Reviews by james_mir

This album is much better than I remember from my teenage years. Alanis's voice is awe-inspiring, and her angry lyrics are very modern (since the emo is coming back, it's very contemporary).

I enjoyed it very much.

I tend to like Judas Priest, but I must say that with my mood today, it does not fit so well.

Good album, at least one classic of all times for the metal world but nothing so remarkable compared to other stuff on this list.

After reading Wikipedia, I'm sure this album has great potential to be classical in the future. Mainly for the band members' history and their musical qualities because I think it is pretty hard to be established in the jazz/blues/rock industry without singing in English.

It's a pretty impressive release, solid on Metallica albums history, even not the best one, in my opinion.

I think that this album lacks singles for a band like Metallica ("One" is the exception that confirms the rule), and the songs are too long.

In short, I enjoyed it very much, but it's not a 5-star.

A 60's rock album that sounds precisely as was expected for a 60's rock album.

I had already heard about Brian Eno's solo work, and this album is what I was expecting. I understand why this is one of 1001 albums to be listened to before dying, but this doesn't make it much better. I like some noise in some songs, but JUST noise is not so good.

I'll increase my rate from 1 star to 2 because it's nice to understand some musical tendencies better and, as I said, my expectations were completely fulfilled, even the worst ones.

I write almost the same for all electronic albums because it is not my favorite kind of music, with 1 or 2 exceptions until now.

This one is not an exception.

"The Velvet Underground & Nico" is an album I was afraid to listen to because of its reputation. However, it's such a classic album that I could not understand how much geniality it compresses.

Finish my listening session; I can say that it is pretty nice but also pretty typical. But, listening to it in 2022 is much different from listening to it in 1967. The album was released one year after "Pet Sounds," which means the revolution was everywhere around Velvet Underground guys. So it was "easy" to capture the moment and put it all together.

The last songs of the album, mixing some noise and raw distortion into pieces, are engaging experimentally, but even these songs do not sound so revolutionary to me. It's still a gratifying experience, and now that I'm not afraid anymore, I can search for more Velvet Underground. Some months ago, I received "White Light / White Heat" on this list, and I could not understand it. After Listening to this one, I can conclude two things:
- they weren't as revolutionary as I thought
- Not understanding it made it even better for some reason.

When I received this album Friday morning, I thought: ok, it's some ugly brother of THE "Let it Be." I was not wrong, and this was awesome.

A great piece of late punk songs (post-punk, according to Wikipedia) that made me feel like it was in the 80s. Much rawer than its shine brother album and enjoyable as hell. I'll keep an eye on other albums from "The Replacements."

4 stars

I don't get much from this album. It has some cool songs and an exciting mix of styles. I think it is pretty innovative for 1970, but it's not something that I call atemporal.

Another Scott? How many Scotts do we have on this list?

Well, I didn't get why one more album from the same artist in this case, since they are pretty similar among them. Some artists change many of their styles or lyricism from album to album, but this is not the case. It's just another Scott.

The album starts very well; the songs are likable, even psychedelic rock not being my favorite thing.

After 1st hour, the songs start to lose any sense...why I'm still listening to it?

After 2nd hour: Is this real life?

The album's end is in a melting brain by psychedelia, "space rock" (whatever that means), and poetry(?).

I got why this album is on the list, but more than 2 hours (only 2 hours?) of anything is enough to enjoy and hate that thing. Watching the live presentation looks like an authentic experience, but listening to it is just part of it and, at the most, is enjoyable. At its worst is annoying. A perfect 3-stars

I think it is impossible to say anything that everybody did not say in the past about this album.

A great piece of music history. It's awe-inspiring how much Bowie is eclectic and different among his different albums

I keep my opinion on electronic music and the excessive number of electronic albums on this list, but this one is pretty enjoyable.

"Cross" is one of the first electronic albums that are not a simple variation of the same song for 30 or 50 minutes (not the only one, fortunately).

After all, enjoying a few samples and electronic drums is not impossible.

I liked this album, but I think I liked it much more around 2010 than now. Maybe it's just a matter of my mood, but today it looked too long and repetitive for me.

This kind of unexpected album is one of the most exciting things about this list. It's far from my favorite music genre, but it's far because of my lack of knowledge of how big the world is.

I hope to keep this project for the following years, and I wish to receive more classical but even more of these different and culturally challenging albuns.

Good music, great experience.

(Unfortunately, the Wikipedia page for the album is too short, but the Youssou N'Dour page helps with it)

Some albums are classics for rational reasons, and some are just a matter of pure feeling. This one fits the second case.

After listening to some Neil Young albums on this list (apparently, he is essential for the 1001 book's authors), I confirmed that the Crazy Horse band songs are the best version of Neil Young songs. "Rust Never Sleeps" is far away better than this one, but it's still an adorable listening session.

The album is a little bit repetitive but has powerful music. I think that rock n' roll was never the same after AC/DC, which is a mark in musical history.

I liked this album, but I think that is because it is the exact kind of music that I am passionate about, but I don't consider it so different from any other thing that I have listened to before.

Apparently (according to Wikipedia), they were very influential in the early 90s, but it does not sound atemporal to me. Going deep on the band's Wikipedia page, I must say that their posture in the music business is admirable but considering only this "Repeater" album, I rate it three stars.