Reviews by giddy

I'm usually not a fan of country music, and in my opinion the 80s were when the genre really started pushing that "country pop" I oh so loathe. However, Dolly Parton is a treat of a person, so I won't dismiss this instantly.

While the harmonies and vocals were impressive, the album left a lot to be desired. At best, it was pretty okay but less than notable country music, but it often dipped into either hard to enjoy 50s era country, or was very generic 80s country, the exact that I figured I would not enjoy. There is enough here to keep it out of the one star, but I see nothing here to make this album notable, save for vocals that are outdone by other singers or Parton herself on this very list.

Well, this was an interesting listen for sure. I'm usually not a fan of the random garage rock esque playing of the more Avant Garde style of music, but there was certainly stuff here that I enjoyed. The story of "The Gift" kept me legitimately enthralled for the whole eight minutes, and stuff like John Cale's voice was very enjoyable, which was surprising after really only knowing Lou Reed from this band. I mean, this has a lot of issues, definitely, so don't mistake my praise for enjoyment, a seventeen minute song is almost always unnecessary, and this was no different, and not much was actually notable, like a case of trying to be too artsy with no real direction, but I could definitely see the enjoyment here. Gotta give it right down the middle, but I will admit this is perhaps my closest to the four stars of all my three stars? I'll have to fact check that for myself, but it seems right to say.

I always had this visual of Jimi Hendrix that was endless guitar solos and pretty so-so lyrics, but after this, I was blown away. When the (pretty much) first song comes on and it's soulful the way it was, and then songs afterwards kept being different genres with their own flaire, it was just consistently enjoyable. It was a bit long winded at points, dragging the score down a little, but I'm now even more excited for the other Hendrix offerings on the list.

Well, that wasn't as bad as I was expecting my second Costello album, with me originally thinking one was enough, but this still wasn't anything special. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's alright, or it wouldn't be getting three stars, but I really don't see what some see in this album. Just was boring most of the time and a lot of the good bits were a bit covered up. Only saving grace is it feels a bit more like its own thing, where I can see where someone may start to say "I like Costello because of this!", but not totally for me. Would rate lower, but I'm feeling nice, I guess. Very low three stars.

I sure as Hell won't become THIS kind of uncle. I draw the line here.

This is kind of weird to listen to after just listening to this same man coming to terms with death just a few weeks ago, so the whiplash of this 80's cheese is a little goofy. Certainly not bad, but hard to get into, as the words don't much the artificial sounding music, unlike the guitar playing of earlier albums or orchestra of later. I have to give credit that a lot of similar singers were struggling in the 80's, such as Bob Dylan, but perhaps if I looked at these albums of Cohen's all as purely poetry they would all be equals.

Man, this really is just an "Ocean of Noise", huh? Really not good, and the addition of a member being an assaulter? Man, easy to hate this. It's pretty funny that this bad mix of Mumford & Sons and Modest Mouse is on here three times, yet nothing by either is on here. Not that I'm dying for Mumford & Sons to be on here, but all this feels like to me is indie rock with too much of a budget.

Why is this marked as Country and that's all? There's a lot more going on here than that. This was pretty good otherwise. The starting songs were easily the best of the album, with some more good songs peppered throughout, but still pretty solid, was expecting to dislike this more than I did, though. It has this feeling of "meh" resonating from it.

Other than their first album, this was the only Simon & Garfunkel album that I knew nothing from going in, so I was intrigued going in to see what I would get. This is the first album in their discography on this list, so I was also intrigued to see why this made it over Sounds of Silence. In the end I think this a pretty good album with some snags. There is quite a bit of variety for something from '66, and there is quite a bit to enjoy. I think some songs here are just not very notable. Other songs, such as the final song, are very strong sounding, but aren't something I imagine wanting to go back to. Overall I enjoyed my time and will be giving this a light four. You can think of it more as a 3.5 if that helps you sleep at night, if my score seems more positive than my review.

I'm not really sure what my issue was all that time ago when I first listened to this album, but I remember thinking it was generic britpop and moving on with my day, but re-listening I like this a lot more. I can here the Bowie comparisons pretty clearly, there's a decent amount of catchy moments here, and it isn't overly long, which I appreciate. It isn't anything mind-blowing, nor would I call it on par with the glam rock golden age, but this is a solid time with some tracks I would happily listen to again. Gonna give this another spin sometime, perhaps I'll gravitate to it even more.

An absolutely amazing voice that is sadly restricted by some pretty generic songs from the era. Certainly not bad music, but it's hard to really get into music that if anything sounds like something from the late fifties. It's a shame, because there are some musical hints of greatness and definitely would've evolved had there been time to do so.

I recently saw someone call Foo Fighters "surprisingly safe radio rock" which I assume stems from the prior band Dave Grohl was apart of sounding not too similar to what Foo Fighters outputs. However, I would say it makes complete sense if you look at the music Grohl actually chooses to engage with. He may play the drums more intensely than the average band, but the man cried about the newest ABBA album, so I think he's a bit more sensitive than just "the heavy drummer should only make the heavy music". I know sensitive is a silly word to use, but you can kind of feel it here, since this album was pretty much solely made with the intention of being a sort of therapy after Kurt Cobain's passing. I think later Foo Fighters could get away with being called generic rock, but I think there's enough here for this to seem like a genuine effort. Having songs like "Weenie Beenie" sound the way they do gives off a Nirvana-esque energy, and having something like For All the Cows just two songs later, which is a completely different style tells me it's at least not all generic. I will admit there are some songs here that go in one ear and out the other, but I think this is more than just a pay check trying to be made.

Seemingly not available on my streaming service of choice, so YouTube it is!

How is this hardcore punk album, something that is supposed to be pretty "out there", one of the most nothing albums I've gotten? It didn't even give me the honor of being short like some punk albums, just kind of being normal album length. I mean, this wasn't awful, but it sure was what it was trying to be and nothing more. I understand why it's on the list, but... yeah.

I'd like to think I like Run-D.M.C, but considering many of their songs I have are from later albums, so I was cautiously excited for this album. Sadly, a good chunk of this album is a little hollow sounding, with lots of empty space and the flow of the rapping often being choppy. Obviously that's because it was very early in the genre, and I respect it heavily for that, but albums only a couple of years later in the genre don't have that issue. There are a couple songs without this issue, such as Rock Box, but then the other issue is the length, with most of the songs opting for an instrumental for long periods of time, or just ending when it should. This is close to something that's good, but the cheesy lyrics on top of all of that makes it something I'm not crazy about.

Often when listening a song would start really strong, with all the instruments hitting pretty hard and grtting you pumped, and then that mope-y voice would start singing. It's certainly not a bad voice, but it feels so dainty that it takes a way a lot of energy that the songs often try and have. Obviously there are songs that work around this, with stuff like the Scientist being actually pretty good, but most of the time it almost goes for this sound with a "get up and fight" attitude yet no actual punch, and Clocks is just awful, but that's definitely due to overplaying and it just being plain boring.

The worst parts of The White Stripes (which are rare) combined with the whiney-ness and "not knowing when to stop a song"-isms of Marilyn Manson to create an album that started out already at a two star and just got worse and worse. I had decided one star by the time we got to the nine minute song that was just a combination of the song before and after it for a twenty minute "epic" that just was repetitive and boring. Perhaps this should be a two because none of this was awful, per se, but as my partner taught me: if you find yourself turning the music DOWN as it goes on, it probably isn't your thing.

A natural progression of the Beatles formula, and in my opinion the first time you can hear what is to come with albums like Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, etc. It's interesting how all over this album can be quality wise. Like, there's songs like Michelle and Girl, which while being very much like older Beatles songs, feel like a deeper understanding of that style of music. You also have songs like Drive My Car and The Word that really just feel generic and boring. Finally you have songs like Norwegian Wood and In My Life that sound like what's to come more than anything. It's just a situation where for every bad song there's three great songs, but those bad songs still sour the music, leaving to be unable to grasp that five star rating. Still a must listen for that transition period, and still has some fantastic songs (Girl being in my top three Beatles songs), but every Beatles album has good songs.

You know, after the name of the artist and the album itself, not to mention the slightly off-putting album cover, I was expecting a much more hard to listen to album than the one I got. This was a pretty joyful album all things considered, and while a lot of it was background noise, it was pretty enjoyable music. Perhaps this is heightened musically on something like LSD, but it's still pretty nice without it. Nothing amazing, and a lot of it forgettable, but I don't regret listening. I suppose just throw it in with other 90's electronica.

This is a weird mix of pretty generic meh 60's rock and some absolutely great songs, such as Thoughts and Words. I was expecting this to be a little more country than it was, which was a nice change of pace, but I'm going to have to be reasonable and say that the album overall was pretty mixed, earning a three star. Seriously though, Thoughts and Words rivals the Beatles in quality.

Extremely strong start with the first few songs being all absolutely great, but the spark does seem to find a bit in the middle to near the end, with Mamunia Picasso's Last Words being pretty boring. However, the final song is a pretty great bop and ends the album on a high enough note to ensure a four star. This album was very good, but I still wish Ram was the Linda and Paul project that made it to this list.