Reviews by syrinx

I'm surprised at how short this album is for being released in 2001. That was right in the midst of the whole 'a CD will fit 80 minutes of music so our album needs to be 23 songs long' thing. Good or bad, I don't know. Just something that I thought about.
I like this album but I don't think it's particularly special. A couple of solid radio hits, some filler. But most of it is really just kind of...there. I mean I'm not really even sure what specific complaints I would have about it, it just doesn't really do it for me. Turns out the 36 minute play time is pretty much exactly right for this one so maybe they knew what they were doing. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood for this today though. 3/5

I don't know this album but after reading a few reviews and the Wikipedia page, I really want to like it.
I don't hate this. I do kind of like of it. I don't know how to explain why this is different from that damn Trout Mask album, but it is. And it's much better. Someone said about Trout Mask that they listened while working out and now look like a cubist painting. If you did that with this album you'd look like a Paul Klee painting instead. Similar, but a different flavor and more specific. And I mean good on these guys for making this record in the 70s, way ahead of it's time for sure. I'm sure Les Claypool had this on repeat as a teenager. Some of it sounds like a soundtrack to some kind of weird psychological thriller or sci-fi movie. I feel like as weird as it is, you have to listen to it a couple times to really get it. I mean I'd give this 4 stars just for being one of the most interesting records I've heard. But you know what? I'm giving this one a 5/5. It's so weird in the best way. If it was any longer I might not rate it as high but for a quick 35 minutes, it's great.

I've always been lukewarm on Peter Gabriel, and really Genesis too. But I think one thing I've learned since I started this project is that I like both better than I thought. This is number 3 from Perter Gabriel for me and I like this one much more than the other two. It's still not a fantastic record to me but I do enjoy it. I like how varied it is. How you can see some of the old Genesis there but also see the direction he really wanted to move. It's orchestral, jazzy, bluesy, experimental. It may be disjointed but I kind of like that. 3.8/5 and I think I would buy this one if I ever came across it at the record shop.

I've never heard of this one before but it seems like it could be interesting and might be perfect for a rainy day like today.
I ended up liking this album more than I thought I would at first. The second half really picks up. It gets a little funkier and less just slow folky acoustic songs. She has a great voice and the production on this record is pretty decent. The drums are a little loud in the mix but I don't mind that at all because they are wonderfully played. Really fun to listen to the drummer. Someone in another review said she sounds like Cher and I can't get that out of my head now, she does sound like Cher. I could do without the steel guitar, that's an instrument that I hate 90% of the time its used. But overall I enjoyed this one today. I don't think it's particularly groundbreaking or innovative but it's a solid album. 3.25/5

This album would be better if it was a little more varied. I like some of what they're doing but it's just too much of the same idea. Even the tempo is mostly the same throughout the whole record. But definitely deserving of a place on this list as one of the first albums in the genre. It was certainly a bit different from anything else at the time and inspired a lot that followed. I'm not sure I would really play this album that much but every now and then it would get a spin. Rating is a little hard because I feel like 3 isn't enough but at the same time I hate to round up to 4 because I don't think it's quite there. I'm calling it a solid 3.5/5 and I suppose I'll round down since I have to go one way or the other.

Apparently I listened to this at some point because I have Mona saved in my liked songs on Spotify. Or more likely I just heard that song randomly and liked it. I'm not a huge fan of jam bands but I do like long songs with multiple movements so we'll see how this goes.
Yeah so this is not that, this is definitely jam band and not well thought out and executed compositions. The first side drags a little and really falls off towards the end before picking back up a bit. But still, you can only hear the same people play the same phrases and pentatonic scales for so long before you're bored of it. Side two is pretty much just a continuation of side one. Nothing new is introduced and there is a ton of dead space. You could condense this whole album down to a 7 minute song and it would be a better use of time. I suppose this is on the list because it's representative of psychedelic jam bands from the 60s but I don't think I would listen to this one again. 2.25/5

This is #3 from Elvis Costello for me and I agree with all the 'there are too many Costello albums on this list' comments. Surely 6 albums from him is unnecessary. I like Elvis Costello just fine, parts of this album in particular. I've always loved Peace, Love, and Understanding and today learned that song was a cover. I always thought Costello wrote it. You learn something new every day. That song is clearly the standout on this record, the rest is just kind of listenable. I could really do without it. I mean it's Elvis Costello, that's all that really needs to be said. 3/5

I’ve always loved Alice Cooper. He inspired so much of the music that came after, even if only tangentially. Alice Cooper certainly has his schtick but he owns it and does it very well. Yes it’s campy and corny sometimes but it’s fun. And that’s all it is meant to be. And he was a great performer. Still is really and he’s got to be mid 70s now.
I don’t remember when I first heard this album but I know it was one of the first records I listened to that was different from what my parents played all the time. Must have been like 5th grade or so, so it had been around for like 25 years already at that point but I still loved it. I love the bass on this record. Is this a five star album? I don’t think so but I’m giving it a solid 4.25/5

I'm kind of puzzled by this album. He's got a good voice, but it's like a 'guy you hired in 1987 to be your wedding singer that is actually talented but, like, local medium sized midwestern town talented and for some reason thinks he can be Frank Sinatra' kind of good voice. He's not really a crooner. He does this weird vibrato thing, especially on low notes, that is really distracting. It's like he heard Sinatra do it a couple of times and was like 'ok that's how I'm supposed to sing' and based his whole approach on that. It's not a bad album but not one I would listen to again. I'm actually a little disappointed, I thought I liked Scott Walker better than this but perhaps this isn't the most representative record to judge him. 2.5/5

Who doesn't love Sweet Dreams? Fantastic song. And I don't think I've ever heard this whole album so I'm excited to change that today. Seems like a good day for some 80s electro new wave.
Annie Lennox can really sing, that's for sure. What a great voice she has. This album is really fun. It's not a style I typically enjoy but it is a really great album and I liked listening to it a lot today. I think Sweet Dreams is clearly the standout but there are some other great songs here as well. Jennifer is great, I've Got An Angel is great. I had actually heard more of this than I thought but not all in one sitting. This is a great example of some of the good things that 80s electro pop had to offer and I would probably pick this up if I saw it at the record shop. 4/5

Another album that I've seen a million times but have never listened to. Usually that's with good reason. I'm not exactly an electronic pop fan so we'll see how this goes.
This album is really thin sounding. Like there is no bottom end at all really. It's kind of surprising because one of the sort of signature things in electronic music is strong bass and that is totally missing here. Maybe not totally but in general I could have used a bit more low end. But this is an amazingly generic record. I finished it about an hour ago and can't recall any of the songs which is really strange. I won't be listening to this one again. 2/5

Everyone knows Randy Newman right away, probably one of the most recognizable singing voices of all time. But I don't ever really think of Randy Newman as someone that I would listen to on purpose. It's sort of hard to listen to Randy Newman's actual records because I associate him so strongly with film. But damn can this man write a song, he's an impeccable lyricist. Off topic but remember the concept album he did about Faust? I took a Faust class in college and we listened to it. Very strange but worth a listen.
I really liked this record, much more than I thought I would. There's something sort of inherently calming about Randy Newman's voice. You listen to the lyrics and it's maybe not quite as calming all the time but it's still a great listen. I never really thought much about Randy Newman outside of film scores, but I enjoyed this album a lot. 4/5

I feel like 4 records from The Kinks is too much for a list like this. At least it's 4 for me so far, there can't be any more can there? But it seems weird that they wouldn't have the self titled album that contains their two most famous songs, maybe not counting Lola. Anyway, from this record I've heard Sunny Afternoon, but I'm not sure about the rest.
This album sounds like if you mixed the Beatles with Simon and Garfunkel but it's not as good as either. It's pretty straightforward 60s British pop rock, it's good but hasn't really stood the test of time. Great drums on this record though a d for whatever reason the drums sound amazing. Like you can hear the snare ringing which is not usually the case. Kind of cool. Overall I like this album but wouldn't really seek it out or think to play it again. I feel like The Kinks are one of those bands where a greatest hits album will pretty much give you all you need. 3/5

This is not one that I would ever have listened to had it not been for this list. And I don't think my life would have been any worse for not having heard this record. I mean, yes, she probably has a good voice but the production is just so overdone that it takes anything unique out and just makes it sound like every similar record of the time. I get so tired of this kind of production where it seems the goal is to just make the record sound like 'generic female R&B singer' from a software bundle. I think I picked out a real bass here and there, maybe a real guitar on one song, and horns that could either be real or not. Would she have been able to have this same album released to the same accolades were it not for her sister? I don't know. I would say no. But that might just be me. I do enjoy some of the lyrics and certainly the overall theme of the record.
As for a rating, it's not my thing at all and is so generic and overproduced that it could be anyone with a half decent voice. 2.5/5 and will round down because there's now way this is a better record than that.

Repetitive, lazy, super dated. This may be one of the most uncreative albums I've ever heard. At the same time, I get why people liked it when it came out. In 1992 this may have sounded new and groundbreaking but it's still boring, especially listening now 34 years later. 1.75/5

A couple songs in and I can tell this will be a slog. Mid 2000s dance pop with some indie elements thrown in. Not exactly my style. I enjoyed some of the bass tones on this record but can't really say that anything else stuck out to me. It's Brit dance pop, and mediocre at that. 2/5

I have never listened to this record but have seen it pop up a few times here and there. Reviews seem to be either love it or hate it. That kind of thing is always exciting to hear for the first time.
Definitely interesting. I sort of question the idea of making the opening track sound like a circus because I feel like that give you the wrong impression for the rest of the album. It's actually a lot less weird that you'd think after reading some of the reviews. I don't get the one star reviews, it's actually pretty standard psychedelic rock from the 60s. Sure the last song kind of goes off the rails a bit, the Number 9 comparisons are apt but at least this keeps some sort of semblance of structure to it. The electronics used were certainly novel at that point and they are well used for what they were in the 60s. I feel like they made a good album here and succeeded at what they were trying to accomplish. Overall I feel like this is a good album to include on this list because it is unique enough to sort of stand out but it isn't so weird that it is unrepresentative of the time or genre. 3.75/5.

This came out when I was just a little too young to really be listening to music that wasn't something my parents put on. But I remember a few years after this record came out when I was in middle school it was pretty popular. I always really liked Hole after having heard them when I was just starting to explore different music. Back then I think everyone was in the 'it's cool to hate on Courtney Love' phase and looking back she was definitely treated unfairly. She's not without her issues but she didn't deserve the hate she got.
I've heard this record all the way through a handful of times but it's been a while. It starts off really strong with Violet and keeps it up throughout. I've always loved Doll Parts too. You can certainly see the influence Kurt Cobain had on this record, though I'm sure he didn't write it as was rumored. People never want to believe women rockers are the real deal for some reason. And when this came out, Courtney Love was basically dismissed. But it's a great record, if a little dated. 4/5

I've never heard of Grizzly Bear (that I know of) so this will be brand new to me. Hoping it isn't a stomp, clap, hey! band given that it's indie folk from 2009....
Well stomp, clap, hey! it's not. So that's good. I can't really decide what to make of it after about 3 or 4 songs. I love the drum sound, just the right amount of thickness while being clear and articulate still. The recording and production seem to have been great on this record, jury is still out on whether or not I actually like the music. There are a lot of vocal overdubs which gets a bit wearing. It's a decent album but it is a little long for what it is. I don't know that I would choose to listen to this again or really have any interest in exploring more from them. But I might one day. 3.25/5

I feel like the first wave of 90s emo kids heard this record and were like, 'yeah this but my emotions are so much more complicated and deep, this needs to be louder and have more screaming.' I wonder where the emo kids from high school are now? I hope they're still emo because that would prove to mom that it wasn't just a phase.
This album is not emo. I don't know why I got on that. But some of the sentiments are the same, granted this is more like pervy emo-lite. Not really my thing but it falls so well within it's own time it's kind of hard to fault it. Like this could be a stereotype of 90s opposition to grunge. It sounds so 1993 it might as well be a Ford Taurus. Wouldn't listen again but I can appreciate it for what it is I suppose. The best song was the instrumental at the end. 3/5