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).
Kraftwerk! I didn't listen to this when it came out. 1978 seems early for "electro-pop". It's got the repetition and inoffensiveness of pop, but I did not perceive the zing and zip I associate with electro (thinking Street Sounds compilation albums). Is there something bad about this album? No. But will I play it again? No. It's OKAY. 5/10.
Hmm. There are parts I liked a lot, but also extended passages that left me stone cold - so it just doesn't work for me as an album. It might have been fantastic for some people, it's interesting that it came out in 1969, but it just doesn't work for me. 3/10.
Never heard of this band, so I had a quick read - some ppl don't like David Berman's voice? Start listening - I don't mind his voice, I wouldn't say Tom Waits, I think of Lou Reed and maybe Bob Dylan? "I know there's a tune, but I couldn't be arsed singing it" - maybe those singers want to be more like spoken? Anyway the guitar lines are often really nice (thumbs up for that) - and the lyrics are cool (interesting and not just weird). So it's good. Not rushing to hear the rest of discography. 7/10
Never listened to this before. First listen was as background, music is okay, I gather I ought to pay attention to the lyrics. So I go through again trying to do that. I could never have understood these just listening by myself or talking with friends, maybe before internet we needed music journalism to help explain? (Comparisons here with non-obvious lyrical depths of Sufjan Stevens?) First song, the music doesn't attract me, the lyrics subject is ick, unfavourable comparison with Sufjan's John Wayne Gacy, Jr. Second song, Atlantic City, I can't get the lyrics, discussion at SongMeanings.com was more helpful (as non-American I could never have worked out that stuff from just listening to the song). Overall: I'm just not that interested, don't think I'll come back to persevere. It's Okay, not much Bad about it - 6/10.
(Silly side note, when the album finishes, my streaming service didn't go on to other Springsteen songs, it jumped to Geese? Which maybe says something about my listening tastes, but for example when I was listening to Ali Farka Touré it went on to his collab with Ry Cooder, not straight to Geese :-) But then today after two Geese songs it went to Elton John, frown - I listened to one of his albums recently, played some songs more than once, doesn't mean he's my new fave!)
Pretty tedious, even bloated. Riffs aren't that good, some of the wordsmithing is a bit interesting but swaggering lothario singing about rock touring lifestyle is not appealing. This might be better than some other stadium rock of the era, that is very faint praise. I knew Walk This Way because of the cross-over, Rick Rubin had good intuition and remarkable ability to deliver, his version punches a lot harder than the original on this album. Could hardly wait for this to be over. (Favourite song: No More No More.) 1/10
Pleasant, though not as polished as the Eagles' songs I know best. Take It Easy is a strong start, no other song matches it. If I knew someone who could pick double-time banjo, and we could sing four-part harmonies, I might like to play something like this. It's Good - 7/10.
A band I'd heard of, and had an impression of what it might sound like, but never sat down and listened to. (I saw '2013' as year of release, and had no idea of chronology - didn't know this was released 20 yrs after their previous album - I've read more since then.)
In summary I find the sounds/styles generally not unappealing, but some of the songs are misses, lightweight and/or tedious. Favourite song: "nothing is" (one-chord minimalism actually effective :-). Overall I'd say it's Okay, 6/10.
I knew Sultans of Swing when it came out, catchy but wasn't my type of thing. Pleasantly surprised and kinda impressed by this album: the lead guitar technique and lines are exquisite. (As for the rest of band, they play together neatly, but I find the chord structures, drumming and bass playing to be so-so...) I don't mind the singing but not a fan, I can see the Dylan comparison - lyrics didn't jump out, nothing about the singing attracted me to pay attention to them ... Was interested to learn that in 1978 Dire Straits toured as opening band for Talking Heads?! Anyway, it's good craft, I'll call it Good, 7/10.
Soul music! Looking at the list I see some songs I already know, some I don't. Hit play, quickly pick up on great singing, good playing, good tunes, great arrangements and production (Salaam Remi and Mark Ronson, mmm). Lyrics quite wild! I start reading more widely - oh dear - I knew she had AOD problems, didn't know it was that bad ... That sadness is now hanging over this record for me ... doesn't make the music any worse, but kills my excitement for the "wild vibe" - while leaving the tensions as mesmerising as ever.
Went back for extra listens, particularly the songs I found most interesting - some very striking packages of music, lyrics, delivery, eg Tears Dry On Their Own. My appreciation deepens. Some songs are so-so, but overall it's Quite Wonderful, 9/10.
Never listened to a Sinatra album before. Playing this through, I was struck that he could certainly sing, but I didn't find these songs very interesting. So, I read some Wikipedia etc, re the album and Sinatra generally. I had had a strong impression from the Godfather character, I feel after more reading that was not probably not inaccurate take on the guy at level of character, eg unattractive aspects of Italian-American machismo. What about the album? I was interested by a comment that it had a broader emotional palette than was commonly 'acceptable' for mainstream men at the time. So there's points of interest, should I go back and listen to it some more? Well, my mind shies away (it just wants to hear more of the excellent soul album I had the day before). But, I do recognise some quality in this Sinatra album. So it's Okay (Not Good), 4/10.
I have heard these songs quite a few times over the years. Six songs that are very good (I am happy to hear them and feel warmly about them, but I find myself reluctant to call them great); five good songs; one ring-in that is kinda okay musically but rubbish lyrically (Smackwater Jack).
Lyrics generally 'work' but not deep poetry.
Overall she's a gifted songwriter, good arrangements, nice voice and piano playing :-) 8/10
So, glam rock eh? Jeepster made a big impact on me when I first heard it (as a pre-teen). Later there was Gary Glitter - magnetic/appalling at the same time, then as we learned more about him his music became repugnant, unplayable, and besmirched the simplistic side of glam rock generally. (Was the simplicity just manipulation of teenie purchasing power?) Anyway, this album: T.Rex's 7th?? And it was very popular??? I'll grant that Bolan had a knack of getting down super simple verse/chorus hooks with minimal lyrics, and a lot of self-confidence to keep churning songs out. But Metal Guru and Telegram Sam seem like someone is taking the piss. And there are a few creepy aspects: the backing vocals almost always one octave up, over unison bass and guitar, is a bit psycho; the lyric fetish re cars (Jaguar, Buick, Cadillac) is yuck. (On the other hand, I will credit the two note guitar solo in Baby Boomerang, that was art ahead of its time.) I wondered whether Bolan might turn out to also be certified or probable creep - apparently is nothing on the internet to say he was a predator - but his fortune "variously estimated at between £20 and £30 million" was as of 2022 locked in a trust, not accessible to his son, hmm. I'm pretty sure life is too short for me to ever bother playing through the album again, so I'll say it's Poor, 3/10.
Solidly bossa nova - cool and smooth jazz. Nice clear sound, quite pleasant to listen to. Amazing that this was all recorded in one day - apparently in just three hours - presumably largely improvised solos. Percussion just goes and goes, imperturbably.
Would I play it again? Yes - but only as background music. Does any of it rock my world? Not in the slightest. So, it's Okay (not bad) ie 6/10.
I had a tape of Sabbath's second album back in the day, but never heard this one. I was interested when track 1 (title track) came on - impressed that four guys from Birmingham came up with this style, and impressed that the album was recorded in one day just by playing through their live set. But, as has been said by others,, the album gets weaker into the second side - 'Warning' in particular is half-baked and bloated, I think not good enough to be on any record.
After a bit more listening and reflection, I concluded this album showed potential (interesting guitar tone, Osbourne may have been a creep but could sing, etc), but is mostly unsatisfying rather than satisfying. It's Pretty Poor, 3/10.
New album for me. (I had a later Jack White solo album, but no White Stripes albums.) Right from the first song I found it exciting. Seems like virtually all are fine songs, a mix of styles and energy levels but dominant impression is a punk tradition. (Reading about the album I see that it's often referred to as "garage rock", okay.) I liked the really nice (but not flashy!) guitar playing, neat use of overdubs (not too much). Songs didn't sound same-y even though using limited sonic palette - effective variety in riffs and feels. I think I will probably replay this over time as a straight through album. I may like it even better as I get to know the songs/lyrics better. As of today, I rate it Very Good, 8/10 :-)
One of my favourite albums! How to describe? Wikipedia hedges with "heavy rock / glam rock"; I can't see this as "glam rock" (because very little musically in common with T.Rex or Gary Glitter), I'd say "heavy rock / camp cabaret", because there's super-high drama across a broad emotional range, including heavy rock and pomp and mawkish close-up sentiment. (Wikipedia also brings me heaps of other info I hadn't come across before, v v interesting to a fan :-)
If/when I write a book about this album, there’ll definitely be a chapter about the cover. There’s a lot that could be said about just the front cover image and all its signifiers, but, moving right along:
I could rave about each of the songs - almost all 10/10. Each instant knows where it's going, and is arranged and performed for maximum impact - the emotional journey is well managed - a tour de force!! It's Incredibly Wonderful, 10/10 :-)
I'd not heard of this band or album. On first play-through, I couldn't get it: instruments playing busily (but to what purposes?), lyrics delivered strangely, did nothing for me. I went to Wikipedia, and what I read about Arthur Lee put me off, eg "Lee envisioned Forever Changes as a lament to his memory". Somehow got through the album.
I came back the next day, in a more positive state of mind, to give it a second listen. I'm now more open to the feel of some of the songs. I still question whether the lyrics are relatively coherent (for a given song), like a reasonably well-constructed poem, or are they in some cases just assemblages of potentially catchy but only weakly-related phrases. (This phenomenon is of course by no means not unique to Love :-) I have noted that Genius annotations don't shed much light on these songs.
Overall, I'll now say this album is on the low side of Okay, 4/10.
I knew only two of these songs (the very well-known ones). The riffing is semi-decent (crunchy texture), but there are almost no off-beat rhythms, why is it so square? And I'm soon tired of the vocal style - I am quite open to cathartic music, but this is almost always shouty/angry, boring. So, Nothing Else Matters is great (better dynamic range), some other songs could be okay as one-off workout songs, but I wouldn't play this again as an album. I will keep choosing heavy rock / metal (eg Living Colour, Agriculture) that doesn't have this tedious shouty tone. Feeling generous, I say it's "Good and Bad", 5/10.
Ray Price wasn't on my radar, I didn't know what to expect, but I've always had a soft spot for steel guitars sliding through comfortable chord sequences, and honky tonk chord structures turn out to be deep in my bones, so I liked this album! Singing is good - lyrics are tolerable for their period and varied - I like the lush strings, and also the country solo violin segments. The introduction is unusual, at first I thought it might be hokey, but decided it's not, because it's not pretending to be speaking to listener conversationally, it's very much the band leader speaking to audience at start of a show - ie the album listener should think of it as like a show, but make themselves even more comfortable. Favourite song: Night Life (the chord sequences and slide have a little bit of jazz in them so yum). Overall, it's Good, 7/10.
