Reviews by similartie

I imagine when the band made this they thought they really nailed it. I can almost picture them high-fiving each other every day when leaving the studio. Then they’d each have a nice dinner before hitting the hay.

Much better than the earlier Bowie albums that have come up on this list. This is the first thing I've heard from him that sounds organic and shows a real sense of ownership. Some of the personae stripped away.

Pretty good for a solo Beatle album. The first three songs, especially, are very good. The rest of the album, while not at the same level, is still either enjoyable or interesting. I think full credit is merited from an artistic point of view.

You can add "alternative dance" to the list of genres I have zero interest in.

I'm aware of this band's status as a paragon to indie rock nerds; however, the wider listening public seems to give mixed reviews.

It wasn't as abrasive as I thought it would be. Do you get an extra star for that? Nah.

Luckily it is short, concise, and to the point.

Enjoyable listen. Norah's voice is beautiful and emotive. The band lets her run with it. Just a timeless sound.

This album would be just as successful if it came out today as it was 22 years ago.

Is this the point when folk-rock jumps the shark? Maybe. It's just so cheesy. Closer to John Denver than the Byrds, but with an odd amount of crunchy rock riffs thrown in. It's like they purposely lean in to all the worst parts of the music that inspired them.

A harbinger of so much dreadful soft-rock and slick LA schlock to come along in the 70s.

From a musicological standpoint, I have great respect for the 50s-era folk-revival musicians. From a pure musical-enjoyment perspective, there's a lot of other stuff I'd rather be listening to.

I was 13 when this album came out and the singles off this album were huge. At the time, it seems like their image was hard-edged and angry but not as dark and sludgy as grunge. For a mild-mannered midwestern-American kid, mainstream bands like Weezer and R.E.M. were much more palatable.

In retrospect, given the rise of pop-punk (which became so popular later on), this just sounds like relatively harmless west-coast punk rock. Kinda cute really.

Very nice to listen to. Amazing voice.

One of the best live albums I've ever heard. You've got Muddy, who is obviously a legend, but you also have Otis Spann and James Cotton, who might not be household names, but are two of the best ever to do what they do. Four stars only because there are better studio albums (and I prefer studio albums over live albums any day of the week).

I'm not a hip-hop guy, but this was okay. The beats were strong, the samples not overly annoying, and the "flow" was good, even if I don't care what he's saying. I'll be surprised if I give any hip-hop album higher than a three, so top marks here.

I really don't like Bowie's voice and the songs are just meh, with the obvious exceptions of Ziggy Stardust and Suffragette City. Hard to believe this album is so beloved.

When I first heard Cohen's music, I thought it was great, but for some reason I've never really felt the need to re-listen to the albums I have in my library.

This album has some great moments for sure, but there is also some stuff that is like, what? Why?

Also, I'm here for the music and don't particularly care about the "poetry."

I found the mix to be a little distracting. It sounds very pre- loudness wars.

Ultimately, I don't think this album is anything special, but I'm glad I listened to it.

Unremarkable.

Arcade Fire was lucky enough to ride the hype wave of an indie rock renaissance. The Pitchfork Era. The Ironic Hipster Era. The George W. Bush Era. It was a simpler time.

Anyway, I don't think they're that good. The music is fine here but the lead vocals are terrible.

I've heard The Suburbs and it's worse.

I really don't care for this at all.

Their rise-to-fame timeline is kind of amazing though: Form a band in 1996. Record a demo and play your first show (at a legendary venue) in 1997. Sign to a major label in 1999. Release your first album, as a fully formed band, in 2000 and then immediately sell millions and millions of records. Wild.

I dig the heavy R&B garage sound, but the band does drift into silliness and/or tedium at times: a sign of what was to come on subsequent albums.

I have to give the Captain et al credit for taking a risk though. The rock world was evolving very quickly at this time and to do an album of straight-ahead 1964-style burners wouldn't have been very innovative in 1967 — especially for anyone who anyone who had been there for Screamin' Jay Hawkins, Howlin' Wolf, Rufus Thomas, Little Richard, etc.

I had never heard of this. Terrible choice for a band name. The music was great though. Reminds me a bit of the Velvet Underground.

I put it on whilst doing something else and looked up at the playlist wondering if I was on maybe the third or fourth track and the songs were just very long; lo and behold, I was on the last track and the album was almost over instead of just hitting its stride as I expected.

Also, the only year I saw when putting it on was 2017 (the year of remaster), so I didn't actually know what year this was from until after I listened to it. I was surprised to see 1977; I would've thought later by a decade at least.