Reviews by x-minor_miracle-x

#296

Heard Before?
Yes.

Notes:
- forgot how short and focused this album is. what a treat compared to most rap albums of the 90s.
- beats are always solid and effective, if never truly thrilling. my head was nodding throughout.
- flows are varied and complex, rhymes are shockingly tight and creative. lots of internal rhyme. wordplay gets sacrificed for the sake of storytelling - not a bad choice.
- the chorus hooks can sound silly, but then we drop immediately back into genius rapping, so it doesn't matter.
- few albums evoke a specific place so powerfully.
- sometimes I'm tempted to completely give up on American rap (i much prefer francophone rap) but this is amazing.

Verdict:
Believe the hype.

Listen Again?
Oh yeah.

#295

Heard Before?
Yup.

Notes:
- I've tried several times to get into the Stones, and it just doesn't work for me.
- the best parts of this album have the least to do with the main performers: some great saxophone and other horn parts, nifty backing vocals, etc.
- it's all fun, nothing actually bad, but no songwriting i admired or even earworms that got to me.
- much-ballyhooed for a mix of genres, i just don't hear it. no element stands out as groundbreaking or even genre-bending.

Verdict:
Rock n roll guys rockin n rollin.

Listen Again?
Unlikely.

#294

Heard Before?
Yes, indeed.

Notes:
- simple, unadorned production works perfectly.
- the album is both highbrow and lowbrow, sophisticated and simple, repetitive and varied, challenging and easy listening. the listener can really care, but they don't have to.
- i could go into detail about the composition and orchestration here, but i would rather just listen a second time today.

Verdict:
Somebody had to blandify Moondog. I don't mind at all!

Listen Again?
I'll come back to it eventually.

#293

BY ALL THAT'S HOLY, LET THIS LIST HAVE A TWO-ALBUMS-PER-ARTIST LIMIT!

Heard Before?
Duh.

Notes:
- i knew when i started this project that my least favorite part would be revisiting omnipresent records that no one on god's green earth ever needs to hear again.
- much is made of how the Zep sold Black music to white audiences. not cool. but isn't that also just a description of the largest segment of the music industry since the inception of recording?

Verdict:
Blah blah overhyped classic blah blah.

Listen Again:
Not on purpose.

#292

Heard Before?
Countless times.

Notes:
- i must love Pixies songs, because I hate how all their albums sound. The drums especially, but also the vocals drowned by shit guitar tone.
- i had a dear friend who was a great musician and also a compulsive liar. he briefly convinced a few of us that he had written "Velouria". i told him it was his best song by far.
- try learning to play any of these songs. they are fascinating.

Verdict:
In my imagination, there's an album between this one and Trompe Le Monde where Frank Black and Kim Deal agreed to share songwriting and lead vocals, and then hired a better producer, and it's my favorite album ever.

Listen Again?
Of course, but not soon.

#291

Heard Before?
Yup, a long time ago.

Notes:
- blues is really not my genre anymore, and i typically avoid these types of guitar-solo-heavy recordings.
- however, this is just as compelling as the hype would have it, and the solos go beyond the typical weedly-weedlie stunting of most rock bands.
- some of the most exciting harmonica playing i know of.
- the mix is fantastic!
- they obviously have such deep knowledge and respect for blues history.
- "Whipping Post" is always worth it, but my favorite is "Elizabeth Reed".
- the Frere Jacques and Joy to the World quotes get me every time.
- i accidentally loaded up the six hour version with all the takes, and listened to most of it. I even survived 35 minutes of "Mountain Jam".

Verdict:
Grudging admiration. This really is the absolute peak of white dude blues rock.

Listen Again?
Not for a very long time, but I had a great time today. Thanks, 1001!

#290

Heard Before?
Nope. But a Primal Scream album that's not Screamadelica? Really?!

Notes:
- much better than i expected.
- not excited about the vocals, and i completely ignored the lyrics.
- my favorite part is all the extra sounds cluttering the mix.
- great dubby basslines.
- trip-hop drums stick out as a late 90s artifact, but that's not always bad.

Verdict:
Like a microdose of trippy psychedelia.

Listen Again?
Maybe!

#289

Heard Before?
Yup.

Notes:
- Do we need the third or fourth best Doors album? Does anyone?
- starting with an irritating and very basic blues number doesn't help me.
- as on any Doors album, the keyboard parts are my favorite thing.
- Jim Morrison is very sexy and he could sing to me any day, but that doesn't mean i care about anything he has to say.
- my second listen today (with lowered expectations) was more enjoyable, but i still feel like the Doors are more of a singles act, and none of their great songs are here.

Verdict:
Bold and bluesy, just not essential.

Listen Again?
Nope. But I saved "Waiting for the Sun".

#288

Heard Before?
Once when it came out.

Notes:
- nice to see him stretch out a little, although that's mostly his collaborators - his guitar and vocal schtick is always the same.
- keyboard parts throughout really liven things up and distract from the sameness.
- i was going to write this off as completely forgettable, but the second half is much stronger.
- "Poor Boy" got a little smirk out of me, and "Take Me With You" might be his best song ever, even though both those songs feature very awkward time changes.

Verdict:
Listen! It's Jack White! He's doing the Jack White thing!

Listen Again?
Nope. But I saved "Take Me With You".

#287

Heard Before?
Only the singles, believe it or not.

Notes:
- what a great voice, and she has wonderful command of it. impressive.
- too bad she has nothing of interest to say, at least on this album.
- i lost track eventually, but i think every song has the exact same structure.
- every chorus repeats endlessly with almost no variation.
- typical glossy 90s production with so many unnecessary and ugly elements sprinkled everywhere (synth pads, bad drums, pointlessly layered guitars, etc). "giving depth to the mix" drowns these lazy songs.

Verdict:
"We discovered this great talent! Let's rush her into the studio and get a committee and a focus group to make all the decisions!"

Listen Again?
No, thanks.

#286

Heard Before?
Yes, oh yes.

Notes:
- production so clear and lovely it makes angels cry into their mixing boards.
- some nifty choices here and there: the chord changes on "Rikki", the horns on the title track, etc.
- it's almost a relief that "East St Louis" is so ugly, goofy and embarrassing.
- what I'm trying to say is that i hated every single second of this record, and I'm reaching hard to find anything of value.

Verdict:
Journey to the end of taste.

Listen Again?
Please lord, never again.

#285

Heard Before?
Yup.

Notes:
- as a reviewer, my first question is always "does this music succeed on its own terms?" the answer with Motörhead is, of course, FUCK YEAH!
- but I'm not just a reviewer, I'm a listener, and my own feelings are more mixed.
- the hilarious overuse of vibraslap on "shoot you in the back" was my favorite thing this time.
- i always think I'm not really a lyrics guy until the lyrics are this terrible. then i realize i must have been hearing them all along.

Verdict:
Riff. Rock. Repeat.

Listen Again?
Probably not.

#284

Heard Before?
Lots. I'm familiar with all three of their albums.

Notes:
- male/female duet vocals are always a treat for me.
- i mostly ignore lyrics. there's nothing too embarrassing here, and even some lines that jump out with surprising resonance.
- it can sound like ESG, if the funky joy was replaced with insolent melancholy.
- speaking of which, why is ESG missing from this list? insane!
- with arrangements this stark, the smallest new elements (off-beat strums, a piano part, a new snare sound, a single synth note) can sound revelatory.

Verdict:
So minimal it can border on invisible. For the moodiest of moods.

Listen Again?
Yup.

#283

Heard Before?
Other AMC, but not this album.

Notes:
- while it runs the gamut from Uncle Tupelo sounding country rock to Elliot Smith sounding songwriter fare, it never latches on to anything outstanding. it feels like music in the shadow of other music.

Verdict:
Fits nicely in the 90s alt-country scene, but not particularly special.

Listen Again?
Not feeling it, but you never know. I sometimes give pleasant things another chance.

#282

Heard Before?
Yes!

Notes:
- i admit that i didn't truly appreciate DM until i started using synthesizers in my own music. my opinion was revised instantly. synth gods, for real.
- vocals are servicable and the lyrics work, but is that really why anyone is still listening to this album? well, not me.
- even the songs i don't really like have at least two jaw-dropping moments of sound design.
- i can think of few albums that explore the power of a coda more fully than this one.
- overplayed singles are skippable, but that's just who i am. they aren't bad.

Verdict:
Dark synth pop, with all three of those elements getting equal billing.

Listen Again?
Not any time soon, but certainly. It's that good, especially given the available technologies.

#281

Heard Before?
Many times.

Notes:
- I'll make my usual complaint about a two-albums-per-artist limit, but noting that this is the one Waits album that should for sure be here, even though Swordfishtrombones is my personal favourite.
- i think the biggest miracle of Tom Waits is that he managed to innovate not with new and cool sounds and ideas, but by scavenging amongst the discarded and unfashionable.

Verdict:
If you can't find yourself in these songs you need to get out in the rain with the rest of us dogs.

Listen Again?
For sure.

#280

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY CAN THERE BE A TWO-ALBUMS-PER-ARTIST LIMIT?

Heard Before?
Once when it came out.

Notes:
- now that I'm well into the list I find the principal question for post 1990 releases to be "does this album justify the firestorm of NME hype at the time?"
- in this case, it doesn't.
- unlike his uneven but adventurous 90s albums, this one is absolutely consistent, with zero innovation.
- nothing wrong with it, just nothing interesting, another old man coasting on former glories.

Verdict:
Bowie makes a tribute album to himself.

Listen Again?
I can't think of a reason to.

#279

Heard Before?
I think all Canadians are now born knowing this whole album back to front.

Notes:
- there's a lot of strummy, whiny folk-rock balladeering in the world. what makes this the best example?
- if there's a real distinctive to this album (besides over-familiarity) it is balance. production is raw but clear. instrumentation changes from song to song, but not too much. lyrical content is broad but with no real outliers. every song has its place and no element overstays its welcome. even the tension of a highly collaborative solo album is resolved beautifully.

Verdict:
To me this is, in its own little way, a perfect album.

Listen Again?
Perfect or not, I have little reason to hear it any time soon.

#278

Heard Before?
There was a very brief moment where Doves (especially The Last Broadcast) played in every corporate coffee shop in the known universe.

Notes:
- Doves?! Really?! This has to be a joke.

Verdict:
Correction: This is far too lifeless to be a joke. This is the sound of blithe acceptance in the face of post- everything malaise.

Listen Again?
Ha! Now that's a joke.

#277

Heard Before?
I listened to all her albums as they came out. none of them really made an impact on me.

Notes:
- barely-there instrumentation and a mix that was filtered through pillows makes for an extremely vocal focused album.
- she's a fine enough singer, and certainly makes the most of her limited expressive range. unfortunately a lot of the vocal melodies are very similar.
- exciting to hear someone strain at the very top of their range. gutsy move to do that on the first track.
- individual tracks would stand out better if i paid more attention to the lyrics. but do i really want to?
- i dig "Wild at Heart", but that could just be because there was finally a tempo change and it was 6/8.

Verdict:
Lugubrious: The Album

Listen Again?
Why not? it's somehow both compelling and forgettable.