldn't mind listen to it again once enough time has passed. The production is great and the performances are great (though sometimes too many things are vying for attention at the same time).
But let's be real, how much can you listen to the same riff on repeat? You can walk away from this album for 5 minutes and come back and pretty much have missed nothing.
If someone played a song here and told me this is Franz Ferdinand, I might've believed them before I listened to this. The good aspect is that this albums sounds a few decades ahead of its time, which is very impressive. The bad aspect is that it still sounds like generic try-hard pop. The name, the look, the singing, all come off to me as an attempt to craft a specific, marketable image. Call me old fashioned, but what I seek in music is authenticity, and this album and artist took a conscious choice to go the other direciton.
I'll split the middle and say that in 2025 this is a listenable album, but not something to seek out or come back to.
Nice production, well-focused songs that don't tire themselves, good performances and a great voice. The only thing holding this from 4 stars is that I don't really connect to the genre.
There are some highlights in the album, but mostly it's a pretty boring listen to me. The repetitive, slow rhythm puts me to sleep, and nothing else exciting is happening with the music. It's too saccharine and predictable. The breakout songs are way overplayed and not really exciting to relisten in the context of the album.
I was hoping/planning to give this a 4 or 5 and be one of those who rediscover Bob Marley by a thorough listen, but alas it's not to be. It must've been a classic for its era, but I guess all the replays, covers, derivatives over the years killed the novelty.
I think this album has an interesting musical concept to bring to the world. I feel it leans too much to independent/punk aesthetics to really leverage the most out of the concept, so it just feels as another wild 70s experiment that doesn't land. But this specific experiment hit some interesting vein and I would've liked this vein to be explored deeper.
Having said all that, realistically, I'm not gonna listen to any song on this album ever again.
Experimental without giving up on satisfying musical ideas, "The Walls" stands (heh) as a model for how concept albums should be made. Despite its long running length, the song arrangement and variety keeps one's attention pleasantly humming along with the music.
The mixing and production are top notch; most of the time the sounds are crisp and pleasant, like an ear massage. And with Gilmour being my favorite electric guitar player, his presence is a cherry on top.
The album isn’t flawless. There are moments I would cut or skip — but it’s not bad enough to deduct a star. “Comfortably Numb” remains one of my favorite songs of all time.
Overall, easy 5, and I'm on my way to the record store to find a vinyl copy.
I still like "Imagine" and its message despite it being played to death, and even realizing that John didn't live the ideals he espoused. I still think it takes balls to sing "no religion" and "no countries". The rest of the album is coffeeshop worthy - nice for background but not really gripping or mould-breaking.
With a name like "Apocalypse Dudes", you gotta know you're going into an album that doesn't take itself seriously.
Starts strong with a satisfying combination of punk, rock'n'roll, and lighthearted songwriting, but kind of goes downhill. The album is mostly front-loaded.
The mixing is lacking, it sounds quite flat and too compressed, even for a heavy music. Sounds nitpicky, but the mixing makes it impossible for me to listen to more than a few songs in a row.
Kate Bush is the full package: Creative, talented, and in this album, willing to take significant risks.
For me this album is too experimental to win full score as a timeless favorite, but it's absolutely a great, listenable album even when it's pushing boundaries.
The "We have Sinatra at home" album. Or more like, we have Sinatra at our middle-of-nowhere truckstop cafe.
Neither bad nor brilliant. I'm not an expert in the era, but I'd bet this is quite derivative of other works of the time.
It starts out nice, with a "fallout retro" vibe, and the eponymous song being the best in the bunch. But listening to a full album of the same exact vibe, tempo and style, loses the magic very rapidly.
And my guy, maybe give your spring reverb a raise, it's been working overtime in this album.
Lovely album with a few very strong songs: I enjoyed the listen, but my attention was only grabbed a few times.
Overall it's very much a product of its time, and some aspects didn't age well (e.g. the keyboard sound/improvisation style), but still, the songwriting and performance are timeless.
When the first song started playing I immediately suspected this is going to be another front-heavy album where all the good stuff is at the start and the rest is filler. Many albums on the list are like that.
Not this one! The album is peppered throughout with songs I'd like to relisten to. The lyrics are consistently great, the music is creative and original, the whole thing sounds way fresher than early 80's, and it's a debut album no less. Incredibly impressive piece of work.
I've always liked punk, yet never "got" folk-punk, but now I get it.
This is one of these albums where I feel like I should've known this way way earlier. Exactly the kind of album I'm hoping to discover through this project.
More like "Boring Stones", amiright? That's what I expected going in and for the first few songs, that's what I got.
As I was listening, I slowly realized that this is a deception: The album comes off as cookie cutter rock'n'roll songs (with the added spice of Jagger's jagged voice), but beneath the repetitive hooks there is a creative and experimental spirit that surfaces here and there: Use of sitar here, soft ballad there, going home's minimalist stretch.
Also taking into account this is one of the earliest works in the project (page 93 in the original book), there's actually a lot to admire here. I can literally imagine myself as a teenager in the sixties with my eyes closed, lying on a bean bag tripping out to Going Home (a beautifully mixed song that maximizes the tension between sound and silence).
I'm not sure I would come back to this album in the future, as it's way out of my musical generation, but put in the right context, this is more than just another rock album: Beneath the repetition there are glimpses of genuine art.
The initial listening experience has a wow effect, but as the album progresses, it turns out to be mostly an attitude and roughness overlayed basic rhythms and basic chord progressions. A lot of cover, but rudimentary substance.
Still, a good cover has its place. Individually the songs are interesting, it's only in a single, continuous listen that haflway through they lose their individuality and blend together, as the riffs, rhythms and singing all basically tell a single story.
As a punk afficionado I can appreciate the spark that started a flame. But like most albums of historical importance, the importance itself won't put this back on my playlist on a regular basis.
Immediately disappointed that this doesn't contain my favorite Newman song: "Fat man with his kids and dog, drove in through the morning fog.."
The music has a piano-bar quality to it, neither biting nor challenging, just humming along. Yet the lyrics are anything but, particularly the first song. It's as if Randy says, if you can stomach this song, you're allowed to listen to the rest.
I don't agree with commenters who feel uncomfortable with this song: It's clearly a clever satire targeting both southern racism and northern hypocricy. To dismiss such an even handed criticim, imo, is tantamout to virtue signalling.
Rant over. Musicwise, it comes off as simplistic, but I have a feeling that it's actually a type of efortless mastery - Newman makes his music sound easy: He is aiming at background listening with biting content.
And the goal's achieved: I'd put this with guests over. If the song bothers them, that's a conversation starter.
I'm also a fan of the cover art, as it reflects the album perfectly: Seemingly a generic, lazy photo of a couple at a bar, yet the details reveal an uneasy picture: The girl seem much younger, wearing a wig, the guy, overdressed, wearing shades in door. A hint at the dynamics of power, money, status, and age.
To me this album is a lesson in overproduction - everything is just too much. Do we really need the Budapest film orchestra and military men's choir for a so-called "indie album"?
It's also a lesson in overambition: Does the material justify this ridiculous orchestration? By trying so hard, it only accentuates the limitations of the material. I may have liked this album better if it didn't try to sound so much grander than it actually is.
The songs would have worked better as lean, indie-scale compositions instead of masquerading as a sweeping concept opera.
This album is lacking in goodness, but not in grandiosity. Wrong ratio. Let the vision emerge through the work: don’t wear it on your sleeve.
As if to highlight the point, autoplay moved to Elliott Smith's "Between the Bars" when the album ended. A hushed, bare voice backed with a single guitar, yet it carries more emotional weight than all the orchestras and choirs that preceded it. This is what material-first sounds like.
I listened to "The very best" edition.
I can't fault the performance, the composition or the recording. They're all 5/5. The problem is the intent: This is smooth, predictable music meant to sit comfortably in the background while you sip a cocktail & engaged in a lively chat. Being touched, roused, startled or challenged by the music is not the priority.
The music delivers that, but by doing so, it passes right by me: The core of what I look for in music is absent.
The craftsmanship is undeniable, and I never felt I had to endure the listen. But the lack of emotional pull, combined with having no real occasion in my life for this kind of music, means I won’t be returning to it.
The listening is so easy, I sometimes forgot it was there.
I love that the music doesn't feel built for pop consumption. Instead of every song following the same formula of verse/chorus, hook, familiar chord progression and repetition, each song here feels individually crafted, using the formulas surprisingly sparesly.
Yet this handcrafted album achieves pop success that heavily formula-driven albums can only dream of.
The mixing and orchestration are clearly 70s, but in a hi-fi way. Some instruments and song structures give a psychedelic folk feel, but not straying far enough to become inaccessible to the casual listener. Overall the album sounds good to modern ears without having to rely on nostaglia.
Even though this isn’t my go-to genre, it’s hard not to admire what’s been achieved here. And honestly, the whole listen was enjoyable. There were few noticaebly weak moments, most pronounced with the last song "Twisted", which while sounds like an exercise in playfulness, is doing a complete u-turn on the rest of the album by diving deep into familiar formulas.
Some experiments land with me and some don't. This one is the latter. I don't like the vocals, the industrial style, and the auditory roughness.
I tried to imagine hearing this live in some seedy Berlin club with all the right atmosphere, but in my mind's eye I was still waiting for the show to end. I respect experiments, but this feels unrefined and uncurated: a directly exposed experiment. I'm sure the creative process was fun, and I can respect this kind of work as a private or ephemeral moment.
But in an album I expect that the artist doesn't subject me to the raw material, but rather takes the time to refine it. This misaligned expectation is probably why a lot of reviewers, like me, are having a hard time with this album.
This album is a masterclass in wall of sound asthetics, and for that it's worth listening to for anyone who's serious about music production, mixing, or history.
I find the wall of sound endearing, and makes for an easy long stretches of listening on the headphones without killing my ears. But definitely I don't want all my music to be wall of sound.
For the music itself, not sure there's anything to say, saccharin formulaic christmas songs with good performances, but not something to seek out.
I think this album 100% fits the "albums you have to listen to" for me. But one listen is absolutely enough.
I don't hear any "timelessness" in this album. Everything sounds of its time for its time: Replaceable songs and melodies that are fresh when they're new, and stale when the next album of the style comes along.
The mixing sounds outdated: inelegant reverbs, harsh frequencies, and uncohesive sound palette. Even if the intention is to mix a "raw" album, there are many loose ends in the mix that could've been fixed without losing the raw edge.
Overall, Wonder's musical touch can be found here and there, but with the bad mix (on headphones) and replaceable songs it's tough to enjoy the few moments that are actually interesting.
Superstition is the outlier. It sounds different in every way: composed different, performed different, mixed different. It's clearly attached to the album rather than conceived with it. If the album came from the musical lineage of Superstition, this album could've been a classic. As it stands, Superstition only stands to highlight what this album isn't.
This is my second Steely Dan album. And again, it's exhausting. All technique and no soul.
It's like being at the guitar shop and hearing some guy shred to impress other shoppers. If that guy recorded all his noodlings, paid top dollar for a tight mix and put out an album, it might as well be a Steely Dan.
The album musically sounds like the art-cover & name: Generic.
Experimental funk with strong performances and grooves. I like the subdued nature of it, not demanding attention, but working magic in the background.
I can definitely see myself listening to this again.
This album is peppering songs in hopes that a few of them stick. Yes, it got a few hits, but the rest are so heavily formula driven and repetitive that it's a real chore to get through this album start to finish.
I guess what bothers me with this album is that I don't really get what he's getting at. Is it art-music for art-music's sake? Is it supposed to be enjoyable listen? Is it just random ideas polished to song-like structures? I feel no
Whatever it is, either I'm not getting it, or it was just not composed with connecting to the audience in mind.
On the plus side, the performances are high quality, which at least makes the listening to this self indulgent album not ovelry taxing. But I don't remember any of it other than thinking "the drummer is great".
Due to the high quality fo the performances, this may be interesting to sample.
I'm a bit split on this: It's definitely good music for what it is, but what it is is a genre I find too middle-of-the-road to be genuinely interesting. I can hear how influential this band is just by how rock-bar-music everything sounds. However, I wouldn't mind seeing it live.
I really don't like the live album sound and vibe in this one, it makes for a punishing prolonged listening: And it's a double album to boot. If it was a single album of the best songs and studio recorded, I could see this being a 4-5. But as it stands as a product, I gotta deduce a star for just how unpleasant a super long live album is.
This is my second Springsteen in the project, and while this one is better, it's still one Springsteen too much. This one is better because it's earlier, and Springsteen didn't yet fully tune his "working man hit machine" system so you can hear him trying different things out which keeps it from being completely boring.
However, it's still the same musician and the same voice that does absolutely nothing for me and I sincerely hope I don't have to listen to another album by him again.
How much 70s hard rock bands are there in this project, and why am I getting all of them in one week?
The mixing is lackluster: The music sounds like we're hearing it through a drywall, and the vocal+guitar dynamics are very flat. Sounds like it was mixed exclusively for rock bars.
The music matches the mix: Bland, taking absolutely no risks, and immediately forgettable.
This double album can be rearranged to two albums where one is 3 and the other is 5. I was originally planning to therefore land on 4, but the "5" songs are so strong that I think it's only fair to recognize the musical achievements this album brings forward.
This is my second Wonder album, and in both I got a feeling that Wonder doesn't really filter out which songs to include. He's a phenomenal musician, maybe even a generational one, so nothing is "bad", but even well crafted songs can end up not landing, that's just the nature of music.
I guess for some people his weaker songs also land, and in that sense, cutting them could be seen as a waste. For me, it just means that his albums are amazing songs surrounded by mediocre ones. With his love of repetition, the mediocre ones overstay their welcome. But the good ones make the wait worth it.
Mixing wise, this album is far far superior to his other album I've rated, "Talking Book". Separated by only 2 years, but the craftsmanship and attention to detail is on a whole other level.
Going by my own taste in music this is a 3, but I'mgiving a 4 in recognition that the guy knows what he's doing: The songs are bare and spacious yet don't fill empty, every element is carrying a lot on its back successfully. To me this is a sign of a good musician.
The reward of the sparse mix is a very clean sound with a distinct sense of space.
Yeah, I don't particularly like R&B and this album is no exception. But I do like a good sounding mix, and this one is exemplary.
Supergroups tend to feel like a letdown. You'd think that putting together a bunch of experienced, talented people will produce exceptional results, but oftentimes the outcome is more akin to "too many cooks in the kitchen".
There are some solid songs in this album, but multiple times I felt with the songs that simpler could've been better.
Overall it's a very nice listen and it has a bunch of outstanding songs, but it's struggling by oscillating between fading in the background as folksy harmonic music, or sticking out as a supergroup experiment. Had it been more coherent it could've been a strong 5.
Vanilla songs performed extra vanilla with an annoying voice at the front.
This album gives nothing to particularity hate, nor to love. You either like the voice and the standards, or there's absolutely nothing in it for you. I'm in the latter category.
I like the idea of art-pop, it gives the feeling of "wow, this is allowed in music?", so yes, it expands the mind. But, it often doesn't land. If it landed consistently, it'd be a pop recipe, not art-pop.
This is what makes listening to an album like this a big challenge for me: The experience is inconsistent, it requires a lot of attention, and there's more "doesn't work" than "works".
I can appreciate the artistry of Björk, but as a listener I don't really connect to what she's trying to do.
Wow, didn't expect to like it as much as I did. I was expecting a few hits and the rest as filler, but almost all the songs were quite good, and the hits were very very good.
I find this to be the best reggae-style album I've heard on the project so far: not committed to the genre's cliche's, just taking the best from it and fusing it with pop-rock, producing something that's actually listenable. The lyrics aren't as pretentously political/spirital yet shallow as in other reggae albums. I can imagine how the fake accent might annoy some but for me it worked.
A little serendipitous momemnt: I was listening to the album while walking around the city, and the city was plastered with advertisements for a String written musical, with his face staring at me. I looked back and thought, you did good here, old boy.
This album doesn't belong in the list: It has no authentic musical message, just a mishmash of whatever was cool at the time it came out, laid on top of generic melodies and bland monotonous vocals.
Also, how lame is adding a sample of a cheering crowd to a non live album? How's that not exactly like a laugh track?
I was not enthusiastic when I saw a Brazilian band, just that very little Brazilian music ever interested me. But damn if this one hits completely different.
It's highly psychedelic and experimental, yet still highly musical, engaging and varied from song to song. No dull moment whatsoever.
The mixing, orchestration and "style" are a bit long in the tooth, you can tell this the 60s, but it doesn't get in the way of enjoyment too much.
The instrumental section is servicable, and sometimes pretty nice (though wears thin over time), but the vocals and lyrics are just AWFUL.
I listened to the remastered version, so not sure if this is relevant to the original, but I love the sounds in the album, everything is very crisp, in its place, not overloaded with layers. It was for me, as someone familiar with how symths work, purse sonic enjoyment.
What didn't fully land for me is the musicality: Most songs were kind of banal and basic from a musical perspective, with a few outliers (the robot, the model, the man machine). I also thought the vocals (in the English version at least) were kind of too on the nose and not well mixed with the rest of the instrumentation.
Overall, I enjoyed my first Kraftwerk experience, but it's not music I'd be putting on regularly: It's more of a sound experience than a music experience.
This is my second stones album in this project. The first one was earlier, and I found it more raw and experimental. This one felt more cohesive from a musical and performance perspective, but also more musically boring. It was, largely speaking, variations on familiar rock and blues cliche's.
I will admit that I like the performances: the vocals are great, the guitar is great (though I don't love the way the solo's are mixed: very panned and echo-y), but most songs were very long, hammering the same familiar musical idea without evolving, and therefore, kind of boring.
When Beatles come around I know I'm in for some fun times. Even when they're played to death, the music still manages to sound fresh, creative and joyful. This album is no exception, every single song here would be a banger of most other bands on this list. And while most albums in the list only hold a few bangers that carry the whole album, this album has absolutely no slouches.
Yes, the sound and vibe is not consistent, but who cares? It's good listen from start to finish. Might be my favorite album in my journey so far.
Clearly a precursor to a lot of 90s genres: Big beat, breakbeat/jungle, and rave. I can definitely hear what influenced the prodigy "experience" in here.
Overall, the listen was very enjoyable, some tracks were a tad too long, messy and atmospherically not right for me, but the craftsmanship is all there and the creativity is off the charts.
Really liked it and will be looking to listening to more 808 state stuff on my own.
Started great and special and then slid back to Abba cliches. Abba are great musicians but their style can get a bit overplayed and over dramatic for my taste. This album is better than the typical Abba album for me, but it's still, not for me.
Now to the subject matter, the album starts with a simple two note riff that immediately grabs your attention. This captures Arctic Monkeys perfectly: Clever, attention grabbing music, without too much fanciness.
The album has some killer songs, and the performance on all instruments are top notch. This is a hesitant 5 since not everything is in the same calibre: it's not an album I'm satisfied with from start to finish, but rather, one where I'm waiting for the gems. Typically this means a 4, but the gems are so strong and the musicianship is clearly there that it feels wrong to punish them for a few meh songs.
This album is one of those that make you go "wait, this is allowed in music??" And indeed, it's tough to overestimate its impact: There's hardly a 90s rock band that didn't pick up a trick or two from this album.
The songwriting is straight up genius. I don't use this word often in my reviews. A combination of catchy digestible structures combined with unique, bizzare experiment that work. There are more than a few songs in this album that are timeless, and even the worst songs are still interesting in some way.
The music and the lyrics both kind of put a spell: They sound significant and unforgettable ("if man is 5, and the devil is 6..."), but then, they kind of slip away.
My only gripe is the female back vocals that feels like it's pasted next to the mix rather than being a true part of it.
Coming on the heels of Doolittle, this album is a drop in most senses: it's not as creative, not as catchy, not as surprising. But, it's still a good album in its own rights. It still lays the groundworks for future music (including, surprisingly to me, some early signs of metalcore).
This isn't a radio hits album, it's not really written for the casual listener, it's written for those who enjoyed the experimental side of Pixies, and that's what it delivers.
This album is long in the teeth. It sounds of its time, from its time, and while it's clearly impactful on other artists that followed it, that impact isn't really up my alley, nor it's something that strayed far further than the 80s.
I do think it's musically interesting, I like experimental music that stays in touch with pop sensibility, but it didn't really work for me.
It starts off very promising with a long beautiful improvisation, the harmony is straightforward but the guitar work makes up for it. The rest, i could barely remember since it sounded like run of the mill funk to me. Not a bad listen but definitely a letdown after that first song.
I would've loved the album if it didn't stretch 2 minute song to 4 minutes. The musical ideas are great. But the song length really runs them to the ground with relentless repetition.
Overall, great songwriting, the guy knows how to deliver. But not in a style I enjoy. It was a good one off listen but I won't be looking to replay anything from this album any time soon.
This is my 100th album, and what a treat! While this isn't my favorite Air album, I could still put it forever as a backdrop to my life. Light, intelligent blend of pop, electronica and ambient that feels nostalgic without trying to.
I love the unashamed heavy vocoder use, the french accent, the synth work, and even though I could've been talking about Daft Punk with this sentence, Air's electronica is rooted in atmospheric music, not the dancefloor, making its heavy use of electronic sounds accessible, even if you're not an electronica fan.
Thanks generator for celebarting my 100th album with me!
Who's the psycho who thought I want to hear happy poppy music while bringing up images of starving children?
Musically safe and productionally over polished, everything about this album screams commerical product, not a work of art. I'm not interested in this side of the axis.
Surprising myself here since I absolutely hated the last Depeche Mode I rated. It was an earlier album, so I'm glad for the sequencing because it shows a clear evolution of the band's formula. Yes, it's more pop, but apparently that was the missing component.
"Personal Jesus" was my least favorite song by far, not because I've overheard it (I actually heard it only a few times before), but because it's highly repetitive made-for-radio slog, and ironically the least personal song in the album, considering that its topic is personal faith.
"Enjoy the silence" that I did hear many times before is still a masterpiece.
I'm surprised how underwhelming this album is, as I do like S&G quite a bit.
Since this is a concept album, I'm judging it as a unified piece of work, and as such, it's a complete failure. Some individual songs are great, but as a cohesive piece of work this is not a good one. The concept drags in some bad songs and awkward sections that simply degrade the experience. The conept gives absolutely no favors to the listener. Too bad.
The performance is high level, but musically there's nothing much going on. Same ideas repeated ad naeseum. I appreciate that the project is trying to diversify the entries but beside the origin of the album, musically, it's not a must listen.
I like the experimental/psychedelic aspect of rock, but honestly not everything always lands, and the lyrics are a bit preachy to my taste.
Overall I liked the album for the most part and would be interested in hearing more, but it the lame social commentary and the uncohesive musical style eventually ran a bit thin.
Trying so hard to be cool and edgy is neither cool nor edgy.
Everything is crisp, too crisp, it sounds like it was mixed for cheap earbuds or car speakers, to punch through mid speakers, but i'm listening on normal headphones, so the a sit through of the entire album is just punishment.
So, hate the music genre, hate the production & hate the content. I easily prefer absolute silence over this assault on the intellect and the senses.
The good: Lauryn hill has a blessed voice. The production is clean and pleasant. A few nice bangers and some good musical concepts (I like that the album starts with a conversational tone and then the beat starts and puts it in the rhythm).
The less good: the main album draw are covers (like killing me softly), the rest is mostly run of the mill 90s rap that doesn't touch musically the covers. Something odd about a album's highlights not being originals.
I'm not a fan of a word vomit rap where profundity is mimicked with random words that prioritize rhyming, and the only sense is "im great you suck". But it's a genre complaint, not album specific.
Overall a nice listen. An overrated album that leans heavily on only a few tracks, most not original. If the quality was more consistent this could be a 4 or 5, but I feel wrong highly rating an album based on a moment of greatness and the rest is forgettable.
1. Now I know how people who don't like Thom Yorke's voice feel.
2. The mixing and sound design. Too mushy and, and peppered with various types of noises that don't add anything except signal "we are a cool indie band".
3. The tempo. Most songs are a bit too slow and have a slight tempo drag that makes the music feel drag itself along to nowhere.
I think the band tried to grasp farther than their reach with this album. The vocalist can't carry the tunes, the songs can't carry the ambition, and the sound design are shots in the dark to be edgy.
From a personal enjoyment this is a 2, I don't imagine ever putting this album for recreative listening. However, I gotta hand another star for the creativity and risk taking. I also appreciate that Bjork has an incredible voice, but I have to say, this being my second album to review, she's drawing from a very limited pool of tricks. Not a problem in itself, but seeing as this is mostly a vocal album, the tricks don't really suffice to keep the endeavor afloat.
A cookie cutter grunge/punk with very few highlights. Basically, the album relies heavily on that one catchy song to carry the rest of the missed shots.
The performance and mixing are good, but the songwriting is not up to par for this list or the genre, there are better, more original stuff in the same vein out there.
I think post punk you either start early or never. Not really my jam. But the album was listenable. It was not enough experimental for my taste, just regular music played with an indy sound and vocals.
It was fine to listen to but I'm not gonna cue this again.
Clearly a well crafted album. Each song in isolation may not fully land but there is an overarching concept and quite a lot of variety that makes me feel like there is an architectural layer to this album beyond just a collection of songs.
I'm holding back from a 5 since this isn't fully landing for my musical taste, but I can appreciate the artistry and craftsmanship that went into this.
"Another" hard rock album, but this one is one of the better ones in the list. The mixing is delicious and smooth, and the songwriting is for the most part, straightforward in a good way, and effective.
I am withholding from a 5 since while this is a hard rock classic, it's got a bit too many fillers for me to be able to play this back to back without feeling a need to reach to the "next" button. The highs are high but the rest is pretty meh.
The music sounds like it's written to make money. The production is overlayered and unpleasant, the vocals are extremely weak.
I don't like to feel like I'm consuming a product when I'm listening to music, and this feels like an unabashed attempt at it.
To add insult to injury, it's not even well crafted.
Right off the bat: The vocals are badly mixed. It feels like someone played back the vocals from a tape while the band was recording. It's heavily masked by the instruments and barely intelligible.
Musically it feels like an exploration of the intersection between rock and punk aesthetic, landing somewhere that may have been novel at the time but has no lasting appeal. It is a product of its time for its time, and that time has passed.
My instant dislike for the mix and the style only deepened throughout the listen. Even the "best" song on the album (Take me to the river) is a repetitive slog.
Happy to put this one in my past.
Damn. I'm not a big fan of Rap but this album is an absolute exception. The production is meticulous and creative, the songwriting is varied and inspired, and the mixing is delicious.
The first few songs have a minimalist arrangement that leave a lot of room for a few well placed production ideas to shine, which I really love, but the album doesn't lean into the minimalist approach, the songs grow in complexity as the album progresses. Love this approach.
Further, the album is a concept album with storytelling. I gotta be honest that I didn't really follow the lyrics too closely but the album title&art and what I've read from other commenters filled the blanks: It's not just an albu in the sense that it's a bunch of songs, it's storytelling.
In short, let's see if I can get over my newfound mancrush on Kendrick so that further albums I review don't suffer by comparison.
Paul Simon is obviously a phenomenal musician and songwriter, and this album is a tour de force. However, it lands short for me due to personal taste mismatch.
First, the style is a bit dated. I wouldn't put this album on vinyl like I'd put a Pink Floyd. It's good music but it's not timeless.
Second, I personally am not a big fan of the South African influences, not for any political reasons, I just feel they are heavy handed and not well integrated, "You Can Call me Al" being an exception.
I feel like I have to excuse why I'm not giving a 5 to an album that by rights of talent and effort should be a 5, but a bit of an anachronistic style and sound, combined with an overly enthusiastic South African influence that's not sitting with me, makes this album a one or two-off listen, rather than an essential.
I haven't yet given a bad rating to a project Rick Rubin has been involved in.
This album is great, even though the hiphop feels dated, there are many timeless songs here that are fun to listen. The main holdback from giving this a 5 is that there are also a significant number of fillers.
This is some of the choicest, grade a pretentious bullshit. I already hate post punk but this takes the cake for the worst of them. Even if the singer didn't have a deeply unpleasant voice, I don't find any artistic value here, just shock value.
This is my second Talking Heads. I didn't like the first. This one's a bit better, but overall, it confirmed that I'm no Talking Heads-head.
The album is listenable, but it never lifts off for me. Even the "big hit" is something I felt a subtle urge to skip through half way.
The craftmanship is there, Performace, writing and mixing wise. But like many albums on this project, the music doesn't really have a lasting appeal. For non musicians there isn't much here to hold on to, nothing groundbreaking, memorable or unique. Just performance.
I don't like live albums, because they ae optimized for the present crowd, not the people listening at home. The songs drag way too long, the focus on improvisational performance is too strong, and the mix is rough and difficult to listen to the whole album in one sitting.
However, the music is decent, i generally don't like afrobeat but this album is making me rethink my position.
Me: I'm gonna listen with focus to find out what makes this album stand out to be on the list.
2 songs (and 10 repetitions of a lame hook later), I'm on chatgpt asking how ants don't drown in the rain.
First offense is the singing. I don't know if it's the voice or the mix (probably both), but if you told me this was a karaoke version with an overlay of some guy who just did some k I'd be like, yeah that tracks. It's not bad, but it's bland and doesn't sit in the mix.
The second offense is the lack of clear direction. Is it psychedelic rock, is it hard rock, is it grunge? It's kind of grasping in all directions and landing in an uncomfortable middle.
Overall, a middling album of an unremarkable band, not something worthy of the list.
The musicianship is extremely high level, but the genre obsession is too much for me. I feel like I'm a tourist, happy to see the sights and enjoy the hustle and bustle of a foreign place for a moment or two, but not looking to buy a place here and settle.
Overall I really don't like albums that are just performance and not original. On top of that, this one is of tired music from a tired musician. It's mostly a monument to the destructive force of the music industry, bleeding one of its earliest superstars dry. Kind of a sad listen.
Green Day was the first band I loved. when I was 13, i listened to Dookie for the first time and my mind blew apart. I wasn't into music until then, but this album cahnged the course of my life like nothing else.
I was on the green day wagon until around Nimrod, when I decided they were poser and started to listening to "serious punk".
Last year I went to see my first green Day show, not expecting much since I didn't follow their career at all, and it was AMAZING. These guys never stopped. They never grew too old for this shit, too good for the band, break it up over solo career ambitions, have to prove their musicianship by making artistic or complicated music. This is much more punk than many of the "serious punks" I steered myself towards. Punk isn't what you wear or what you listen to, it's being true to yourself and your path, and giving absolutely 0 fucks what others think of it.
Now to the album... Not everything is a banger but it's got enough bangers to be a bonafide 5 even without the nostalgia bit. Yes, it's not their best, but it's a proper pop punk anthem laden to speak both to punk lovers and outsiders.
A mix of inspirations in this album, so sometimes I wish it leaned harder to the inspirations I have an affinity towards, but all in all it's an enjoyable listen, if not exceptional, start to finish.
With Simon & Garfunkel I always feel that there's a potential there for something more that's not quite realized, maybe if they had stuck together a bit longer we'd see it happen.
There are two exceptional songs in this album and neither are JA originals. The rest are kind of snoozers. This band isn't a much without Grace Slick.
From the onslaught of 60s 70s psychedelic rock this list insists upon, this one is not half bad.
Joni Mitchell has it all: talent, creativity, musical range, voice, writing chops, and no fear of experimentation. The result is that every album I've heard from her was either good or great.
This isn't the style of music I usually listen to, but I did enjoy it and I can imagine getting the vinyl and putting it on for a wintery afternoon (despite the album name). Whenever I imagine getting the vinyl, I know the album deserves a 5.
I don't love the genre, and it's tough for me to judge how much originality there is in the music looking back, because to me it sounds fairly standard and cookie cutter (with some genuine creative surprises towards the end of the album), but it's undeniably enjoyable and well performed, and I find the lyrics to be very well crafted: interesting and accessible.
She's not my artist but I can recognize that she definitely knows what she's doing.
This is the album that's playing on a loop in hell's waiting room.
First time I feel like I'm close to "getting" Bowie. Still, I get a feeling like he's out to prove he's the most creative and intelligent person there. The lyrics don't feel genuine, but somewhat pretentious.
The first half of the album is four stars, the second half drags along with songs that don't land.
The album isn't back to back bangers, but the highs are timeless classics, and the lows aren't too bad either.
I have a bit of a gripe with the production (not a fan of the cheesy strings and some of the back vocals), but the singing, playing and mixing are top notch.
One potential problem with the album, or REM in general, is that the singing and musical ideas are of a certain tone. I can see how someone who doesn't like this particular combination would find the whole experience a miss, but for me it lands.
An overestimated album in my opinion. I'm not a jazz connoisseur, but there are enough other jazz albums I enjoy more. This one isn't bad, but it's not memorable enough for me to ever be in the mood for this specific album.
Also, not fan of the blues harmonic turns, I find them too predictable and cliche. Track number 3 is pretty great, the rest I could take or leave.
Neither here nor there. Forgettable songs and a generic style they doesn't leave an imprint.
I have a pet peeve when a band has a golden song on their hands so they just repeat the hook ad nauseum. That's "common people".
I can imagine people buying this album for common people and disco 2000 and kind of nodding along absent mindedly with the rest. The highs are high and these are absolutely masterfully crafted songs, but too much of the album is filler.
Surprisingly good. My least favorite track was the most popular one - Aisha. I like that the instrumental tracks don't try to be "cool" like a lot of music does, they're just simple musical ideas with a good sonic background that allows one to be lost in the pattern and repetition.
Well produced and great mix, string showing for a debut. Too bad it kind of falls flat. It feels like a bland version of Bon Iver. Good songwriting, but missing a zing. The intentional nasaly vocals are the opposite of a zing for me.
I love listening to a good performance by good performers. When the performance is good enough, the song itself is like a bonus. This is what this album is for the most part: Ok songs on top of a good performance.
Due that, I feel the mix is a bit too muddy to really enjoy the performance to the max. I'd move the mix a few notches away from "recorded in a room" feel to a "pristine studio production" quality. Not all the way, but let's pop out these performances a bit more.
Songwriting wise, obviously Chan Chan is the standout, probably a timeless classic. Tough that it's the first song, since the rest is suffering in comparison.
If we remove Chan Chan, do we have a 5 album? In my opinion, no. It's an album full of safe musical bets. Safe bets can get you to 3 or 4, but we need a bit more than that for a 5. These guys can play, but the songwriting leans too frequently on known forms.
In Golden Age, the discordant synth towards the end is like an intrusive thought. Lurking in the background, slowly taking over the beautiful relaxed instrumental, penetrating, then dominating, and eventually landing on the tonic. As if it's now the new norm.
If the album was 6 songs long, it'd be a slam-dunk 5 stars. The rest of the songs are a bit more touch-and-go, but definitely have their moments, enough to convince me that this is indeed a 5, overall.
I love production sensibility in the album: The mix and instrumentations are usually hitting just right. I know an album is special when I'm finding myself looking up who produced it.
I'm not the audience for Springsteen at the best of times, and this album isn't nearly his best of times.
Tough one to pin down. I appreciate the creativity, musicality and production, all things I value highly, but the taste is a miss on first listen. Maybe I'd warm up to it over time, but right it feels like a 3. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and give it the score it might have if it grew on me.
People say it's a raw and dirty album but I actually think it's a sterile studio recording, considering the source material. It strips out the live energy and leaves behind an almost bored performance with slightly grating yet repetitive guitar sounds that make a back to back listen difficult. I think the production, rather than the music, is why this album sounds "the same" for many listeners. The production of this album is botched.
I watched a live performance video. The sound was better and the energy was better.
Music wise, I really like that it's stripped down, no bells and whistles, no long sections and show-off riffs, and it can still hold your attention.
This is strong intuitive musicianship combined with musical courage: Leaving the core music bare without dressing it up to impress, and still achieving the intended impact.
