This is the quintessential 70s heavy rock sound, it's clear how much it influenced other bands down the road. The music itself is well-packaged and arranged.
As someone who looks to lyrics though, this album -- metaphorically or literally -- doesn't speak to me. The lyrics here (not the singing/voice) are shallow, uninteresting to me.
Nothing here is to suggesting that this album shouldn't be viewed as potentially groundbreaking, it clearly opened the doors for numerous acts in later years. However it's nothing that would be in my rotation too often.
I knew nothing about this artist ahead of time. I subsequently started learning about him as I listened. That said, this review attempts to be objective and not take circumstances into consideration. I'm not familiar with his other albums either so this is taken as a single encapsulation.
Track 1: Vaguely Beatles-esque, crunchier.
Track 2: Jangly acoustic mellow rock, somehow cheerful despite the subject matter
Track 3: Nice arrangement, reminds me of some of the indie rock listen to.
Track 4: Mellow, introspective, the split stereo/dual vocal thing, I've heard a lot, maybe too much from this era.
Track 5: Again, vaguely reminiscent of the Beatles
Track 6: Dude definitely had a cohesive sound on this album. Not sure it is growing on me, maybe?
Track 7: This reminds me of someone and I can't put my finger on it. I cannot shake the Beatles feel though.
Track 8: I can see why this guy was presumably influential (at least insofar as the album is on this list). But at this point the album is starting to lose me.
Track 9: We're back to moody singer-songwriter again. Again, the album is well-produced.
Track 10: Maybe spoke too soon. This does feel different from the rest of the album. Kinda dig it.
Track 11: He's a lyricist. Not sure it's speaking to me. Maybe after repeated listens?
Track 12: Ok kinda feeling this one. IDK if it's because the sound is growing on me, or I just like the groove.
Track 13: Everything on this album is starting to run into itself for me at this point. I'm kinda feeling like "more of the same".
Track 14: I think I'd have to be in the right mood for this album. It would work better then, maybe. I can appreciate the lyricism. Wish it made me "feel" more.
Track 15: I am starting to actually wish there was more variance in this album. "Can't make a sound?" He definitely *has* a sound :). Wish there was.... more.
Track 16: A closer for sure, and different from the rest of the album.
So in the end -- perhaps I was not in the right mood for this album; I can see how it is apparently adored, and why it would be influential for some. Maybe multiple listens would make it stick more for me. Not sure I'd want to do that though. There's undeniably a lot of talent there, just kinda not my cup of tea. It just doesn't connect with me.
I read later that this was recorded in part at Abbey Road Studios. Can definitely hear the ghost of The Beatles in the songs...
I got this one and was a little happy. I am not a Neil Young aficionado but I've always liked his stuff. I'm generally not a huge fan of live albums, but this one seems pretty intimate. It's warm with the occasional cool breeze.
Again, I'm not sure I could name many actual Neil Young albums off the top of my head, besides Harvest Moon, but I always connect with his stuff.
I don't like how many tracks have a fadeout -- maybe ironically, given the aforementioned preference for studio albums -- but the fade atop a live performance sound kinda irks me.
But this album definitely hits pretty well. It's like a well-worn denim jacket. I also think there are better Neil Young albums.
I'd give it 3.5, but since we can't do fractionals, I will give it a 4; it sits above some of the albums I'd consider middling/three-star territory.
Love the varied instrumentation, world music, and of course Simon is a gifted lyricist. I was vaguely familiar with this album but first time listening in its entirety. It's quite enjoyable.
Tribe. US3. De La Soul. Digable Planets. I loved this subgenre, even though it wasn't what I normally listened to back then, nor what my friends were all into.
This album was a breakthrough, and for good reason -- it slaps.
I'd not listen to this all the time but I could drop it on once in a while when I'm in the right mood. It's a good album; his encapsulated vision of life in America is really the main tarnish on this album, that and some of the more cacophonic bits. I'd rate it a 3.5+, so we'll round it up to 4.
I mean, in the end, the higher you'd rate an album would be highly correlated with your likelihood of listening to it, right? You'd not rate something a 5 if you'd never listen to it again, and while that's a sort of black and white/binary example, it stands to reason that you would rate things on appreciation and listenability.
Ella is incredible on this collection. Ella always is. One of my favorites.
However, the likelihood I'd have reason to listen to over three hours of this? Pretty unlikely. Maybe for some chill background music at a dinner party or something but never in any given moment.
This is just... too much. Six albums worth of material. Three hours, fifteen minutes worth of music. It's unwieldy, like trying to fit a table into a room too small to comfortably sit people.
The recordings are beautiful. But I don't think a three hour set of Ella (or any artist/act) is necessary -- or appropriate -- for any list such as this. So many other representative options are available.
A tour de force. A small militia of tornadoes. This album is awesome and obviously immeasurably influential.
My only ding on it is that, despite being about 29 minutes long, it somehow still manages to get a little repetitive. That said, it's definitely a must-listen.
Not really my jam but I can respect it. 3.5 stars, rounded up to 4.
This gets an extra star because I recognize that it was influential and basically the first of its kind to hit mainstream.
That said, this is not my jam. Half the beats sound like farts in an aluminum trashcan. It's full of energy -- and that energy extends, almost monotonously, the whole album.
Also, how come no one ever told Keith Flint that an inverse mohawk is basically a baldspot?
A bit poppy, some of it, but not really too different than, say, the Beatles back then. It is evident where their stuff influenced music/bands/genres years after.
I don't know if it is the 2018 remaster stereo mix specifically, or if there was a stereo mix before, but I am not a fan of how this one -- what i listened to on spotify -- was mixed.
I am not necessarily a hater of interesting stereo mixes where certain things are in one headphone but not the other, but there's something about the way this one (at least in the beginning of the album) is done that sets me on edge. Too much treble in one ear and muffled/distorted vocals in the other. I don't even mind distorted vocals either, but when it's that on top of it being in only one ear, it kinda annoys me.
Favorite song on the album: Last of the Steam Powered Trains
This is a solid 3.5, maybe higher. So rounded up to 4.
I nearly wore this album out when I got it.
That Butch Vig sound -- realized, expanded and encapsulated -- shimmers darkly with this album.
It's one that swerves dangerously without wrecking: The slight edge of electronics without veering too far into industrial; the smoky, strong presence of Shirley Manson -- vocals, inviting but controlled and always commanding -- run sultry without slipping into sleaze; and tracks that are pop-aware but slap your hand away at any notion of cheap accessibility.
4.5 -- we'll round it up.
Groundbreaking? For sure.
Can it be done again? Unlikely -- and given current music laws, probably prohibitively expensive, would that someone want to.
Repeatedly listenable? No, not for me.
"Tonight" is antagonizing.
"Frontier Psychiatrist" is arguably a classic.
I need to be able to inhabit the space of the music. This album is, instead, more spectacle. I have nothing against samples -- I think the Beastie Boys' albums were pure genius on that front. I can see what The Avalanches set out to accomplish on this album, and for the most part they succeeded.
In the end though, this album is, technically, and musically, exhibitionist. I'm just not the voyeur they're looking for.
5 stars. No notes, really. Absolute classic.
My first experience with this album was a dub that my aunt made for me. It wasn't even a line-to-line dub, she literally played it out of a stereo and recorded it over the air in a separate tape player. I remember the label, with "Purple Rain" scribbled on it in purple sharpie marker. Not sure if it was done to imitate the logo or not but there it was.
The quality was of course terrible, but I really enjoyed the album and was happy to have it. I didn't really appreciate it as much then as I do/can now.
I was also too young to understand some of the references. I had a very different understanding/interpretation of some of the lyrics for "Darling Nikki", that's for sure.
Absolutely a classic -- and the fact that the titular track is an engineered recording of a live performance (look it up)? So good.
Stellar.
God, just an absolute classic.
This album is a hard one to rate.
On its face, to me it's one of those albums where the obvious historical weight is more powerful than the album itself.
The album itself is a mixed bag to me, insofar as my listening styles. the late 70s/early 80s electronic stuff is a detraction for me, but there's more to the album that *isn't* that. There are some tracks which I can kind of appreciate and others which really do nothing for me. The album, in my opinion suffers most simply from a lack of cohesiveness.
Is this album a victory in the sense that it brought a transformed Faithfull back to the world? For sure, and there are certainly merits to the album, but I'm not sure it'd be a regular or even occasional addition to my rotation. Maybe repeated plays would change that. But for now a solid 3.
The book does not intend for one to listen to the deluxe edition, but rather the EP, which was seminal in genre and its influence. Indeed, the deluxe edition would be a whole lot for anyone to listen to, in one sitting, much less someone who is not familiar with the band.
That said, I compiled the tracks from the original EP and listened to those as intended.
This album honestly hits... and obviously they paved the way for Nirvana, et al. There was a lot of new stuff along these lines fermenting at this time, and other releases by other bands in this time frame prior to Nirvana's "Nevermind" really breaking things open, but this album was the first significant crack in the dike.
This would find itself in my rotation, maybe even significantly so, but not front and center on the queue.
I'd give a a 4.25, which rounds down to a 4. Not all partial stars can get rounded up.
This is the kinda thing the book/website is great for.
I had heard of the Soft Boys but had never listened, and I am thrilled to have been given this album for today.
Proto-punk with a psychedelic edge. This really hit the spot, to be honest. Sounds more modern than it is, some of it. Glad to have discovered the band.
Absolute classic. No notes, not much I can say. Has to be in any jazz collection/long run playlist.
Some albums, it's cliche to say, are anthems for certain periods in your life. As it stands, "Longview" might as well have been written about me.
This whole album is great, and I listened to it in its entirety for the first time since at least 2000, probably earlier, while at the gym. It *still* hit.
Lots of critics out there gonna complain about pop punk of course. Gatekeepers. Dookie was an antidote for the "shit" some of us were trying to manage in those days.
In general, this is an incredible album. I love the production, and Brian May's incredibly unique guitar sound. The obvious hits are classic, and most of the album is absolutely incredible.
What keeps this as a 4+ are some of the songs that are distractions for me, and mar this otherwise incredible album's cohesiveness. None of "'39", "Lazing on a Sunday Afternoon", or "Good Company" are bad per se and I understand that some of the kitsch is what lends to Opera's legacy but for me they just distract from what is a great listening experience.
Do I love most of this album? For sure. Would I want to listen to it time and time again in its entirety? No.
This'd potentially have been a five star album, if not for 11 minutes of Heard it Through the Grapevine.
The sheer number of hits on this album is unbelievable, though, and so good!
Not all the tracks were available on Spotify so I had to supplement with Youtube videos.
This album feels like proto-Chumbawumba, and "Geisha Boys" and like a precursor to a much more refined "West End Girls."
It feels like something out of an art school conceptualist project, with the vocals detached from the music, nothing here blends well. I don't like to throw around the word "pretentious" and I won't call this effort that, but there's a common thread in here that feels performative.... or something.
The basslines are great though, in the title track and in "Play to Win". The second, particularly (and purposely) synth-driven half of the album, though just doesn't do a thing for me at all. The plinky, repetitive "We're Going to Live For a Very Long Time" does nothing to shake the art school manifesto. Perhaps graciously, the album ends here.
I just can't get into this overall, though. A firm 2+ but not enough for a 2.5 to round up. I wouldn't be listening to this much at all.
I recognize and reward the influence the album had. But that alone does not save it.
I really wanted to rate this one higher than I will, but I can't.
May's guitar, the tone, is just unbelievably incredible on this album. I think for me, it might steal the show vs. Freddie.
I just feel this pacing on this album is all over the place and it makes it hard for me to get into a groove with it. If we're rating albums, end to end, I can't rate this as high as Opera, which I enjoyed for the most part, sans 2-3 tracks.
That isn't to say there's not a lot to like for this album. There is no doubt a wealth of excellence on this beyond "Killer Queen".
It's a 3.33 for me. A 3.5 would round up to a 4, so I can't do that. It's a solid album, but not, as a whole, something I'd reach for.
This is really good stuff. Wouldn't listen to it all the time but certainly when the mood hits.
I was a bit worried, the first 30 seconds, because I thought it was gonna be very disco heavy, but it isn't!
Great sound. Salsa's not my every day jam but worth a listen for sure.
I was not sure I was gonna dig this. I was aware of their influence, and.... the first track didn't do anything for me.
But then that wall of distortion opened up and I loved it.
"Just Like Honey" and "Cut Dead" are my least faves. Even then, the proto-shoegaze sound of "Cut Dead" is undeniable, I can respect it.
If it were a longer album, those two might not have as much weight. As it is, a strong 4 for me.
New Order has never been my jam. Certainly not electronics-laden New Order. This is no exception.
I can't hate on it but I certainly wouldn't really ever put it on rotation. Some of the tracks on the album are alright -- "Guilty Partner" is one of those.
Three stars but one of those is a charity star for influence.
It's a nicely put together collection of mostly "cast-off" tracks, and despite that it adheres pretty well. There's really not too much of a clunker on this album. A few that I like less than others, but I don't hate -- or love -- any of them
I guess that's it, it's nothing that resonates with me -- likewise for band in general, with some exceptions. When I got into bands from this era, The Who didn't hit for me like others did. Floyd, The Doors, Dylan, these all stuck with me, not The Who. I'm not sure why.
The Who -- or this album -- suffers most for me by the fact that by the time I was more familiar with them, a huge chunk of the songs were over-familiar in the sense that they were in every TV commercial or show you'd see.
I think this is why it's not a 3.5 that gets bumped to a 4. It's almost like it skipped the introduction phase to my ear and went straight to ubiquity.
It's hard to say you'd have east coast sound without this album.
I don't listen to a ton of rap but there's no doubt the influence of this one. And he was twenty years old??
My absolute only nit with this album is that the "Human Nature" sample in "It Ain't Hard to Tell" feels a bit off, but it's generally ok.
Great album. Wouldn't be in my playlist all the time but worth all the stars.
I was never much of a Cyndi fan when I was younger, but recognized it was worth giving it a shot again now.
I still don't love it. The standard hits are what they are. It's nice that there was a bit of a feminist punk flair to this album -- refreshing for the day, in retrospect.
That said, I still won't find this sliding into my playlist anytime soon unless I'm having an 80s party. Just not my jam.
Muddy comes out blazing on this album, and the raw grittiness is so incredible -- the lack of production polish on this album is necessary, not a detraction. "Bus Driver" is a bit chaotic, but I still love it.
Absolutely 5 stars.
I am quote honestly not understanding why this is on a list of 1001 albums to listen to.
It sounds like every coffeehouse -- no, Starbucks -- background listening music out there.
There are times for dreary albums, but there are plenty of dreary albums. Why does this one stand out?
"Afraid of Everyone" is ok, but yeah, I would probably only draw one or two songs from this album for a themed list, and that'd probably only be after I listened a few more times. IF I listened a few more times.
It's not a terrible album, but I don't get any influential, groundbreaking appeal.
I'm torn on this. I think it's a high 3, but not enough to rise to 4.
There's really not much wrong with the album to be honest, and there are some bangers. I could even imagine scenarios where I might (uncommonly) listen to it, in its entirety. Lyrics are decent.
But The Boss doesn't resonate w me like, say, the obvious comparison, Dylan.
Also the album rocks hard, but there's a certain theatric/broadway feel to it that doesn't really match my vibe, like the over-the-top musical bridge in the otherwise awesome "Born to Run".
This one gets a 3.4 because a 3.5 would round up to 4 and this doesn't quite reach that level for me. But it's a solid album
I literally had no idea this was more or less Janis Joplin until i started listening and a few minutes in I was appreciative of this treat dropped into my queue.
The guitar is equally crunchy rock and soulful, and Janis' voice, it's all there, it's all great.
I'll end up docking it a star for the following:
* I'm not generally a fan of live recordings in the first place and this is actually a pseudo live album, which pushes the kitsch a bit too far.
* The production value in general is not that great.
* Some of Janis' ad libbing goes a little too far.
But really it's really a kick-ass album otherwise and we are treated to peak Janis energy.
This is the first album to really challenge my rating system, and is making me have to think about how it is codified.
On one hand there's a LOT to like about this album. On the other hand, that "LOT" is a double edged sword too, I think.
There's some great funkiness, guitar and it's very creative. but it's also all over the place which makes it hard for me to immerse in it, and there a couple songs that make that immersion more difficult.
It's like it tries too much. It's very artsy/theatric. I guess you risk that with a concept album. Concept albums rarely get beyond something in the 3 range because I personally cannot lose myself in them.
Generally I'd lean 3.5, which would round to 4, because honestly it, as an effort, is overall quite good. But per my own rating system, 4s would see themselves in my rotation pretty often. I don't think this would.
I could definitely queue songs from this album though, which would make it at least a 3, and I guess from artistic and production perspectives, it might get a bump as well.
Perhaps future listens would move this to a 4, I don't know. It is really making me wish we had half stars here, though.
I'm going to have to give it a 3.49 and be satisfied with that. There's a lot of strong stuff on this album, but as a whole I would not be listening to it a lot.
Electronica doesn't move me and this is no exception.
All the stereotypes about the genre being gratingly repetitive? Probably because of this album, with added self-indulgence found in tracks that are about 3x too long.
This has a place in a video game or something but that's about it. I was never a rave kiddie so those Jedi powers won't work on me, either.
Some charity star power for influence but...
Three stars. Not my jam but gotta respect it.
My first introduction to Nick Drake was the old VW commercial. I did not pay much attention to it then, just figuring it was some current day indie singer-song writer which I hadn't heard of.
Now that I've heard the album, see that it's really more or less a blueprint for the stuff you hear today. This sounds very modern, so to speak, it does not feel like 1972. I think that has to carry some weight.
I'd have to be in the right mood to listen to this a lot, but I could definitely find myself throwing this on a queue.
It's also a short album, a nice 28 minute morsel. Not sure I would want a lot more of it in a sitting, it's just the right size for what it is.
A very strong 4. Can definitely find a place in my rotation. Would not be a mainstay in it, but this album slaps.
Some of the strange noisiness distracts from the groove but that might not be the case in all circumstances. At the same time, it's doesn't veer too far and make it unlistenable -- it feels like a constructed part of the album, it flows well.
That guitar tho. Mmphhh.
Loved this album when it came out. Still do.
I really wish I could've rated this album higher.
I tried real hard to separate the visceral aversion I had to the Eurythmics as a kid, from the album as it stands today. I don't know what it was back then that made me dislike them. However, as it stands today, I'm definitely still not a fan.
Annie Lennox is a pretty good lyricist, and I respect her more now than I did back then. However, this album just does not age well for me. Over-synthed -- like much in the 80s to be fair -- but to a fault.
I really don't feel much for this album at all. It's not a disaster, and it clearly had critical appeal, but I am not sure I would call it 'influential' and I'd never find any tracks from this in my playlists.
This album is some sort of abstract piece of acrylic/plastic decor, dusted in glitter, glazed in a lavender and vanilla-infused lacquer, and then shrink-wrapped.
It's mall-core, reminiscent of every Banana Republic-Hollister-Anthropologie excursion you've ever been subject to.
This was... not as bad as I was expecting -- and yet still pretty abrasive.
Overall, this was a pretty burdensome listen. Maybe it'd be cathartic for others, I don't know. It was rough.
The plusses:
1. The tracks without screaming were actually not too miserable, and to their credit, they did tend to maintain a steady beat on most of the tracks.
2. Influence: Henry Rollins has a Einstürzende Neubauten tattoo, so clearly I can quantify it, in some objective way that makes sense to me.
Ergo, we can scrape by with a 2. Barely.
Pretty groundbreaking stuff, though I think the Bruce Dickinson era is better and far more influential. That said, one can't deny this album came out in what ended up having a defining role in the genre later.
This is an album that is unlikely to be much in my playlist, though allowing a few tracks, which would give it a 3. However, influence-wise, it gets a half star, which would rounds it up to 4.
I was honestly surprised to have found this pleasant. I wouldn't listen to it all the time but I could see times when I would. As a general cynic of this genre, such carries a lot of weight. Maybe a bit generous here but I'll give it some love.
I wanted to (no pun intended) like this album and I just didn't.
If you're looking for joyful/somber pairings, One might make the case that perhaps Ani DiFranco's Reveling/Reckoning double album release would be a better example of such an effort than Want One/Two -- and I don't listen to that pairing very often, either.
But I really didn't enjoy Two that much.
The album starts off without much continuity. It finally begins to settle with "Art Teacher" but there were foibles in Wainright's voice on this song that started to annoy me.
Being a Jeff Buckley fan, I had high hopes for "Memphis Skyline" but also felt underwhelmed.
The album feels a bit grandiose, and not being too familiar with Wainright, I don't know if this is typical of his style but it was too much for me to really enjoy.
This is like.... the quintessential sound for this genre or microgenre, or what have you. One of those albums that you might not know (which I didn't!) but as soon as you hear it, it's clear that it is a a landmark sound that influenced acts that followed them.
I wouldn't listen to this a whole lot, but nothing wrong with it. Three stars, plus half a star for influence and we'll round up to a 4.
I'd listen to this from time to time. It's unique. It'd probably be a situational thing. I can really appreciate it, but it'd not be in my main rotation.
Such an incredible album about which I was not fully aware before, beyond the obvious singles. A lot better than some of the pop-laden ditties that followed.
I am not sure there is a bad track on the album. The last track comes closest to feeling "off", but even it is not too bad.
Really, really enjoyed this one.
If this was indeed the introduction of bossa nova to the US, I can see why it caused such a stir. It's nice, not too intricate, a good primer I'd imagine. In that sense, the influence is immeasurable.
Would I listen to it all the time? No. Is it worth listening to from time to time? For sure.
We'll give this one a solid 4, with a heavy dose of recognition.
This album, anthems of my youth. This was on repeat many, many times.
For SoCal pop punk, it's generally fun. Dexter's voice always struck me as compellingly sonic.
That said, I don't think the album was particularly groundbreaking -- maybe it hasn't aged well for me, I guess. I think there are others in the genre that would get more listens from me these days.
Nothing particularly wrong with the album, and I enjoyed reminiscing as I listened again, but not one I think stands out versus others. I'd play it from time to time but not in my main rotation.
Just not my jam. It has a few interesting bit, but lots of sharp edges and repetitive. I can see why these guys were sought to remix during the era but this album did not really do much for me.
Honestly sounds so much like Prodigy, some of it, and I guess that's what annoys me about the genre, so much has similar beats and sounds the same, IMO.
I was not too familiar with Ms. Vaughn, so it was a treat to hear this.
Live albums, with some exceptions, are a struggle for me to rate high, and this one is a fine illustration why, with the glitches, oopses and crowd noise.
All this said, Ms. Vaughn's voice is incredible. I'll definitely be seeking out studio recordings after this.
This would make good background music but too much of one thing to sit and listen. I like the style a lot, but it's too repetitive. I might nab the title track for a playlist from time to time; I'd almost never listen to the album as a whole.
This album is kinda on the periphery of what I listened to in this era. I rarely pulled any Pavement but I didn't mind them.
I guess that's how I still am, listening to this album. It's good, it's inoffensive, but doesn't stand out for me. It stays out there in limbo, not in my playlist, but familiar enough to feel comfortable.
So it goes like this: A lot of people like T. Swift's music, but say they do not like her as a person. They say she's fake, full of herself and so forth.
I'm the exact opposite, I guess.
She seems to me to be a pretty swell person, someone who can make fun of themself and honestly be down to earth... but I am not too much a fan of her music.
I honestly think she'd do well to try and step outside the box a bit and do something bolder, less pop-driven, rabid fan base be damned, and I suppose this album was something of an attempt to do that, the move away from country.
But why did it have to be such sugary pop?
I will fully admit to watching the "Shake it Off" video a few times when it came out, because I think this song was a great example of what I said in the beginning -- it was clearly evident she doesn't take herself too seriously. But honestly, it's probably the high point of the album for me. Everything else is so syrupy...
I really wanted to give this a 2.5, a little charity given the apparent significance of stepping outside her country roots. However, that would have rounded up to a 3, and I simply can't give this album 3 stars, as it'll never find my playlist again.
I wish she'd stepped even further outside the box. Maybe in the future she will. But the pop stuff -- I honestly think (or hope) she's better than that.
