Reviews by florida-metalhead810

Hmm... A solo album from the leader of A Tribe Called Quest. Musically, it's pretty much on par with the Low End Theory for excellent beats and flows(and that's saying something, given that Low End Theory is excellent). It's soulful, funky, and catchy in equal measures, showcasing clear songwriting abilities beyond the usual hip-hop artist. Lyrically, it's all it needs to be. It's not particularly conscious or political, but it also doesn't have 5000 slurs and extreme depictions of violence, so it's better than a lot of rap on this list. Q-Tip is clearly a master of his craft, and this album proves his greatness even in the absence of Tribe. Even the featured artists are extremely well incorporated into the album's soundscape. An excellent hip-hop album from one of the best to ever do it.

A 70s soul album that is also an action movie soundtrack sounds like a good time. It is a good time, thankfully. Mayfield has an excellent if slightly high pitched voice, and the songcraft is excellent. Lyrics are among the most conscious soul lyrics I've heard, and they are delivered through silky-smooth soul numbers. Granted, there are a couple throwaway instrumentals, and some of the lyrics probably make more sense in the context of the film, but it's still a good standalone album. It's tight, funky, and soulful in equal measures, making it a shining example of conscious early-70s soul music. Notably, it doesn't go out of its way to sound cinematic, which is what allows it to stand alone on its own with such strength of material. An excellent effort from one of music's greatest periods of creativity and experimentation.

This looks hella dated. Unfortunately, it is exactly as dated as it looks. The opener greets you with a chorus of "Girls, girls, girls were made to love", which reduces them to an object for the male gaze even before you get to the part about stalking them at the end. The rest of the songs aren't much better, being basic 60s pop with basic love lyrics that can devolve into misogyny at times. It might have been influential in 1960, but this just didn't age well at all. Maybe it's here for "Love Hurts", which was covered many times by various artists(the most well-known is by the Scottish hard rock band Nazareth, who are better than these guys despite being rather run-of-the-mill AOR). In seven years, we went from this to Hendrix and the Beatles, who leave everything here in the dust. It's not really a good record despite clear pop hooks and harmonies, but at least it's nice and short.

I've never heard of this album. It appears to be an indie rock record from 2010- exactly the kind of music I tend to hate. I don't hate this. In fact, I find it to be a good album. These are some of the best lyrics I've ever heard(barring the slurs in Jesus Hates Fa***ts), being witty, funny, and personal in a way few albums are. Some of the songs are sonically beautiful, while others are more like standard rock songs. The vocals fit the music very well and add to the lovably dorky atmosphere. This album is great because it's deeply personal and relatable in a way few albums are. It gives off a very "lovable loser" vibe to me, and I enjoy it. A surprisingly excellent outing for the era and genre.

I've never heard of this album or band. It looks like a throwaway pop record-exactly the opposite of essential listening. It is, unfortunately, exactly what it looks like. There is nothing on this record that better groups such as the Kinks and Beatles haven't done before and done better. I genuinely hate getting these records because they're just so forgettable and vapid. They all sound identical, and this album is no different. It's basic 60s-pop-by-the-numbers that refuses to do anything even remotely interesting, instead settling for basic barely-3-minute songs that have generic lyrics, a generic singer, and a generic backing band. It shouldn't be anywhere near this list.

This is my fourth Rolling Stones album- and I'm not even a quarter of the way through the project. Sadly, it confirms all my previous perceptions of the Stones: a somewhat overrated blues-rock band that just aren't that good or interesting. This album starts with the uniquely groovy "Sympathy for the Devil", which if nothing else is a very fun listen. The rest of the album is just basic white blues that's not particularly well-written or interesting. The more traditionally Stonesy numbers are the better ones, with quieter songs being uninteresting. Lyrics are very mediocre, and Mick Jagger isn't that compelling of a blues vocalist. So, in short, the Rolling Stones are overrated, and this album isn't an exception.

I've never heard of these guys. They're from the UK(of course) and this came out in 1996, which means it's highly likely to be crappy Britpop. It is...kind of. "Lose Control" is what people who don't listen to heavy metal think heavy metal sounds like. The rest is loud alternative rock with radio-ready hooks. It's part Britpop, part dream pop, all radio rock. The vocals are almost inaudible under the distortion, which doesn't really hurt the album too much as they sound rather generic for the era. The album's lyrics are bog-standard love lyrics, which fits its poppy nature. Most damning of all, it's very obscure and therefore inessential to the time period's music. This is not a list of OK albums that aren't noteworthy. It's a list of albums that are essential listening, and this isn't essential listening. It doesn't belong here, especially when actually essential albums like the Blue Album are missing completely.

This is the third Kinks album this generator has given me. I know what to expect from the Kinks by now, so this record shouldn't be much of a surprise for me. This album consists of the simple, bite-sized pop songs the Kinks are good at writing with some remnants of their early garage rock grit. The songs are far simpler lyrically than on Arthur or Village Green, but they still show a decent amount of lyrical ability. It's a fun little record from the British Invasion era, not being hugely demanding to listen to while also showcasing a good amount of songcraft. It's not a life-changing masterpiece(few records are), but it's still a good album that is worth a listen.

Ahh yes, the Stranger Things album. More specifically, the album whose most popular single was played ad nauseum in the show's fourth season. As for the actual album, it is a very offbeat 80s pop record. Unlike most British pop of the period, this has actual character and is unique without being off-putting. Well, some songs are off-putting, primarily "Waking the Witch". Unlike her earlier record, "The Dreaming", this is still plenty accessible to the average listener and isn't overly theatrical. Though Bush's lyrics don't approach the level of a Cohen or Dylan album, they are perhaps some of the best lyrics of this era's popular music. The songs are hooky and well-arranged, and Bush's voice is excellent both technically and for the music she makes. This record, perhaps more than anything, is an excellent example of how to balance accessibility and character to create a hit album. A hit album that found a second wind 35 years after its release from a single being used in a massively popular television show.

This is a 2000s rock album. It mixes loud, distorted guitar with synthesizers and mediocre lyrics. It is often very theatrical, going for drawn-out intros and highly dramatic crescendos in many songs. It's also somewhat pretentious, going for political themes and love lyrics that don't quite land. It thinks it's very ambitious, but it doesn't really do much with the sound that's of particular interest. It's not a good album, but it isn't completely terrible either. It's mostly just mediocre, like most other 2000s "indie rock" albums.

This is my second Neil Young album of the project. Its opening acoustic side is poetic and beautiful in all the ways you'd expect, with great lyrics here and soft soundscapes suiting them perfectly. Then, the album changes to a louder, heavier rock sound with loud, fuzzy guitars reminiscent of hard rock. These songs are just as good as the acoustic ones, despite being very different sounding to them. There's a throwaway song on both sides(Ride My Llama on the first, Welfare Mothers on the second) which lack the great songwriting found elsewhere on the album. In general, the songs on the second half are weaker than those on the first, but they're not completely without merit. Interestingly, he gives us a fuzzed-out reprise of the opener as the closer. As an album, this is a strong if somewhat dissonant effort from one of the most notoriously mercurial artists of the 1970s, as well as a precursor to a decade of experimentation.

I have never heard of this before. I know absolutely nothing about it beyond that it's an R&B album. The cover is... interesting. As for the actual music, it's mostly standard R&B with a modern electronic bent. Lyrics are pretty standard for the genre, and the vocals are just OK. They're technically impressive, but don't feel as soulful as the classic greats. A lot of the sound of this record is the sound of generic late-2010s Top 40 music. It isn't bad, but nothing here is particularly great. It sounds exactly like you'd think it would sound based on the cover and release date, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, that sound is not a particularly memorable one, and this is mostly a collection of standard pop/R&B songs that lack great songwriting. Granted, it's not as bad as the similarly rated Back to Basics, so there's that.

This album is one of the best-selling records of all time. It continues to be relevant in the cultural firmament long after its release. So it's kind of already a masterpiece, even before you get to the actual album(which you've likely heard at least half of on rock radio even before this listen). Willfully crude and simplistic, this album is probably one of the least pretentious records in the rock canon. It's popular because you don't need to "get it" to appreciate its hooky songwriting, loud riffs, and simple, rebellious lyrics. Its accessibility and simplicity, which many call a weakness, actually proves to be its greatest strength. It all sounds the same, but that doesn't matter as much when the underlying sound is something you like. It knows what it is, and wears its colors with pride. Not every album needs to be buried under complex time signatures and layers of lyrical metaphors; sometimes, our lizard brains just want easy-to-digest music that makes us feel cool, and that's what this is. It's a refresher from the shitty synthpop and landfill indie this site has been spitting out recently for me. A riff-heavy refresher that wants to rock and roll in that oh-so-70s tradition of "Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll" and make the masses feel cool.

I genuinely don't get why this is on the list. As far as I know, the Pet Shop Boys had fallen out of relevance by the time this came out. It doesn't have any of their hits on it, either. Despite coming out in 1993, it's a very 80s sounding synthpop album. Lyrics are mostly standard love lyrics, albeit with a queer bent to them. The vocals are OK, but difficult to make out over the loud synth sounds that were dated even when the album was new. It's also too long for what it is, as it all kind of sounds the same. By 1993, the music world was past this kind of album. It bored me to tears and showed nothing of musical merit to keep me invested. I think it might legitimately be a 1, as much as I hate to say it.

It is a rare honor for an artist to have their entire discography on the list. The usual story with those is that they only made a few albums and then died really young, which is exactly what happened here. I had her other album for album 38 and rated it a 4, so I have high expectations for her community-anointed masterpiece. It sounds pretty much exactly like I expected it to sound, with strides made in lyrical content and polish since the debut. The jazz influence is more palpable here, as are the lyrics of lost love, addiction, and emotional ruin. Her distinctive voice works as well as it ever did here, and the backing band is tight. This album is a significant improvement over an already-strong debut, and is deserving of a place in the classic pantheon. Really, I don't know what more I could want from a modern soul album. They say this one's an all-timer, and you know what? They're damn right!

Another day, another 1980s British new wave album... though this one at least has a female singer. It also has a gothic bent to it, which makes it an interesting coincidence that I got it on Friday the 13th. It sounds pretty much exactly like you'd expect it to sound. The singer is tolerable but not great, and the lyrics are usually pretty mediocre explorations of supernatural themes. Some of the songs have good hooks to them, but none of them are truly great songs. There are plenty of good songs and some mediocre ones, which ultimately results in a pretty good, though not great, album. This grew on me the further I got into it, as if the better songs were on the second side. However, the last track was pretty tough to listen to, though I've had worse come from the generator on that front. I won't call it a great album, but it is one of the better new wave offerings of the list, and is far better than yesterday's album(Non-Stop Erotic Cabaret by Soft Cell, coincidentally also from 1981).

Ok, a British pop band from the 80s with one hit song that is a cover. Not exactly an indicator of quality, but you never really know. Unfortunately, I was right in presuming the album wasn't going to be good. Aside from "Tainted Love", the album focuses on airy synth soundscapes over pop hooks. When done right, that can make excellent albums, but it's not done well here. The singer is very annoying, and the lyrics tend to suck more often than not. There are some passable songs here, but it's not anywhere close to essential listening. You could probably tell that simply by the fact that there's a song called "Sex Dwarf" on it. That song is pretty crap, and the rest of the album isn't much better. It's mostly just a forgotten relic of the early 1980s without much influence in modern pop culture, and there's a reason for that.

Apparently, this is Brazilian-style jazz made by Americans. It's very relaxing, and I could see it being played in a nice restaurant or bar. Unfortunately, that's exactly why it doesn't stand out to me. While all jazz, including this album, is competently played and generally immaculate sounding, I vastly prefer the sounds of free jazz. The vast majority of lounge jazz albums struggle to be interesting, and while this has a nice Latin bent to it, I don't find it hugely captivating. It's kind of just there, not really evoking any emotion in me.

I'm delighted to see a Cohen album pop up today, even though it's only been ten albums since I last saw him. His other album was my most recent five-star record, and I need to wash the U2 out of my ears, so I have high expectations. It is very much the same Cohen I had previously, which I am glad for. Lyrics are just as strong as the other album("Songs of Love and Hate"), and the haunting guitar and vocals are still here. However, it does feel slightly more embellished than SoLH. It has noticeable string parts and even backing vocals on one track. However, it's still Cohen, and Cohen is great. So this is a great album from the 60s folk era. It succeeded in getting the awful sounds of U2's "Achtung Baby" out of my ears, and for that it deserves an extra star. It already gets good marks for being Leonard Cohen, with everything that entails sonically and lyrically. So it's a five star record.

Oh, no. The last U2 album I had was utter garbage, as is pretty much every radio single I've ever heard from them, so this probably won't be getting high marks. It does have the most tolerable radio singles, but comparing U2 singles is like deciding which dog poop tastes better. It has many of U2's hallmarks (banal lyrics, Bono sounding annoying, naive utopianism, overlong songs) while also doing weird things like the buzzy vocal filters on the opener. It desperately wants to be interesting, but U2 can't write the songs to back it up. It just sounds like vacuous nothingness in song form. Granted, this particular nothingness is slightly better than the war crimes committed on "All That You Can't Leave Behind". So I guess it's not completely irredeemable? Granted, it's still a pile of shite wanting desperately to be something else. Get these jokers out of my earshot!