Reviews by jaileer5

Honestly, I didn't expect to like this album very much, but it's a really interesting album that gets better as it goes on (or as you get used to it). Lots of batshit insane lyrics, but also a lot of really interesting sounds and layering of sounds. I don't necessarily think this will be an album I reach for very often, but I enjoyed it. 4.5 stars.

I really dislike the extremely high-pitched, excess vibrato shit that seems like it was all the rage in the 1960s hippie movement. But it's enshrined in the Library of Congress, so whatever. Probably 2.5. There's clearly something here, it's just *really* not my thing.

I was quite annoyed by this album until I looked at it differently and recalibrated my expectations. It's catagorized as rock, and if you're expecting a rock and roll album, well, this sucks. But once I took a step back and realized that this is more of a glam album, that it's "rock" in the same way that Queen is "rock," it became much more palatable.

And by listening to the album with that perspective, it went from "pretty crap" to "pretty OK."

It’s actually pretty damned good. Lots of sounds I don’t expect to hear in a 60s album. At some point a they sound like a Beatles rip-off, and some times they sound like a mid-2000s classic rock resurgence band in the vein of The Vines or The Strokes. It’s criminal we don’t have half stars for this project. This is a solid album, 3.5 stars.

It's a punk album. It's probably slightly better than most, but punk isn't exactly known for nuance.

Sometimes, something is so beautiful you get out of the way and let it speak for itself.

Ugh. I anticipate this will suck.

OK, it didn't suck. It's actually pretty decent for a 60s hippie album. 3 stars, did not hate.

Fine, I guess? The "humor" of it is lost on me, but whatever.

This album is painfully early 90s girl power indie pop rock. Less of an "edge" than Fiona Apple or PJ Harvey, but almost indistinguishable from Cheryl Crow, Melissa Etheridge, or Natalie Imbruglia.

So is it good? Well, it's not *my* cup of tea. There are some catchy songs, in an early 90s poppy sort of way. It veers dangerously close to country a few times with some shitty slide guitar, but overall, it doesn't make me angry.

Yet another album that isn't bad, per se, but I cannot understand why it made it into this project. 2.5 stars.

A bit worried about this. The Apple Music review blurb includes the line, "Often considered the first part of a trilogy that features Starless and Bible Black and Red, Larks’ is arguably the toughest for new fans to process...". Oh boy.

Welp. That was great. Like, really, really great. I'm a fan of prog, but I'm not the biggest fan of 70s rock. So even though I've known forever that King Crimson is considered one of the founding fathers of progressive rock, I've actually never heard anything by them. This album makes me realize how much I've been missing. Is it for everyone? Of course not. It's primarily instrumental, and the vocals aren't really that great. But in terms of listening to an album with historical relevancy, I'd say this fits the bill way more than yesterday's SECOND Christina Aguilera album.

This truly is one of the albums that one should listen to before they die. 4.5 stars.

Once again, I have to preface this by saying she is a very gifted singer. Now that that acknowledgment is out of the way: Why in the fuck would we possibly need to hear TWO Christina Aguilera albums before we die? But there are no Tool albums. Cool.

This album is painfully late 90s/early 00s pop. Along with Justin Timberlake, I think Aguilara is the biggest offender of the white artist "blaccent" phenomenon in pop music during that time. And if you listen to her interviews, she doesn't speak that way normally, only in her albums. Which leads me to another annoyance - the talking bullshit during songs. It's not a phone convo, Chrissy, just sing, thanks.

Look, This album sounds like it was produced by Timbaland (I'm too lazy to look it up), which is to say, there are bits where it's quite catchy. But are we breaking any new ground here? Is it an album that was influential in any way, or contributed to the art form in any way? I'm not a pop historian, but I'd imagine not. I think talent-wise, Christina Aguilera has the singing ability Brittany Spears could only dream about. For better or worse, however, her cultural impact was primarily as Brittany's foil, and that's just not enough to elevate her or her music beyond anything other than an historical footnote.

Well, it kind of sucks. It sounds like some grungy kids decide to kind of do grunge, and kind of do country. There are a couple good songs on this album, but those are pretty much the songs that Nirvana covered.

It's a weird thing to rate a Dead Kennedys album higher than a Method Man album, but here we are. This is a pretty good album, but definitely not a special album. There are a couple very good songs and no terrible songs; it's a perfectly cromulent 90s Hip Hop album. We need half stars. 3.5

I don't generally like punk music, but I like this very much. The lead singer is awful, but compelling. This album, as the kids say, fucks.

Damn good album. Fishbone is criminally underrated.

Does it sound a little dated? Yes. Does it sound dated from the greatest era in rock history? Also yes.

I actually quite liked this, but it's ANOTHER example of why this thing needs half stars. Yesterday I got a madonna album that I rated 3 stars because I didn't hate it, but would have rated 2.5 stars if I could have. Today I get this, and I'll probably rate it 3 stars but I would rate it 3.5 if I could. It's a whole star difference, but they're going to get the same rating. That's insane.

Not for me. I'm not sure why this album is here, it doesn't sound particularly fresh, or interesting, or new, or influential. In fact, it sounds quite the opposite. It sounds like Madonna chasing the new trends instead of the reverse like earlier in her career.

It's catchy, in a way, but it really sounds like an aging superstar clinging to relevance. 2.5 stars

It's very OK. Even bordering on pretty damned good at points. I never really connected to Pavement, what little I heard of them, but it was different than I expected. Very much a bridge between punk and indie/alternative/shoegaze. Sort of like Weezer before Weezer - and with a much harder edge. Also they don't suck as hard as Weezer.

3.5 stars.

It took until today for me to understand why people rate Black Sabbath so highly. This album is incredible. It is the foundation upon which heavy music has been built on. I don't even think any of their famous songs are on this one, and it's still sublime!

This album is why lists like these exist.