Reviews by giddy

This album contains some excellent songs, and I really enjoy Young's contributions, but I think the overwhelming country twang of it all does turn me off from it quite a bit, as stuff like those country guitars feel cheesy and stereotypical, and the rock hevay numbers are forgettable. Still when the album pulls something off, it really pulls it off. Our House is really pretty, especially.

This was far better than expected, as while I knew guitar noodling was a major part of this, I actually didn't find it to be too aimless that often. In fact, I'm super impressed this is a live album, as you could hardly tell with the thought put into some of what they did, and the theming on the first half of the album is cool. It does get a bit boring at times, especially when they decide to do more ambient noise stuff that goes on for seemingly days, and I'm not a huge fan of the singer's voice, but I still enjoyed this enough to get it up to that positive rating.

This album has the exact save issues that I have with Michael Jackson's Bad, where the production is so cheesy and dated that it really hurts a good chunk of songs as I can hear a solid base for a lot of the songs here, but the style of the time made it so every song oozes the same gratituous-ness that seeped from every 80s pop record. I suppose this was a tiny bit before that production style really took off into the stratosphere in the late 80s, but that doesn't make it any less out of touch by modern standards. I think Tina Turner's voice does carry this project mostly, as while it isn't anything I adore, it's aged in a way on here where it feels mature and natural, but at the end of the day this feels like an album to make money for all parties involved, and it sure did.

Oh no, not more blues influenced rock for middle aged dudes... I mean, this one was okay, but even the iconic track La Grange didn't feel like anything special here once it just started having rambling guitar, which seems to be what every track here devolves into. This felt more like strutting down the street than biking down the interstate, and I mean that as a positive, but it is certainly clear why this band as a whole is more iconic than most of the tracks they produced, let alone a whole album.

This is a chore to listen to, with its extremely boring musicality, Neil's less than enjoyable singing, and just the utter "whatever"-ness of it all. I was coasting through most of this album thinking it could scrape by with a two star, but the second (!) ten minute song on the album really broke me, with just a complete lack of joy coming from within. This is music made to appeal to the most trivial of stereotypes from the era, and the fact that this has been lumped in with grunge for years now is a sin. This is dad rock, through and through, and while I absolutely love Young's On the Beach, this is nothing similar to that at all, and is much worse off for it. Maybe its Crazy Horse's fault? I'll have to keep that in mind when listening to his other albums.

This album has a great, energetic start that got me invested right away, but the next few tracks seem to repeat the same song and dance (musically) with only some tracks bringing it back into the limelight throughout. There's also great topic discussed here ruined by songs about Ice Cube getting his dick wet, and its mostly distracting. Just a very down the middle album that I give the more positive spin due to not playing itself overly long, cutting itself off at a reasonable time, which I really appreciate.

I knew when I saw the word "blues" and the name "Eric Clapton" I was going to not be a fan of this, and despite a somewhat strong opening, I was right. Every song reads as the same boring, repetitive, misappropriation of a genre I already don't care for, and every time I had a hint of joy stem from the music it was because the song happened to be short and ended. I mean, Clapton isn't as big of a part of this as I thought he was, but that doesn't mean I still don't find his guitar picking to be dull and the songs to all feel the same. It got to the point where I was pretty much numb to everything this album threw at me, and not even clocking in at forty minutes and still getting that feeling is mighty impressive. Was this a big part of the British blues scene and Clapton's career? Perhaps, but that doesn't instantly make it good, in fact I'd argue we're all worse off for it.

This is that stereotypical-Elvis sound that I was surprised wasn't super prevalent in his debut, but that is hardly a good thing. I find this album to be boring most of the time, with the changing sounds of including jazzier instrumentation to be predictable rather than something daring from the pop star. Perhaps were I alive in 1960 and heard the changing sounds I'd be like "holy shit!" but instead I feel like I'm hearing what everyone else hears when the name "Elvis" is muttered.

This was almost exactly what I expected it to be. Bloopy reggae jams that are criminally inoffensive, but generally boring. There is harmonies and stuff I like here, as they remind me of some great 50s and early 60s doo-wop, but otherwise this is stereotypical. Sure, albums like this had to be a thing for this sound to be stereotypical, but that doesn't make it any less so to a modern set of ears.

It's interesting to get some Britpop obviously inspired by Marc Bolan, that isn't a usual suspect when it comes to this genre. There are other influences here, obviously, but I'm glad this album chose the whisper-y sounds of Pulp rather than the whining of Oasis when it comes to Britpop, as it makes it so I love the sound of this album so much more. It's all jangly and earnest without being boring, and I like the lyrics, they're suprisingly engaging. This is literally right next to being a five star, but I think it just needs that next little push to be something amazing. Until then, I am very intrigued by this band, and will be keeping them in mind for future reference. This is on the good side of britpop.

This feels definitively like a "rock" album, what someone out there thinks is the peak of the genre, despite sounding extrem safe and predictable by modern standards. All your usual suspects are here, guitar solos that really aren't that memorable, far too long drum solos, and of course a whole section introducing people in the band as if those listening to the album can see them. Is there stuff here that caught me by surprise? Sure, and of course songs like The Boys Are Back in Town have earned their place in the rock 'n' roll hall of fame, but there isn't enough here to stand out as one of the great live albums to me, and when I realize there are some blatant live picks over this one, I scratch my head even more. Not bad, just generic.

I was really hoping I'd like this album a lot more than I did, with the first song having me hopeful with its stranger than expected synths, and obviously the powerhouse of a hit that is Sweet Dreams, but by the end of the album I found myself mostly just being a passive listener, not engaged positively or negatively, just listening. I'd say it is mostly just forgettable, an all too common occurrence with synthpop, I've come to learn. All the stars align for Eurythmics to have an album somewhere in their discography I like, but as of this review, it remains to be heard.

I have to admit that some of this rating is based on nostalgia, as my dad absolutely loves Pearl Jam and this album, so I know each of these songs at least a little bit, but I still think this is a rather good release. Sure, Eddie Vedder sometimes sounds intelligible, but it feels so raw and honwst that it really works on tracks like Black and Yellow Ledbetter (not on this album) so I can't help but like it. Perhaps were I coming in fresh this would be a three, but I think this is a grand enough time to warrant the higher score.

Unfortunately, I really wanted to like this more, as it felt like every single song had gripped me right away, but only a couple tracks held on to me the whole way through the song. It's all definitely "good," but it also feels of its era, just being critical darling-indie rock, and feels predictable in a modern lens. Perhaps had I heard this when it released I'd be singer higher praises, but instead it is just okay.

I'm thinking that I don't like The Who, as it feels, just like the Rolling Stones, they're trying to appeal to more American-like musical styles all the time, rather than developing their own ideas, and it just gets annoying. I mean, I really can't stand the singing here, with all the repeating and stuttering here, and I only like it when it feels as though it isn't so self-indulgent. Plus, for thirty something minutes, this drags. The final track trying to be some mega-wild instrumental comes off as more self indulgent than something cool, and again, this just annoys me. Actually, this album really annoys me. All the music here is just exactly the type of music I dislike from the mid-60s-era. I mean, Rubber Soul came out this year, and in comparison, this is a real drag, man. I was going to go with a two, but writing this review made me realize how little there is I like here. A couple okay tracks don't make up for songs that actively make me angry.

This is an album that just makes you feel sad. It's a hollow feeling, but in a good way, which I don't know if I've experienced in an album before. It just is so obvious Drake is going through something terrible, and over fifty years later you can't do anything but sit there and listen to his sorrows. It still has this melancholic feeling to it which could make you feel perhaps more uplifted, but like getting gut punched by a flower. It really helps that the album is short, because it does get a bit repetitive, just being Drake and his guitar, but it still is the perfect representation of what folk music would be going through in the coming years, and Nick Drake was just too ahead of the curb to know it. Fantastic record, and a folk magnum opus.

An underrated thing that this generator has led me to being able to do is understanding a bit more when an album has bad (or "bad") production. That doesn't mean I understand why people would say such a thing all the time, but I can wrap my head around it most of the time. Metallica is no stranger to this accusation, famously with the drums on St. Anger (which if you can't hear the issue with those things after a few moments of listening you're deaf) and today's album, ...And Justice for All. I mean, it certainly isn't as bad as that album, but where is any of the oomph with this album? It just feels so stringy with nearly no bass in sight, and it can come off as hollow. Does that stop the album from having good tracks? No, the opener is great, and One is basically Metallica's Stairway to Heaven, but a lot of the remaining tracks get repetitive with nothing to really set them apart, as you get the same guitar-drum shtick with each song, and the length of the album despite only having nine tracks just means it's all the more noticeable. I love the inclusion of an acoustic guitar in this album, it really helps break up the monotony, but they seem scared to even toy with the idea of a full song of something more mellow, and I understand why, but that's what makes it hard to stomach too much Metallica at once for me. I do sound overly negative here, as I tend to when I have glaring issues with an album, but this is still a solid metal album from the band, with tracks I do think deserve their iconic status. I just struggle to give this more than a more middle of the road ranking, when I know bands like Anthrax and Megadeth will do far better ranking wise once I get them on here.

This is weird because it feels like Chuck D got warped into a group that is just slightly different than Public Enemy. I don't mind this though, it has enough variation in it at points to be an easy enough listen, even if some of the topics feel very, VERY 90s. I'd be curious to see what happened after this album for this group, as I see high potential, but they unfortunately only made this, and I can't be bothered to check the lead guy's solo stuff.

The uncle saga continues, with this album also being an unexpected solid heavy metal release that I definitely underestimated in passing. Perhaps not as good as the debut, in my opinion, but this still definitively rocks, and I really need to open myself up to more Iron Maiden, especially when fans don't even consider either of the inclusions here the best the group has to offer.

This is very close to a one star, but the more America-like moments (the band America, I mean) keep it above the water for me, and the final song is at least something different, actually feeling like that "rock" and "funk" he was talking so much about earlier on the album. But those country tracks, and especially those blues tracks? Man, those SUCKED. Just hanging on by a thread, but can't in good faith give it a one.