Reviews by callimar

The rumors are true: really bad music was produced in the ’70s, too. On “The Modern Dance,” however, Pere Ubu present - as I see it - not just music, but also a whole lot of noise - albeit with timing that’s remarkably deliberate. And Robert Christgau is also right, in a way, that not all the experiments on this recording can be considered failures.
The question remains, though: did they really have to release all the fails? Is this art, or can it be thrown out?

Prince has always been in a league of his own, so I’ll spare you a description of *Sing ‘O’ The Times* here - he just makes whatever music he feels like making at the moment.
A review could go on and on about his meticulous arrangements, his sometimes rather inaccessible song structures, the excellent production, or even the somewhat idiosyncratic vocal timbre found in places on this album. The only problem is: to do that in a reasonably informed way, you’d have to invest more time than just one full listen.
So for today, I’ll stick with a superficial conclusion: I like it pretty well overall - that’s 4 out of 5 stars.

Phew... It was obvious that ABBA would come up at some point, but I’m not really ready to rate them. Of all the music my parents used to play, that was the best in my eyes back then. Today, I see them as pioneers of studio pop - in short, the ones ultimately responsible for the fact that nothing but trash has been produced in the mainstream since the ’80s.
If it’s been all downhill from there, does that mean, by extension, that this was the peak of pop? Maybe we can agree on this: 5/5 for the peak and 1/5 for the legacy...

After listening to 400 albums, including what feels like 100 by relatively unknown British singer-songwriters, I’m always skeptical at first when I see this combination. In this case, that skepticism is unwarranted - and PJ Harvey is certainly no hidden gem. “Stories...” features relatively enjoyable and mature material, even if the big hits are missing. I find the production a bit jarring, as it largely forgoes a substantial bass line - in addition to volume, it particularly lacks solid arrangements - and a professional could certainly have gotten more out of it.
All in all, still a decent recording.

Frank Zappa is like a box of chocolates - you never know what you're gonna get. In this case, technically speaking, it's hip-hop/gangsta rap: someone spouts socially critical lines laced with the occasional obscenity, while rather monotonous music featuring various samples plays in the background. So is “Flower Punk” a diss track aimed at Jimi Hendrix fans?
But back to today’s topic: is “We’re Only In For The Money” comedy? Technically speaking, maybe - much like a beef steak is a meatball. In my view, this recording is the first - and to date, the only - variety album that you absolutely must hear. Those who like easy listening will probably see it differently, but this list obviously isn’t meant for them anyway.

The Grateful Dead's “Live/Dead” sounds... well, like the Grateful Dead: a great vibe, extended melodic improvisation, psychedelic hard rock infused with jazz... plus a pretty excellent sound for a live recording from the '60s. Actually, everything’s great, though admittedly it’s also a bit monotonous—and not just because “Dark Star” ended up being so long.
Still, it’s a treat for anyone who likes to listen to music with full concentration. For the mainstream audience, which is usually easily distracted, it’s probably rather hard to sit through, though.

Frank Ocean's “Channel Orange” is neo-soul without any rough edges, but with hip-hop vibes. It's a valid approach, but it doesn't strike me as particularly remarkable.

Bumblefoot once said "if your drummer sucks, your band sucks". I wouldn't go as far as that regarding The Psychedelic Furs, but their drummer plays very basic without being extremely precise and their singer... well, kinda sucks.
Their album "Talk, Talk, Talk" isn't exactly bad but absolutely boring and - probably due to limitations if their drummer and singer - monotonous. And the overrepresentation of British New Wave Bands on this list really sucks.

Sometimes I enjoy writing a review that explains exactly why an album is bad. But Method Man’s “Tical” is bad in a way that doesn’t lend itself to that - no botched experiments, weird ideas, or failed production. Instead, there are 52 minutes of unpolished boredom without any rough edges: a short-circuited keyboard, and the guy rambling on about stuff that nobody cares about.
This record even manages to disappoint my nonexistent expectations

I suspect that, deep down, TV in the Radio is an incredibly boring band. On *Dear Science,* they manage a pretty appealing start with “Halfway Home” - but after that, it’s all downhill. Their music isn’t bad at all, but it just doesn’t offer much. The groove of “Crying” gave me some hope that things might stabilize, but then came the crash with “Dancing Choose” - and after that, there was really nothing left.

Now that's a diverse album! Nitin Sawhney and his female vocalists (who, for reasons I can’t fathom, aren’t named in either the Wikipedia article or on Spotify - according to my research, they are Sanchita Farruque, Tina Grace, Nina Miranda, Swati Natekar, and Sushmita Ghosh) create a unique blend of electro, jazz, and Indian influences. Since the songs are so vastly different from one another, it’s nearly impossible to single out any one in particular.
A truly powerful concept album - that’s how it’s done! And of course - completely unexpected for me - five stars.

A British singer-songwriter from the '60s who had a sort of hit in the U.S.? To me, that sounds like a pretty run-of-the-mill one-hit wonder. And aside from the song “Sunshine Superman”, there isn't much else noteworthy on the album of the same name.
All in all, rather disappointing.

Of course, I was familiar with the Dead Kennedys as pioneers of American punk rock. But after listening to “Fresh Fruit...” I have to admit that punk was rightly considered a European phenomenon well into the early ’90s. The Dead Kennedys may have the better sound and be very musical, but their ironic, intellectual style makes them, to me, a high school band trying to imitate British or German punks.
Not bad, but not the revelation I was expecting either.

Of course, I was familiar with Oasis as the archetypes of Britpop, but beyond their big hits, I’d never really delved into their music.
Their debut album, *Definitely Maybe*, is quite catchy and pleasant, though it doesn’t deliver any major “aha” moments. As a result, there’s little to single out - the production and everything else are just right. In retrospect, this seemingly naive attempt to counter the grunge wave with something sustainable was probably quite important, especially for the British rock scene.
It’s not on the same level as their subsequent blockbuster album *Morning Glory?*, but it’s quite promising.

In my opinion, shoegaze is always cool when the effects add extra layers to the songs. Unfortunately, that’s not the case with My Bloody Valentine - the sound just gets denser. Here, I’d actually prefer a careful, transparent production that brings the vocals more to the forefront. However, Kevin Shields’ vocals lack the carrying power for that.
So, in summary, a band that makes the best of its limited capabilities? Maybe. At the very least, "m b v" is an album that wouldn’t be on this list if they weren’t Brits.

I still remember OutKast’s big hits and André 3000’s distinctive voice very well. However, the double album “Speakerboxxx” & “The Love Below” has one major drawback: Big Boi took up the first 50% of the album...
In fact, OutKast is at its strongest when P-Funk, soul, and hip-hop influences come together organically in a single song. Unfortunately, they only manage to pull that off occasionally. It probably would have been wiser to simply compile the best songs from these two solo albums into a standard-length album.
Hey, we’ve seen something like this before - albeit at a higher level - with “The Beatles.” Apparently, music really is communication and thrives on compromise...

The Cocteau Twins play pop with audible influences from Celtic folk music and extensive atmospheric effects. That sounds a bit wild when you read it, but the result is actually pretty unspectacular.
On “Heaven or Las Vegas”, I really like the sound of the bass, which is also played with extreme precision.
All in all, that’s a fair assessment.

What the... This is so bad it actually hurts - I couldn't even get through one and a half songs.

I have no idea why this album is on the list: a mediocre singer performs naive songs in a language she obviously doesn't use in everyday life. Even though this formula had worked well before with “The Girl From Ipanema", it doesn't make sense as an album because maybe two tracks would have been enough. As it is, “Beach Samba” doesn’t even get boring - you’re more likely to find yourself wondering the whole time when the real songs are going to come. Spoiler: they never do.
How is one supposed to fairly rate something like this among all those world-class albums (well, not all of them, but that’s basically the standard)?

I knew Arcade Fire by name, but I’d never actually listened to one of their albums on purpose. Any review of *Neon Bible* really depends heavily on your own expectations: Anyone expecting the album to be groundbreaking in any way will surely be disappointed. If, on the other hand, you just let yourself get into the songs, you’ll find that it makes for some pretty great background music. I suspect that’s exactly why so many albums from the 2000s strike me as so boring: they’re no longer meant to be consciously listened to. Once I realized that, I am totally fine with Arcade Fire. But of course, that’s not enough to land it in the top tier.