Reviews by moysauce08

This started off really strong and I thought I was in for a hidden treat. While it isn't a terrible album, I just didn't find it particularly good either.
For a first album (and for a first listen to this particular artist), there's potential for good songs probably throughout her discography.

I honestly felt like this album flew by. Which I guess is a good thing. Honestly I can probably listen to this album on repeat and it'd still be a fun listen. Even their "worst songs" from this album aren't even bad. They got their own style and rhythm.

Add on top of that their singles from this record, "Dancing Queen", "Fernando", "Money, Money, Money" are all incredibly good and featured everywhere.

To me, there's absolutely no reason to not give this album 5 stars.

I have a love-hate relationship with RHCP. I love their singles, as does most people. They're catchy, groovy, just overall really, really well made. Then they have their B-Sides, which are usually just straight up terrible. It's almost like they make 3 songs, and then just mess around for the rest of the music on the album.

That said, Flea is still one of the greatest bassists around, Chad Smith is an incredibly underrated drummer, John Frusciante has such a unique style to his playing that you can definitely hear a difference when he's not involved with the band. Lastly, Anthony Kiedis is a character. He writes completely nonsensical lyrics that make absolutely no sense, I don't think I've ever seen him with a shirt on, and he sings in a voice that's so easily accessible to the audience that it's incredibly easy to sing along to.

Overall, an incredible band with incredible singles throughout the many years they've been around. As for this album as a standalone art piece, I'll give it a 3.

Man, I did not like this album. Even the saxophone got old once I realized it was in almost every song. It was his voice more than anything that bothered me.

Call me a hater, call me a liar, disagree with me because I know that Bruce Springsteen is a beloved figure, but I really did not like this album, musically.

Never heard this band before, and I stank-faced when the rapper came in on the first track. Came out of nowhere and I was totally not expecting it at all.

What a unique album. I've never heard anything like it. There's so much to unpack here with influences from latin music, Indian music, hip-hop... honestly a one-of-one kind of album.

Honestly, I like A LOT of this album. And I need to save it and show it to others.

4/5

There are times throughout this album that I thought was good. What I appreciate about David Bowie is that he never does too much with his music. In this album though, I could definitely hear him struggling in some of the vocal parts. At 60 (I believe he was this old when he recorded this album), I can't expect someone to have the same voice as when they were 20-30-40.

My overall feel of the album, I think I'd give it a 3

I took some time to digest this album. It's your typical 50's diner jukebox music that is cool to listen to as a time capsule. I enjoyed my time with it, and I wouldn't "kick it out of bed for eating crackers" if I had to listen to it again.

I actively did not like this album. I kept looking at the song list and thinking "is it over yet?" The first 2 songs started off okay, and I thought "Maybe I was wrong about Blur". Nope. Same opinion.

What would this be equivalent to in North America, since this is considered "Brit-pop"? Green Day? Third Eye Blind? Or is more along the lines of Nirvana, Soundgarden? Anyway, this is a terrible album.

A foot tapper, a finger snapper, a wood whacker, and a pea packer. All of these are very good descriptive words while listening along with Miles Davis. The foot just kept going...at least for the first song....

I thought it would keep that vibe going but it definitely slowed down. It got to a point where I wanted to move on from the songs. It's sad really, I really wanted to enjoy this album more, but I just didn't.

Maybe I just had high expectations because David Bowie, but this album didn't really hit. Nothing really caught my ear throughout the whole thing. It was the middest of mid albums.

This was an interesting listen, and a change from the music we normally get from this list. It really got me thinking about Wild West movies and Red Dead Redemption 2 (still need to finish that game) and thought it'd be cool to listen to this while playing that game.

I don't think I'll ever listen to this again, and I don't think I'd ever have a desire to play any of this music again (apart from what I mention above). It wasn't really good, but like I said, it was interesting.

I'm sure it had its place in history. But it doesn't translate to today very well.

I’ve been trying to make sense of this album. I liked it a lot, but it was also kind if forgettable at the same time?

It’s smooth, it’s fun at times, it’s easy to listen to. Like I said, I liked it a lot. But why can’t I recall any of the rhythms in my head? Nothing stood out as a “wow” moment.

The best way I can describe it would be, “great background music”.

Yeah it was another rolling stones album. I've come to have an expectation now as I listen to them as I think this the 3rd or 4th album I've listened to so far from this list.
It's still a decent album with some great singles that start and end the album. Everything in between was okay. I'm just ready to roll on from the stones to something else.

The more I listen to old school punk, the more I realize that I don't like old school punk. It feels like how others feel about metal music and screaming, I just don't get it. Not for me. I was glad it was over so that I can move on with my day.

During Birdland, my wife said "This sounds like a goat. The album is called Horses? Is she trying to mimic one? maahhhhhh (mimic goat sound)"

I thought this album was pretty cool! Very easy to listen to, fun songs throughout. I liked the guitars, the rhythm, basically everything. By the end of the album, I wanted to listen to more Steely Dan.

This album is okay, I have no qualms about it apart from it being boring. But I'm honestly tired of using that word to describe folk music. The guitar was pretty good throughout, so I liked that. I definitely don't think the album is worthy of a 2, so...

I didn't really know what to expect from Blur. I know them for 1 song, "Song 2" and I've tried to listen to some of their other stuff and I wasn't a huge fan. Basically, that's how I felt about this album too. It's just not exciting, it's not innovative, it just kind of exists. I think if someone said they liked this album, I'd understand, but I'd just disagree.

I knew of Frank Zappa, however, I was not familiar with his music. This was a pretty cool album. I hated the singing, I wish the whole thing was instrumental. Kind of reminds me of a really watered down King Crimson. Yeah I didn't know what to expect going into this, and the album art is really weird and doesn't really give a good image to the music at all. Nice Jazz-Rock fusion, right up my alley. However, not quite a 4 star album

It's crazy to me that music from 1968 can still hold up today. Aretha Franklin is truly one-of-a-kind. Literally every song on this album is awesome. Even "Niki Hoeky" which is the least listened to song from this album is still fantastic.
Subjectively, would I return to this album? Maybe? Maybe not? It's not something I'd listen to every day. Objectively, it meets all the criteria of being a 5 star album. Every song is good, great stand-out singles, highly influential, there's really nothing wrong with this album.

After listening to the first song, I thought I wasn't going to like this album. But giving it a chance and listening to it all the way through, I caught myself liking a lot of the album. Way more than I initially thought.

I can't believe they used (I think) a train whistle in one of their songs. I had to rewind because I couldn't believe what I heard. Anyway, yeah, it was cool.