Reviews by x-minor_miracle-x

Heard Before?
I knew all the songs but not this recording.

Notes:
- started off with the original release, then thanks to Allmusic, heard the legacy edition.
- the revue format of the show is exciting. stellar performances from all the supporting acts.
- some of the rawest, most thrilling versions of any of these songs.
- production suited the material perfectly, gritty and almost overdriven.
- one of the only live albums where I was happy to hear the crowd noise.
- even the stage banter has replay value. I was riveted.
- June Carter blew me away.

Verdict:
Original album: ho hum redux of "at Folsom Prison". Legacy edition: essential. Easily one of my favorite country albums and one of my favorite live albums. How did I not hear this before?

Listen Again?
Yes yes yes.

Heard Before?
Only the big single.

Notes:
- first song is deeply funky, but sounds recorded by a single mic in a school gym.
- "Papa" is the obvious centerpiece, but also sounds very much out of place.
- vocals are uniformly stellar, unsurprisingly, but the arrangements and production are too often motown-by-numbers.

Verdict:
Fantastic group, monumental single, uneven album.

Listen Again?
Nope. But I'll certainly investigate the Temptations back catalogue.

Heard Before?
Only "Changes" and "Life on Mars".

Notes:
- what glorious perfect production. so dry and crisp with perfectly separated instruments. a masterclass.
- every single use of background vocals was brilliant.
- all the arrangements are well-considered and the songs are lovingly structured even when they lack hooks.
- I'm not always much of a lyrics guy but I did notice that "Andy Warhol" was intentionally funny, and "Bob Dylan" was unintentionally much funnier.
- this list has an embarrassing lack of several things, especially females and piano. at least we get lots of great piano here.
- I much prefer the Tiny Tim version of "Fill Your Heart".
- "Brothers Bewlay" was overstuffed and pointless.

Verdict:
Typical Bowie. Tries a number of new things, succeeds at most of them due to sheer talent and smart collaboration. I can see why people love him.

Listen Again?
Probably not. Every time I try to get into Bowie I listen to one album a couple of times, and then move on to other things. He could do almost everything well, but I always end up wanting to hear the people that did the same thing better.

Heard Before?
Only "Take On Me".

Notes:
- like all great synth albums, the focus is on the wide variety of sounds they can coax out of the technology of the time.
- but on top of that we get beautiful vocals and odd but resonant lyrics.
- the midtempo ballads lose me a bit, but I'm just not into that sort of thing.
- masterfully structured songs: intros, pre-choruses, bridges, surprise tonal shifts, fantastic builds.
- honestly I thought I was over this sort of thing, but it hooked me. exactly why I signed up for this list.

Verdict:
Surprisingly emotional synth pop masterwork.

Listen Again?
I think yes - at the very least I'll play it for other people.

Heard Before?
Yup, when it came out.

Notes:
- I appreciate a narrow minimalist formula, and I like the tiny tweaks they make to differentiate songs.
- that said, simplistic arpeggiated leads, static pads, unvarying drumbeats and bored sounding vocals do not an album make, no matter how much they are recombined.
- the entire mix sounds like it was filtered with a pillow, like post-punk drained of all edge and thrill.
- yet another band blue-mixing their female vocalist for zero reason.

Verdict:
Beige music for beige people.

Listen Again?
Nope. There's just no reason to seek this out.

Heard Before?
Once or twice, many years ago.

Notes:
- Pleasantly surprised at the variety here, as I incorrectly remembered everything sounding like the opener.
- Even Iggy stretches himself in an array of vocal styles.
- "Penetration" is a real creepshow.
- For me, the muddy production blunts the impact.

Verdict:
Shirts are for losers, makeup is for the bold.

Listen Again?
Unlikely, but you never know.

Heard Before?
Only "TV Set" and "Garbageman"

Notes:
- the tinny, primitive, indeed cramped production suits this material perfectly.
- I didn't know psychobilly and horror punk came together by 1980. wow!
- delay pedals for everyone!
- fun mix of covers and originals. they especially nail the Sonics' "Strychnine".
- obviously they really only do one thing. but what a thing.

Verdict:
Get cramped! Ridiculous, over the top, fun as hell.

Listen Again?
For sure. At the very least, I've put a few tracks on my Halloween playlist.

Heard Before?
A couple of times when it came out.

Notes:
- way too long, massively front loaded.
- yet another band that seriously underuses their superior female vocalist.
- was anyone really hoping for midtempo subtlety from Arcade Fire? they are always best when over the top.
- this is a wonderful and talented band, why the expensively-mushy production?
- it all comes together on "Sprawl II", perhaps a career-best song, even if it sounds suspiciously like a Blondie rewrite. at least all the nifty sounds that got buried in the mix finally come to the fore.
- I'm sure there are powerful lyrics here, but they just don't leap out like the best moments of "Funeral".

Listen Again?
Unlikely. Instead I'll go back to Funeral or the good-parts mix I made of Reflektor.

Heard Before?
Only "Bitter Sweet".

Notes:
- yet more midtempo britpop. hurrah.
- the deeply layered, complex and often gorgeous production is lipstick on the pig of these underwritten songs.
- the worst sin of the CD era was pointlessly long songs and albums that don't justify their runtime.
- all the players are supremely competent, if lacking in imagination.
- I just could not bring myself to care about anything Richard Ashcroft had to say. He started to sound like the adults in Peanuts.
- WAS THEIR METRONOME STUCK?

Verdict:
Mostly these are immaculately polished turds. I got lost in the lovely details a few times, but none of the songs meant anything to me.

Listen Again?
Nope. Not awful but there's just no reason for me to pay attention.

Heard Before?
Many times, but it has been at least ten years.

Notes:
- the thin, dry production suits the material, especially the uncompressed drums.
- BUT why bury the vocals so completely? it might have seemed edgy and clever at the time, but it is just annoying.
- all the guitar tones sound cheap, sometimes to the point of distraction.
- and yet, and yet. such strong, varied, inventive songs, with fascinating interplay between band members.
- if one cares to decipher them, the lyrics are also spot on, just perfect.
- sequencing, pacing and use of space are exemplary. Slint's many imitators never quite caught on to that.

Verdict:
It sounds like a monochromatic polaroid of dissolute youth in an alley. Desolate, disconnected and doomed, but also beautiful.

Listen Again?
For sure, but in another ten years.

Heard Before?
Only "the song".

Notes:
- "the song" is nostalgia porn. yuck.
- perhaps the ultimate 70s single-plus-filler album.
- "Vincent" did remind me to listen to much better songs about Van Gogh by Jonathan Richman and Joni Mitchell.

Verdict:
It sounds like Gordon Lightfoot wrote this whole album while sleepwalking.

Listen Again?
Please, no.

Heard Before?
Only in passing.

Notes:
- make no mistake. this is a LYRICS ALBUM. thankfully it's endlessly quotable with dizzying variety in theme and content.
- the same cannot be said of the music. very repetitive, with very few ideas stretched very far.
- the hype over Dylan "going electric" is meaningless, especially now. the band simply chugs away, mashed at the back of the mix, just like the acoustic guitar does in the "folk" numbers.
- harsh noise harmonica stabs. love them? hate them? there sure are a lot of them.

Verdict:
So many words, so many words. Belligerent, grating and glorious.

Listen Again?
Maybe. I have a feeling this list will put me through a lot more Dylan before I'm done.

Heard Before?
I'm a music snob in my 40s, what do you think?

Notes:
- the arrangements are glorious. I much prefer this to his skeletal sounding other albums.
- everything is mixed just right.
- the songs all have strong individual character.
- his voice is the epitome of artsy melancholy. I've heard that the lyrics are good, but I've never paid any attention.

Verdict:
The Nick Drake cult is as easy as ever to get sucked into, with or without all the backstory. Gorgeous.

Listen Again?
Of course.

Heard Before?
Nope, only read about it.

Notes:
- Trying out different vocal styles while high as a kite sounds better here than it could have, but I imagine it's a divisive move.
- As I often feel, the shorter songs are more consistently entertaining.
- The wild and wooly mixing adds to the charm, but is certainly bad by any conventional measure.
- Remember when country music wasn't automatically far-right propaganda?

Verdict:
Stay away from drugs, kids. Almost the definition of a cult album.

Listen Again?
Heck yes.

Heard Before?
- Only the singles.

Notes:
- I have a weakness for sunshine pop but usually only listen to compilations. I did not realize that this album perfectly captures all the conventions of the genre.
- To me, the group vocals are stronger than any of the solo parts, except on "I Call Your Name".
- "Spanish Harlem" is too cheesy even for me.

Verdict:
Let's run away to 60s Southern California with flowers in our hair.

Listen Again?
Yes indeed, but I'll try their next two follow up albums first.

Heard Before?
- Yes, too many times, unfortunately.

Notes:
This list has WAY too many guitar albums for my taste, so it's nice to hear some decent keyboard work, even if it is on yet another overplayed classic rock thing. Production is lovely: drums have that wonderful 70s sound, vocals aren't too loud. The arrangements make the best of the individual talents of the members, even when the songwriting fails to deliver.

Verdict:
Prog-pop for normies. Still more interesting than most of classic rock radio, with deep cuts that are worth your time.

Listen Again?
Probably, but not for a long time.

Unrelentingly gorgeous, murderously patient, proudly Canadian! It's unfortunate that some of the songs could pass for background music, because this is deep, dark and well- considered. Also unfortunate that the most popular track isn't nearly the best.

There was more variety in these sombre arrangements than I remembered. This time around I especially delighted in the accordion and harmonica bits and even enjoyed the pedal steel although I find it overwhelms the other instruments.

The vocals are stunning - like so many of my favorite singers, she embraces her limitations and doubles down on what she does best.

Finally I should mention that more bands could and should make better albums by hiring songwriters or performing covers. This is a perfect example - the originals shine brighter surrounded by transformative covers.

I would enjoy the Butthole Surfers so much more if I found them funny at all. Sadly, no dice.

I appreciate their approach to songs: experimental in the literal sense - "let's try this!" On that count I would still give a slight edge to the album "Hairway to Steven" over this one.

All in all my opinion hasn't really changed since I first discovered them: for a noise / comedy / shock band, they aren't noisy, funny or shocking enough to really grab me.

I never thought I would call something "too dumb for power pop". Maybe incel anthems were just cuter in 1980, but I was entertained the whole time, and even checked out their debut.

But, yes, the charm wears thin quickly and I can't imagine revisiting this.

Stunning, powerhouse vocals; bloodless but competent arrangements; simple, charmingly candid songwriting. I appreciated this but didn't truly enjoy it. Rather surprised to see her debut on this list, given that the follow-up was a vast improvement in every way.