How on earth to review this? I'm trying to listen to it on its own terms, but it feels dated in a way that so many other things from 1959 (Kind of Blue, The Shape of Jazz to Come, Moanin' in the Moonlight, Mingus Ah Um, Time Out) don't. Obviously these lists have to be subjective, but it feels a tier below top-1000 quality to me. Listening to it as a studio album it sounds rather as if the dance is missing. It wasn't an unpleasant experience, but nor is it one I particularly wish to repeat. I guess that sets the standard for me: 2* is neutral, 1* actively bad, and 3-5 represent something increasingly special.
I think this is the first Marley album I've listened to from start to finish; obviously I've heard several of the songs on it many, many times. And it's ... fine, I guess. Perhaps it's not fair to compare it with a dub album, but it's nowhere near as good as the same year's King Tubbys Meets Rockers Uptown; I can't help but wonder if it's made its way onto the list (which contains shamefully little reggae) by being a reggae album that appeals to people who don't like reggae. A pleasurable enough listen, and I'd consider playing it again.
I don't think I've listened to a Queen album all the way through before (it's possible that I've heard a Greatest Hits on a childhood bus trip). Disappointed. I'm fond of Queen, and the album has a few great songs on it -- but it's a listening experience I don't particularly wish to repeat: it was too homogeneous for me, and made a good case for Queen being a Greatest Hits band. Maybe it caught me on the wrong day, maybe I'll give it a second chance, but for the moment it's **
I find it hard to review this, in large part because I don't feel familiar enough with soul to be able to distinguish between different kinds and levels of good. I could give this anything between 3 and 5, and I feel as if my rating might well increase as I come back and listen to it again (which I definitely will). But it felt like a consistently good, even great album: definitely something I'll come back to. Elegant, poignant, coherent without being samey. I really appreciated it, but I don't yet feel competent to judge whether what I heard was a masterpiece or just a very good album.
I could legitimately give this anything from 5* (because of the extent of its influence) to 1* (because of what that influence means). Obviously it's a hugely important historical document. But as I listened to it--expecting if not to be blown away then at least to recognize something of huge significance--my jaw fell to the floor in recognition at hoe derivative it all was, all I could notice was how his cover versions just weren't all that good in comparison with the earlier recordings of the same songs. Would go out of my way not to listen again, except as a means of confronting what a pernicious influence it was.
Utterly forgettable. Pedestrian, bland. Not just not a great album, but also an album with remarkably few great songs. The only track that aroused any interest was Luna (and whatever interest that might have been had dissipated by the time I went back to hear it again afterwards). Wouldn't listen again, but wouldn't walk out of the room if it was on, so
Pleasant enough. A pop band does a lot of things in different genres and calls it an album. The only thing I minded listening to was 'Good Night'. I'm torn between going higher because it does interesting things across multiple styles (I haven't) or staying lower because it doesn't really cohere as an album. Overall I'd say it's good, but not great.
So hard to rate: especially because I was served it just after she'd died (if that was a result of messing with the randomization: I really wish you hadn't). Very good singer-songwriter (and songwriter-storyteller), lovely album.
Took my a couple of listens, and I'm still not familiar enough with the histories of hardcore on both sides of the Atlantic to know whether this is groundbreaking or merely a good, solid hardcore album. But I really like it: raw, fast, angry.
Obviously this is a masterpiece: I don't think I could have countenanced giving it anything other than 5* before I'd even listened to it this time round. But it's absolutely stunning. I'd not previously noticed the difference in sound between the crystal clarity of the trumpet on the earlier tracks through to the slightly messier, almost more woodwindy sound on Clarity (if you told me it was a flugelhorn I'd believe you). Otherworldly.
