Reviews by florida-metalhead810

To me, this album is literally perfect. It's crazy how great this album is; 8 songs and basically all of them are absolute BANGERS. It's rocking, theatrical, and introspective all at once; a truly phenomenal record.

Well this is a really new album. I'm not sure how influential it will end up being in the long run. It is an OK album, mostly electronic pop with the occasional metallic guitar bit. It even has a harsh vocal here and there, but the metal is secondary to the pop. It sounds like a lot of modern metal, honestly, just slightly more poppy(heh). I don't feel that it accurately represents the state of metal in 2026. A better example of this style would be Spiritbox's Eternal Blue record from 2021, which is female-led like this but far more metallic. This is an interesting inclusion, but not my first choice for a metal album from the 2020s(something from Lorna Shore+the aforementioned Spiritbox record would be the ideal inclusions). And, to the people saying that this sounds like nu-metal, you obviously don't know metal subgenres as this isn't even close to what I think of when I think nu-metal.

Yet another random album by a band I've never heard of. As such, it's an inoffensive guitar pop album, like an off-brand Smiths almost. This is probably the most mediocre album I've had in terms of just being pure nothing. It's not good or bad, it's just there. Why is this on the list?

This has quite the reputation, I see. When I get albums like these, I want to prove that they're not as bad as everyone says. Unfortunately, this was genuinely annoying. It would have been OK if not for that singer, who is the worst singer I've heard on this project-yes, worse than the Dexys Midnight Runners guy. The rest of it seems to be trying so hard to be weird that they forgot to be good. Ugh.

I'm not sure how to feel about this one. It's a pretty good arena rock album, with the massive production and bad lyrics that the genre entails. However, I don't think buying it on CD was a good use of my $5 as I'm probably never really going to listen to it again. Still, I liked it more than basically anything I got this past week(except for the Buzzcocks album, which was excellent and probably better than this). God, the generator kept giving me shitty pulls until this mildly good one.

Hmm, never heard of this guy before. Apparently, he has 3 list albums(I don't know why). This tries to approximate R&B/funk of the period-and does it so poorly it almost sounds like parody. Buckley was originally a folk artist as far as I read, so it makes sense that his voice is horrible for this type of music. It turns what would otherwise be an OK album into something annoying. Nothing about this aged well at all, and I don't see a reason to put this on the list.

Oh, come on, really? The Dexys again?! True to their form, this shit sucks. The songs are always at least a minute longer than they need to be, with basically no hooks to speak of and very limited songwriting ability. The vocals are as terrible as always, and they fail to convince the listener that there's actual soul in these recordings. There's even random spoken word bits in these songs. This album is easily one of the worst I've had in a long time, even though it shows some potential for being OK. Not even good, just OK.

Oh, God. Reading the reviews for this one scares me. Ok, it actually isn't nearly as bad as the reviews would suggest. Is it good? Not really, with plenty of mediocre vocals and some annoying instrumentals. I'm not really sure what genre it's supposed to be or how to describe it, but I do know that it isn't completely terrible. It's not a great album, but you all really need better ears if you think that this is the worst thing on the list.

What even is this? I've never heard of it. It is essentially orchestral prog rock that is primarily instrumental. It was OK, but much of it failed to leave a lasting impression on me. I have no idea what it's doing on the list. I zoned out of the Zopf suite after the first two tracks of it, and didn't come back in until the end of the album. What about this is essential?

I've heard good things about this from critics and music nerds. It's not very interesting sonically, just being a light guitar rock album with fairly pleasant vocals and not a whole lot of sonic bite. The lyrics are an attempt to portray an honest portrait of the female experiences with love and relationships. However, though this raw, honest statement may have been revolutionary at the time, it no longer feels so today, and all we're left with is a light, pleasant alt-rock album.

Hmm, these guys seem pretty important as far as punk bands go. They're pretty good, with fun, catchy songs and surprisingly good production for punk. The vocals are somewhat annoying on many songs, and the lyrics may not be the best(though they're pretty good for punk), but this is a pretty good album. This list has had its fair share of new-to-me albums that are excellent, and this is one of them.

Ah, Lou Reed. I haven't really listened to his stuff much, but he's a pretty interesting artist. And this is a somewhat interesting, arty album. It lacks much in the way of pop songwriting, instead settling for unconventional song structures and instrumental-focused tracks. The lyrics are generally good but not great, allowing the album's artiness to take center stage. This is a pretty good album, but not a great one, and probably not one I'll come back to.

I've had the other Wilco album on this list before and didn't think it was all that, so I don't expect much for this one. It mostly lived up to my expectations of being an OK but unremarkable country- tinged rock album. There's not much of note here besides a few tracks that were louder than I was expecting. It's mostly generic-sounding alt-style country- rock that can frequently sound like an inferior Neil Young alternative. It doesn't really have much effect on me and is not a great album. It's also really long-way longer than it needs to be.

Does this guy really deserve two albums? The last one wasn't great and is only notable on this site for the math guy's review and responses. Anyway, this is a solid rap album with many soul influences. It's not the best rap album technically or lyrically, but it's better than many of its predecessors and contemporaries. The beats are probably the album's strongest part, and even then they're not exactly great. This is a pretty good album, but it's not really list-worthy and not as a second album from the artist.

Oh, great, another Elvis album. At least I'll be done with him after this. This album is mostly unremarkable 50s-style ballads that lack any of the energy of his first album. Occasionally the album picks up, but it never really gets good. Like most Elvis stuff, this has some good stuff and plenty of throwaway songs as well. I don't think this one was that important and needed to be on the list.

Never heard of this, though it seems to take a lot of shit in the reviews. It doesn't actually deserve most of the flak it gets, as it's just a fun, loud 2000s rock album. It's not afraid to experiment with noise or get in your face, but for the most part it's pretty simple garage rock. It's not nearly as extreme as some reviews would leave you to believe, but it's not always a clean, neat rock album. It's not the best thing I've ever heard, but it's not as bad as many people seem to think it is.

Oh, great, a 60s band that I haven't heard of. And the entire first half is songs whose titles ending in "Love". Fantastic! Naturally, it's basically just a meandering rock album with no sense of direction whatsoever. The songs are generic and overlong, with generic vocals and generic sounds. There's nothing interesting about this album and nothing that gives it a case for being on the list.

I didn't even know this was on the list until today. It's essentially a rap album with some slight rock elements. It's not particularly noteworthy outside of that, with mediocre flows and lyricism that lack the poetry of the best rap while also lacking the edge associated with both genres. This is not an important record and doesn't belong on the list, as evidenced by how I didn't even know it was here before today.

Hmm, this one should be good. It is good, but not the folk-rock masterpiece many say it is. Harmonies only really appear towards the album's beginning, but they're strong when they do appear. The lyrics are pretty strong in places, but not quite Bob Dylan level. This album is not as good as Neil Young solo, but better than Stephen Stills solo.

Interesting... I've never heard of this before. It's essentially a very jazzy prog rock album with four 20-minute long songs, 3 of which are instrumental. While they are fairly interesting musically, they don't really manage to hold the listener over their runtime. Even the sole vocal track, "Moon in June", fails to really justify its absurd length. This is not a bad album, but it's difficult to sit through because of the extended length of the songs.