I appreciate some of the Rolling Stones' best-known songs, but I've never been a fan. I tried to approach this album with fresh ears: it seemed moderately stylistically coherent, but unconvincing, the vocals annoying, I fidgeted as it trundled along in background. I concluded it is seven fillers, bookended by two iconic songs. Gimme Shelter and You Can't Always Get What You Want are imperfect but interesting songs, worthy of many a listen - without them, the album would be a 1, with them I give it a 2.
I wanted to appreciate this album (which I'd checked out previously without "getting it") - I gave it a couple of listens, but still felt most of it is too cool to engage me. I far prefer the energy and warmth (together with interesting chords, rhythms etc) of The Royal Scam.
The title track is "well made" but doesn't really attract me to play it again. Same for most of the other tracks.
One stand-out, I like Peg from start to finish (faster tempo, nice funky riffs and hooks) - chuffed to realise this was the song heavily sampled for Eye Know - interesting guitar solo, slapping bass - I'll listen to that song again, but without the rest of the album.
Since each song in isolation is at least moderately interesting - I give the album as a whole a 3 rather than a 2.
I'd not been particularly interested in this album on previous glances, but I paid attention this time, and really enjoyed and appreciated it. There's a lot to attend to, in the music, arrangements, lyrics - it's intriguingly complex, without being deliberately difficult - I have strong impression it will repay repeated listens. There's a pleasing range of styles - one might skip particular tracks depending on mood, but none seem out of place. No-one should be put off by reputation as 'jazzy'. It's a "sit quietly and listen" album - I warmly recommend it in that space.
This was better than I had expected - quite rocky guitar tones, nice playing, particularly good soloing. The approaches to blues structure held my attention for the first few songs. (Lyrics repeating first line of a verse builds expectation for the twist - but then, they didn't deliver any great messages.) But then, the songs were pretty samey - had to wait till track 5 (Hot, Blue and Righteous) for a change of pace and it was a dud. So, why am I listening to this as an album? Then thinking the better test might be, if I walked in on some live band and these songs were their performance. I would have stuck round (more for the five piece band, counting overdubs, than notional three-piece with only single guitar line on top of much less interesting bass) - maybe I would have strolled out at track 9 (Sheik) as that was boring filler. La Grange was the most appealing musically (particularly hot solo) but when I focus on the lyrics it's yuck.
The instrumental components are kinda listenable (though mostly "why bother", verging on tedious/fatuous) but the vocals (lead and backing) are wildly off-putting, and the lyrics (unintelligible from audio, foolishly I looked them up) are shit). Too many songs I had to skip on first listen (couldn't make other people in the room put up with them), and found painfully tedious on second attempt. 1/10 is as low as my scale goes. (I hope the generator doesn't ask me to listen to anything worse than this ... fingers crossed.)
Well-made album I hadn’t heard before, the songs were congruent (recognisably Depeche Mode) but didn't seem repetitive, the patterns all sounded fresh (drums might have been same-y but didn't grate), some interesting harmonic progressions. Mood was rather melancholy but not forced. No particular song hit me as catchy or obvious hit single - intrigued to learn after listening that this was breakout period for the band. I could listen again without complaint - but not compelling. 8/10
Songs I don't recall hearing before but recognisably U2 (the voice, the guitar technique, simple but reasonably effective chord structures). Rich production (keyboards, overdubs, textures) - clearly a studio album. Lyrics seem a bit "oh I need to write some lyrics, they should be a bit catchy and a bit mysterious". 7/10
This is an incredible album: not just a set of individually-satisfying songs ("heart-wrenching melodies" with "over-the-top arrangements" as two critics said), but a concept album, with public history themes, also engaging with Stevens' private history. Prolific/skilful singer-songwriter in full flight, tackling big subjects with engaging and challenging lyrics, looping catchy harmonies, satisfying orchestrations, great though apparently "lo-fi" production (home recording and Pro Tools), passionate songs, extensive dynamic range. Many standout songs. In contrast to what I know of his other albums, this is largely acoustic instrumentation, I have no problem with that. 10 (or more) out of 10 :-)
I didn't know this band. (I had heard Brimful of Asha, music seemed so slight that I was not at all motivated to find out what it was about.) So I read a bit before listening, then found the album more pleasant than I had expected. Some fun glitchy riffs, danceable old school acoustic funk loops, punk style simplicity (reminded me of Happy Mondays), a bit of dub was nice; some of it was just inoffensive background music (ie couldn't hold sustained attention). Feeling generous towards the good vibes, I'll say Good rather than just Okay. My favourite song: Candyman.
I didn't take Duran Duran seriously when this was released. But there's lots to like here - solid rhythm section (bass is often funky), heaps of kybds, band playing as a unit. I/m reminded what a breath of fresh air everything more or less New Romantic was, after punk - you could dance with a smile instead of a scowl. The lyrics of Duran Duran were and are of not much interest - but the music stands up okay. Feeling generous again, I'll rate as Good rather than Okay. My favourite song: My Own Way.
I'd never have thought of putting on a whole album of Soundgarden (less attractive than Nirvana or RATM). Unappealing opening (first 2 tracks too slow and repetitive for my taste) but it got better. Tracks 7-9 (Black Hole Sun, Spoonman, Limo Wreck) make an exciting three-in-a-row. By the end of the album, I was impressed with strength/range of lead vocals (carried the words well) and variety of playing styles, as well as sheer grunge and grunt. But still very same-y. It's on the high side of 'Okay': 6/10. Favourite track: Limo Wreck.
Disco! For a whole album?? I remember dancing to "We Are Family", but never played the whole album. The songs are very repetitive, little content. Hmm, that guitar, is it Nile Rodgers? Why yes it is! But then - reading Wikipedia makes me wonder, should this really be known as a Sister Sledge album, or what?? Wikipedia says "Edwards and Rodgers would only show the songs to Sister Sledge once the sisters were in front of the studio microphones." - eeeeuuuuwwww!!!!! I wonder how the sisters felt about that! Makes the album seem like product just for the sake of $$. I rate it Poor (3/10).
I never listened to Can before. (Negative reputation outpaced listening experience?) Track 1 is great, would be fine as a contemporary recording (I'd be intrigued they didn't turn up volume/distortion) - good drumming, high energy, solid structures, fascinating. So I go read Wikipedia: "... Czukay editing the band's long jams into structured songs"?!?!? The following tracks (on disc 1) are funky and interesting - jazzy, negligible clangers - were they brilliant jammers, or is it all down to brilliant editing? (But he was only editing two-track tapes!) Then, disc 2 was tougher going, but quite listenable (after a break). In fact Aumgn grew on me (over three listens). Familiar curiosity from a groundling - did they have a plan for a given track, or how 'randomly' throw stuff in? Anyway, disc 1 is 8/10, overall 7/10.
I don't mind chamber folk, but found most of this album somewhat tedious. I'm mildly curious how it came to be made (what were those involved thinking, phenomenon of producer changing tracks without involvement from nominal artiste) and why/how did it get more famous over time. Track 3 would be more interesting if no strings/flutes, just guitar organ vox. Track 5 is already more interesting than others - sparse, folk with noise, much better dynamic range. In some other tracks I was somewhat engaged by Larry Fallon's string/flute arrangements - while feeling bit repelled at betrayal of artiste whose album it supposedly was. Overall 3/10.
I knew of Cocteau Twins but hadn't consciously listened to any. I expected more ethereal; I understand this is considered their more poppy/accessible album. It grew on me with repeated listens. (First time through, I listened via ear-buds, but these pieces really don't work that way - it's all about textures, so headphones or other hi-fidelity essential.) Overall it's Good without any knockout attributes, 7/10.
Three deservedly-famous songs, others reasonably catchy on first hearing, others tedious like middle of the road radio, and some with offensive lyrics/production: Jamaica Jerk-Off in particular, I also don't like Dirty Little Girl. Maybe 'Sir' 'Elton John' (and Taupin) are just smug gits who happen to have written some good songs. (At first I used past tense, but he's not dead yet - maybe he'll apologise for these songs before he goes? Taupin apparently told Rolling Stone he couldn't remember writing Jamaica Jerk-Off - did he say "gee it's embarassing, I apologise"? I can't tell because I don't subscribe to Rolling Smugness.) 3/10
Woohoo! Some songs here I already knew, are FIRE: 'Respect' is the stand-out. Some songs I didn't know, turn out to be mighty fine, eg 'Drown In My Own Tears'. Nothing here I don't like. 10/10 :-)
As Trouser Press apparently said, "cornball retro-moronic". If they were teenagers playing this stuff at my local pub, I'd say "okay they can play ... but why are they choosing to play this rubbish? and could the singer not find a better role model?" Will I ever choose to play this album for myself? No, never again. 1/10
Alright! Songs etched in my brain from long ago. The style, structures, guitar/bass/drums are FINE. Some lyrics are cool, some I could do without (eg Beat On The Brat). I was going to say the vocals are the weak point, but they are of course fully Ramones vocals, I'm reminded part of the point was not trying to be eg Ronnie James Dio. Now, what about the replay test? Because I never put this album on for myself. But, I always smile when I hear one of the tunes - and I could imagine putting it on for a road trip. So, it's GOOD. 8/10
Hadn't heard this before, found it very different from things I normally listen to, and very interesting, as well as pleasant/hypnotic.
Intriguing trying to work out "what I was hearing", so I read Wikipedia etc. I recommend the review at https://www.theguardian.com/music/2006/jul/14/worldmusic.shopping to help appreciate the album in context. Significant that the album combines traditional aspects and more varied, also that Ali Farka Touré considered it his best.
Interesting comments in that article about the lyrics - I had a quick try but no success so far finding lyrics for songs other than Savane. Fortunately the music works for me even when I don't understand the words.
Rating was tricky, I decided it's 9/10 Quite Wonderful (regardless that it functions rather differently from other albums I've put at that level).
