Reviews by x-minor_miracle-x

Heard Before?
Not since it came out.

Notes:
- sequencing! it's an art, and one that this album exemplifies. everything in the right order, with a near-magical flow between tracks.
- it helps that there is a huge variety of sounds and styles, with a well-curated guest roster.
- "Water" is quite the centrepiece, with a huge glitch-hop coda. wow.
- the conscious-rap lyricism certainly works and is clever and complex in all the right ways, although I'm more of a production person.

Verdict:
I remembered this as a second string Roots album, behind "Things Fall Apart" and "How I Got Over". But the more I listen to "Phrenology", the more impressed I am.

Listen Again?
Three times in one day is probably enough for a while. But yes.

Heard Before?
Yes.

Notes:
- obviously a vocal showcase and the vocals are uniformly stunning, even if they can't really sell the lyrics of "Hobo's Meditation".
- song selection could have been a little more daring, but these safe bets are still great.
- the arrangements strive for variety but end up a little bland and formulaic. never truly awful though, and the performances are note perfect.
- production is clear and lovely, only venturing too far into cheeseball adult contemporary on "Telling Me Lies".
- for a vocal-focused album, they actually give the instrumentals a surprising amount of space to work in.
- I'm always happy to leave rock music behind for any genre where triplet time signatures are normal.

Verdict:
One of the very few supergroup albums in any genre that's worth a serious listen.

Listen Again?
I'm not opposed. It's a highlight in each of their catalogues.

Heard Before?
One of my all time favorites.

Notes:
- cabaret as a genre is criminally underrepresented in English language music in general, which alone would make this album essential.
- sequencing matters, and I can hardly think of a better example, clomping awkwardly yet expertly from one track to the next.
- everyone who has ever been bored to tears by a standard drumkit can stagger to their feet and cheer here.
- yet that's only the beginning of the clever arrangements, where the skittering guitar work bumps up against lurching trombone, seasick organ/accordion and tottering marimba.
- the breadth of songwriting and vocal styles remains impressive, although outdone by Rain Dogs.
- it's minor, but every song justifies its runtime, which also keeps the album to an ideal length.

Verdict:
Less pretty than Closing Time, less ferocious than Bone Machine, but still the ideal introduction to the world of Tom Waits. It's a party and all are invited, especially those of us usually banned from such events.

Listen Again?
Absolutely. Although first I should try Alice/Blood Money, which I've never heard.

Heard Before?
Yes.

Notes:
- SKITS = BAD. no exceptions. no excuses.
- beats are stellar and sample selection is consistently amusing and often thrilling. i found myself using whosampled.com repeatedly.
- flows lack variety, but that's true of all rap of this vintage.
- lyrics are fun and clever, even if they rarely made me laugh. more attempts at seriousness than i remembered, and rather successful i think.

Verdict:
Arguably outdone by later De La Soul and some of their many imitators, but very much worth my time, as long as i skip the skits.

Listen Again?
Certain songs, yes! But a big no to the whole album.

Heard Before?
Yup.

Notes:
- like most Cure albums, it takes one idea and runs it into the ground.
- the bass, drum and synth parts are shockingly repetitive. this can drag songs pointlessly or act to drive them while highlighting the vocals and guitar.
- i really enjoy the dissonant, off-time guitar parts, especially on "Short Term Effect".
- production uses the reverby-yet-claustrophobic 80s sound to maximal effect.

Verdict:
Having not been a tortured teen for many years, this rarely suits my mood, but it certainly nails that sort of moaning desperation.

Listen Again:
Eventually I'll get around to it.

Heard Before?
Only "Solsbury Hill".

Notes:
- I'm often a sucker for songwriting-as-wankery, but I'm not really in a prog mood today.
- some tracks feel like a rehash of better ideas from "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway".
- are these vocals all him? a terrible decision in either case.
- "Waiting for the Big One" is flat out embarrassing and should never be mentioned.
- i actually enjoyed the tighter rock songs "Modern Love" and "Down the Dolce Vita".

Verdict:
Despite the presence of "Solsbury Hill", this is maybe the 8th best Peter Gabriel project.

Listen Again?
Nope. Not even on a prog day.

Heard Before?
Only the singles.

Notes:
- mostly strum-and-hum ballads. not always my thing. at least there is a strong attempt at variety.
- the adult-contemporary production style is an instant turn-off, and the arrangements are bland.
- not the strongest songwriting, structurally, or at least no surprises.
- however, her performance is perfect and the lyrics are strong, if not subtle. it helps that i agree with her and anything that shows how the personal is political.

Verdict:
A fantastic vocalist and lyricist fed into the major label machine of the day.

Listen Again?
I feel like I always say this, but I'll certainly check out some of her other albums, if not this one again.

Heard Before?
Heck yeah!

Notes:
- I forgot the crystal clear production, odd but nifty use of stereo and the broken glass samples on "Back Against the Wall". It works so well, much better than the pointless reverb on Wild In The Streets.
- It's nothing I haven't heard from hundreds of other bands, but the balance of speed, riffage, lyrics and moshpit energy is more or less perfect.
- most importantly: SHORT SONGS. nothing worse than hardcore that drags on for no reason.

Verdict:
Essential. I may have failed to live fast and also to die young, but this still rips.

Listen Again?
I mean, there's a lot of similar hardcore out there. But probably.

Heard Before?
Nope. And I quickly realized why.

Notes:
- There is absolutely nothing wrong with John Lee Hooker, or even his performances on this album.
- Everyone else involved, especially the producer, seems dead set on opposing the vicious minimalism that gives him his powerful aura.
- Why these collaborators? With the possible exception of Canned Heat, they all sound like they've never heard him before, never mind shared a studio.
- The treatments on the vocals are especially egregious.
- The sequencing is atrocious, although rewarding for masochists who can make it all the way to the best track at the end.

Verdict:
Even the Blues Brothers movie knew what to do with John Lee: He is shown off by himself, hiding in plain sight, mumbling and stunting away on the guitar, like an ascetic prophet. This album is just sad.

Listen Again?
I'm already trying to forget it.

About the 1001 list:
Big fan of this site, but the list itself is somewhat terrible. The easiest way to instantly and vastly improve it would be to impose a two-albums-per-artist limit. Beatles fans (among others) will cry, but they might actually learn something.

About this album:
Probably my favorite Beatles. Side two was especially nifty to me the first many times. BUT I NEVER EVER NEED TO HEAR THIS EVER AGAIN. The world is a big place, and there is so much interesting music that I haven't heard hundreds of times.

Heard Before?
Yes, but I never gave it a careful listen.

Notes:
- if ever there were a songwriting album, this is it. so much interesting stuff going on structurally and lyrically.
- unfortunately it's drowning in overwrought arrangements and claustrophobic production, even burying the vocals at times, which are clearly supposed to be the focal point.
- long songs or short, albums should be 40 minutes. that's it. ignorance of this obvious rule makes 90s albums even harder to listen to.

Verdict:
Suffocatingly clever, with odd, overcooked and trebly production. Too much, too much, but fun and amusing in small doses.

Listen Again?
Unlikely, except for the title track. Didn't turn me off Pulp, though. I'll try another one of theirs that I haven't heard yet.

Heard Before?
Yup. My parents were Columbia House members.

Notes:
- how can i criticize something that so perfectly achieves its own goals in the first three songs? everything i despise about this is exactly what it sets out to accomplish.
- after those first three songs, it flattens out to become purely an embarrassing simulacrum of rockist ideals circa 1976.
- but because everything is so gloriously recorded, i can still smile at the organ solo in "smokin" even though the song as a whole belongs in cringe hell.

Verdict:
I hate this album, but for the first three songs, i thoroughly enjoy hating it, spite and admiration perfectly balanced. After that I get tired.

Listen Again?
It would take a lot of convincing.

Heard Before?
Yup.

Notes:
- a triumph of sequencing, especially the one-two punch at the end.
- until this point I've always returned to "you're living all over me". but this might be better, for ill-defined reasons. more variety?

Verdict:
Loud at any volume. Mewling vocals, lyrics i don't care about, propulsive basslines, blunt force drumming, guitar squall. When I'm in the mood, it hits just right.

Listen Again?
I think so!

Heard Before?
I was born in Canada in the 80s. So yes.

Notes:
- Alanis is great. So great. Her much-derided vocal style and lyrics are perfect and every teenager needs to have a moment with this album.
- most songs, and the album as a whole, are too long, but structure and sequencing is largely justified.
- HOWEVER, this production is absolutely awful. I want to take a flamethrower to the studio.
- those all-purpose 90s drum loops used on almost every song belong in the 9th circle of hell.
- most of my least favorite guitar tones of all time are here in spades.
- all the potentially interesting sounds and parts are deeply buried in the mix.

Verdict:
Still a knockout for its intended audience, criminally overplayed and horribly dated for the rest of us.

Listen Again?
Not by choice.

Heard Before?
Nope. Not a fan of live rock albums - the studio exists for good reasons!

Notes:
- the vocals, while excellent, suffer the most compared to the studio recordings. the bass sounds like it was played with a hammer and the guitars are mixed oddly and unevenly.
- despite the many negative features of the recording, the drums sound good.
- all the performances are top tier, competent and committed, although the ballads really sag compared to the studio versions.
- sequencing is just right.
- i think i finally understand Thin Lizzy's influence on The Hold Steady.
- like all Thin Lizzy, they take tight, interestingly constructed songs and then splatter them liberally with twin guitar showcases.

Verdict:
All the problems of live albums of the period. Great for those who love crowd noise, lame banter, subpar vocals from great vocalists, and extra extra guitar wank.

Listen Again?
No way, but I'll revisit the Jailbreak album at some point.

Heard Before?
Yup, but I'm more familiar with Psychocandy.

Notes:
- every production style has its place, but I really hate these drum sounds. all of them. in every song.
- the Lou Reed of Scotland vocals are equal parts charming and annoying. I'm not opposed to them being buried in the mix.
- that leaves the chiming guitars and root-notes-only basslines. they are fine! I've just heard too much similar music.
- songs: they have verses! they have choruses! sometimes other parts! and..... you guessed it, mildly transgressive lyrics. meh.

Verdict:
It's brooding jangle pop that was influential on thousands of 90s bands. Just because it came first-ish doesn't make it great.

Listen Again?
Why?

Heard Before?
Yes.

Notes:
- golly gee is this production ever crisp and beautiful. i especially love the piano and the drums.
- sadly it isn't matched with songs i care about. there are fine ideas, sentiments i largely agree with, and clever writing (ie the beat-switch on "isolation"), but nothing that grabs me.
- seriously i would listen to a recording that kept the backing tracks, but with new lyrics and vocal melodies.

Verdict:
Some things, for example the Beatles, are much better when together.

Listen Again?
Not by choice.

Heard Before?
Yup. I was there.

Notes:
- has this aged well? it's just as ridiculous as it ever was, so yes?
- what if i played a sample until you hated it, and then kept playing it until you loved it again?
- i could write a thinkpiece about how dance music wonderfully subverts rockist concepts of "musicality" but I'm too busy, you know, dancing.

Verdict:
Big beat was entirely about dumb fun, with Fatboy Slim being the dumbest and funnest.

Listen Again?
I'll certainly watch the "Praise You" video again.

Heard Before?
Yeah.

Notes:
- as always with CCR, my enjoyment is inversely proportional to the song length, although on this album, none of the songs manage to justify their runtime.
- terrible "let's all play all the time" arrangements, with every song immediately settling into a rut and going nowhere.
- wonderfully recorded distinctive vocals.
- the sole truly redeeming feature of this album is "Proud Mary", mostly because it was later performed by Tina Turner with stunning results.

Verdict:
Knucklehead rock suitable for all sorts of people, places and occasions that I'm delighted to avoid.

Listen Again?
If only it were so simple.

Heard Before?
Only a couple of songs.

Notes:
- the whole concept album schtick was completely lost on me with this one. i was absolutely not in the mood for the narration.
- so many great drum sounds.
- production as a whole stood out, even in a crowded era for innovation.
- songwriting was fine; "Lazy Sunday" was a lot of fun.

Verdict:
Irritating concept album with some fun songs and fantastic production.

Listen Again?
Maybe when I'm in a more tolerant mood. But seriously, that narration is annoying.