Reviews by florida-metalhead810

Ahh, Zeppelin III. The one numbered Zeppelin album I don't own on vinyl. It's also the third Zeppelin album I've had generated after I and IV. Immediately upon pressing play, you get hit with the legendary "Immigrant Song", which dares the rest of the album to outdo it. The rest of the album is more experimental than Zeppelin's first two albums, often trading balls-out hard rock for quieter blues and acoustic numbers. It's easily the most mellowed-out of the numbered Zeppelin albums, and is as a whole a very different experience. That said, it's still Led Zeppelin, so expect wailing vocals and stomping, loud drums even in some of the quieter moments. It's widely considered the weakest of the numbered albums, and I find myself agreeing with that sentiment. Notably, Hats Off to Roy Harper is by far the worst song on all four albums. II and IV are better, and I is pretty close in quality to this one.

Like many people, I hate traffic. As a nascent driver, I find heavy traffic to be very stressful, almost to my breaking point. However, I don't hate Traffic(the band). Nor is Traffic(the album) a bad record. It's not a particularly good record either. It's just bog standard 60s dad rock with hints of psychedelia. The weird high-pitched guy is hard to listen to, but the other guy is tolerable. The lyrics aren't anything special(includes a song about having relationships with a teenager, as usual for the period), and it's not very sonically interesting. I struggle to ascertain why I must hear this without fully hating it, which is sadly all too common with the project's records(especially on weekends). There's a saxophone solo on one track and it's the most intriguing thing that happens on the album. So really, it's a random 60s rock album that I find rather forgettable and mediocre.

Okay, this is probably the oldest album I've had yet, and it sure sounds it. It might have been the Wildest album of its time, but music has evolved so much in the intervening decades that it's not even close to the title in modern times. It's enjoyable enough, but 50s music in general tends to sound extremely dated, and this falls victim to that. Lyrics are okay, though often uninteresting. Jazz can be a phenomenal genre, but this is more a curio for people interested in the popular sounds of the 1950s and less an essential album for everyone.

My old friend Bob Dylan... It's nice to see you back. It's been a few months since I last listened to your albums. As for this one, it sounds exactly like you expect it to sound. Lyrics here are as good as ever, though they are distinctly more personal than either Freewheelin' or Highway 61. The voice is more bearable here than on Highway 61, but only slightly. Either way, this is a Bob Dylan album. I respect Dylan more than I like him, and I personally believe that Leonard Cohen is better at crafting albums rather than just poems as Dylan writes them. Compounding this is the fact that Dylan's songs are always at least two verses longer than they have any right to be, which does make them drag on. In short, I can respect his influence without actually wanting to listen to his albums.

Ahh, Queen. One of the biggest rock bands ever to play a song, and yet I haven't heard a full album by them. I find it interesting that this album was chosen for inclusion when it lacks the hits. There are hints of the band most of us know Queen to be, but also some riffage that legitimately rivals Black Sabbath in its sheer heaviness. In fact, the heavy riffs take center stage here, while Queen's future arena bombast is only hinted at in some songs. Much like Led Zeppelin, the lyrics are heavily fantastical and nerdy. However, it has a character all its own, with many overlapping guitar parts you'd never hear with Zeppelin. A few different vocalists are given a chance to shine on this album, even though Freddie Mercury was a large part of how Queen became an enduring part of the pop culture firmament. "The Loser In The End" sounds like a straight-up Zeppelin ripoff, complete with imitation Robert Plant. Granted, it's immediately followed up with a straight-up thrash metal track in "Ogre Battle". Granted, the rest of the album is more its own thing, though far heavier than most Queen songs are. Ultimately, this album is an interesting and somewhat unknown footnote in Queen's musical evolution.

This is my second Doors album of the project, and I've only had 24 albums between them. Come on! Anyway, this is an OK blues-rock album. It's less mystic and psychedelic than their debut, but it doesn't have the same level of songs. Lyrics are as trite as ever, and much of the music is just basic blues-rock that doesn't sound like the Doors' debut much at all. Even worse, the hooks just aren't there the way they are on the debut. There are still good songs here ("Riders on the Storm" and the title track), but it's a weaker record overall than the self-titled.

Ahh, the White Stripes. This marks my third Jack White album of the project so far(after Blunderbuss and Get Behind Me Satan in that order). It also contains his most iconic song, "Seven Nation Army". Now, for the actual review; Elephant is a loud, raw album with just enough polish to be palatable to the average ear. White's lyrics mostly deal with themes of love and identity, but they're rather simplistic in nature. However, the musical backing is exactly what you'd expect; in your face, filled with overdrive and distortion, driven by the same four-on-the-floor beats every time. It is also filled with hooks and ready to get airplay until the end of time, especially with "Seven Nation Army". It is less experimental than Jack's later efforts, and is happy to be a straight-ahead rock album. While 2000s albums tend to get slammed with low ratings by me, this is an exception. It knows exactly what it is and pretends to be no more, a refreshing quality amidst a sea of landfill indie records from the decade.

Oh great, another obscure indie rock band. At least they're American and from the 80s rather than 2000s British crap. It honestly sounds like a worse version of Husker Du to me; while they can clearly play, they just don't have the songs that the Du or REM had. I don't find myself particularly moved by anything these guys made; the vocals aren't that great and there's no real hooks that stick with you. The songs are all very short, which compounds their lack of staying power. This isn't really a genre where you can cast songs aside to showcase instrumental virtuosity, and that's exactly what this album does. And it's not even virtuosity; it's just mildly impressive playing. No college rock record should have drum solos, but this has two. Leave the drum solos to 70s hard rock bands, people! I've heard better playing from bands, especially metal bands, that have better songs(at least in my humble opinion). With that in mind, while this is far from a terrible record, it just isn't good or distinctive enough to be worth my while. Given the band's obscurity, I wouldn't call them essential at all. So why are they here?

This is my first time listening to Leonard Cohen, both in the project and in general. And it has probably the best lyrics I've had since I got Bob Dylan(albums #9 and #16). The soundscape is far better than Dylan, trading annoying vocals and harmonica for a spare baritone and guitar, almost reminiscent of Johnny Cash. It's extremely spare and bare-boned, with an intimate atmosphere that differs vastly from most other records. To listen to this album is an experience like few others. It's not the kind of album that impresses through big choruses or heavy riffage or jaw-dropping solos; it demands you read into the lyrics as poetry, for they are basically poetry sang over spare guitar and occasional strings/piano. This is not an album to be played constantly; it's one to sit down with and really take time to listen to. And when you do, I suspect that you will be rewarded with an experience like few others. That is one of the many markers of a great record, and the one that gives this greatness.

This is my first album from Michael Jackson in the project. I must stress that statutory rape allegations, while a massive moral stain on his legacy, do not affect the quality of his music. As for the actual music, it's stock 80s pop. You can tell that every song was designed to be a single(because they all were, except "Just Good Friends") l. It's all about catchy beats and big choruses, and Jackson delivers on this premise with aplomb. It's unabashedly mainstream and doesn't even try to hide it, but that's not inherently bad. Admittedly, the focus on soaring choruses and danceable beats does result in repetitive songs, and his infamous vocal noises can be a little off-putting. The fact remains, however, that this album is important, not because of its timelessness, but because it encapsulates its time so well. That's why it's an album to hear before you die. Not because it's a masterpiece that exists outside of time and space, but because it captures the era it was made so well.

Ok, this is my second solo album from an ex-Beatle after All Things Must Pass. Immediately, he wants me to imagine what is essentially a communist utopia in the title track. Apparently, he's also a very jealous person, which immediately contradicts the title track's promise of equality and unity. Granted, I have to give him chops for his songwriting, which is as good as you'd expect from a Beatle. Though his beliefs are questionable(read: very close to being socialist if not downright communist), he can write a good song. Maybe even an album of good songs. And that's ultimately what this whole project is about: songs. Not politics, not the divisive legacy of an artist, but songs. Though politics play a large role in this record's content, it's still a good, easily listenable record. It's not a masterpiece by any means, and it's nowhere close to peak Beatles, but it's not completely terrible.

This is my second Cure album after Disintegration. Immediately, I notice that they kept it a single album, rather than a double. It does sound a little poppier in some respects, with more hooks and less drawn-out atmospheric songs. However, it's still unmistakably a Cure album, and their trademark mournful lyricism and downbeat vocals are very much present here. Many of the songs feel somewhat drawn out despite being only 3 or 4 minutes in most cases. This is not as good as Disintegration, but it is still a solid album worth a listen.

Uh-oh. A 2000s indie rock album appears! Unlike most indie rock albums, this one is over an hour long and has some of the longest and dumbest song titles I've ever seen. What those long titles can't mask is that this sounds pretty much exactly like every 2000s indie rock album, with strings, detached vocals, and artsy lyrics. Surprisingly, however, it's actually a good album. It's not boring or annoying for the most part, which instantly puts it above most of the indie rock albums I've had so far. There is actual songwriting skill here, and the musical backgrounds are surprisingly interesting. However, it doesn't do enough to justify its length, and the interludes are just filler that could easily be removed. While it's nowhere close to the masterpiece many say it is, it's still miles ahead of, say, Elbow's The Seldom Seen Kid or even Arcade Fire's Neon Bible. If ever an album could both be good and overrated, this is it.

I heard from many reviews that this album has creepy lyrics in addition to being Britpop. They were correct- the song "Pencil Skirt" is very gross with its perverted fantasies. The vocals aren't very good at anything other than being upsetting, and the lyrics on all songs give the vibe of a certain highly undesirable kind of person. Track 4 is literally a Peeping Tom anthem on par with the Police's "Every Breath You Take", but somehow even creepier. It improves somewhat towards the middle of the album, but I'm still not sold on it being a good album. And then it goes right back to being gross with "Underwear"... I don't think this is a good album. I don't want to give it 1 star, but it grossed me out too much to be higher than a 2. So a 2 it is.

Alas, I have reached album number 200. I am familiar with Michael Kiwanuka, but not this particular album. A lot of reviews for this extoll it as a hidden gem of modern music, and it's the best-rated 2010s album on the site. And I can see why; it's a good neo-soul album. Kiwanuka has a great voice, and the songs are well written. The melodies on display are catchy and undeniably soulful, with strong lyrics for the genre. Simply put, this is a good album that more than holds it's own against classics of the genre and eats a lot of other lesser-known British music for breakfast.

Yay, another obscure British punk album! It seems this band has one well-known song("Teenage Kicks"), so I don't get why they have two albums here. As for the actual album, it is very fast and punchy punk with pop hooks and lyrics. Nothing here is above average quality, and the lyrics are very standard. Even "Teenage Kicks" is distinctly average pop-punk from the late 1970s. It is a fun enough listen, and the songs are mercifully short, but I'd be hard pressed to call it essential listening. It is, however, preferable to the very similar-sounding Elvis Costello.

I just had a self-titled folk-rock album (Fred Neil)yesterday! Come on, man! And this is the fourth album featuring Paul Simon I've had(after Bridge Over Troubled Water, Graceland, and Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, and Thyme, in that order)! I'm only 198 albums in, man! As far as the actual album, it's a pretty good folk-rock album. I actually think that this is better than Graceland, as it showcases Simon doing what he does best. And what he does best is write relatable songs for everyday people and sing them with a lovely tenor voice. That pretty much accurately describes this album, though there is some reggae influence in the opener. In the end, it's hard to go wrong with this era of Paul Simon, and this album doesn't disappoint.

Never heard of this guy. Apparently he made this and then became a total recluse... Interesting. Anyway, onto the actual album: it's mostly laid-back folk-rock. The lyrics aren't as good as I would like, but the guy's voice is pretty unique for the genre, being a country-inflected baritone rather than the usual fragile tenor. It's better produced than a Bob Dylan album, despite not having the lyrics of Dylan. I don't think this album needed an eight-minute instrumental raga rock track at the end, but then, it's the 1960s. In summary, if you like folk-rock albums with an emphasis on the musicality rather than lyrics, this is for you. If you prioritize lyrics in your folk-rock, leave this alone.

Hmm... A blues revival album from 2010. Not sure what to make of this one. And, honestly, I don't think there's much blues cred here. It sounds more like the Rolling Stones-style "white blues" in terms of songwriting quality and lyrics. However, the Stones were far more versatile than these guys. Every song sounds nearly identical to the last, with the same beat, similar riffs, and similar lyrics. It's basically if you infused landfill indie with marginal blues-rock influences, which does make landfill indie more palatable but cannot carry it to greatness. This is an OK record, but it doesn't have the great songs or do anything particularly interesting. Granted, I don't think it's bad enough to warrant a 2, so a 3 it is.

Ah, my old friend the jazz album. A few have come before my ears, but none have been able to top the heights reached by John Coltrane. This one in particular feels rather like lounge jazz. It's the kind of music you play in an upscale hotel lobby. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and the musicianship is undeniably great, but it's not very involving. While songs like "Blue Rondo A La Turk" are known for their unconventional time signatures, this album does so in a way that doesn't really feel memorable. It's good, but it just can't match the verve of Birth Of The Cool, let alone A Love Supreme. And so my quest for a jazz album better than Coltrane continues...