Rated 2/10
#276
Heard Before?
Maybe? I've heard some of their stuff but I don't remember.
Notes:
- friends tell me they are a good live act. they better be.
- i could discuss all the elements of this in detail, but they all bore me.
- except for the ugly misogyny. that's just awful.
- one truism of the 90s alt-boom is the more serious they took themselves, the less their music holds up.
Verdict:
Alt-rock by numbers.
Listen Again?
No, thanks.
Rated 4/10
#275
Heard Before?
Of course. At this point, classic rock is like smog: you take it in with every breath, it obscures better things, and you have to lock yourself in to avoid it.
Notes:
- as i often say: THIS LIST NEEDS A TWO-ALBUMS-PER-ARTIST LIMIT RIGHT NOW!
- "immigrant song" did briefly trigger a desire to have a muscle car with an 8-track player.
- the whole is less than the sum of its parts here. I'm not opposed to the absurdly hard-hitting drumming, the blues pastiche, the wicked bass, the yowling vocals. these songs aren't just overplayed, they never did coalesce into anything exciting or meaningful to me.
- if you want to hear John Paul Jones accompany some different demonic howling, please check out his album with Diamanda Galas. truly thrilling.
Verdict:
The Zep at their least varied and innovative. Also heard it too many times.
Listen Again?
Not by choice.
Rated 8/10
Heard Before?
Yes. Not a huge fan, but I've heard all their albums.
Notes:
- this is the closest i come to enjoying the sound of a Hüsker Dü album. the guitar tone is still awful, but everything else is great.
- the mallet percussion on several songs makes me smile.
- the biggest conflict i feel is that Bob Mould is the better singer, but Grant Hart is the more interesting songwriter.
- this is just as long as Zen Arcade, but feels both tighter and more varied.
Verdict:
I believe this is the exact cultural moment where "alternative rock" was born. Great album but mixed legacy.
Listen Again?
Three times today is enough, but I'm going to revisit Flip Your Wig soon.
Rated 6/10
#273
Heard Before?
No. The whole Minutemen-but-pop-rock idea never appealed to me.
Notes:
- frenetic bass lines and creative drumming are exciting, but often seem out of place.
- the songs and production blend in with dozens of other college radio acts of the same era.
- i don't want to be mean to the guitarist/singer. he seems like a nice guy. but he's just not selling me on this material and is continually upstaged.
- that said, on a second listen i actually had a good time. it's mellow, low-stakes fun, which the world needs more of.
Verdict:
Probably sounds much better if you don't know who is playing.
Listen Again?
I liked this more than I thought I would, but no.
Rated 10/10
#272
Heard Before?
Yes, but not for a long time.
Notes:
- it is easy to criticize this list (everyone does) or give up on it (most people do), especially when you can go a week or more without hearing any female artists. and then Kate Bush drops from the clouds to blow my mind.
- much like Bjork (or even Joni Michell), Kate has an unearthly voice and is more interested in sound and structure than pop conventions and hooks. i don't mind in the slightest.
- I'm sure I'm in the minority, but i think all the most delicious and innovative moments are saved for the second side.
- "Waking the Witch" could easily be the best Skinny Puppy song.
- maybe the most nakedly experimental pop album of the 80s. i'm enthralled.
Verdict:
Weird, wonderful and witchy.
Listen Again?
Yes, most definitely. Next stop, Aerial, which I've never heard.
Rated 6/10
#271
Heard Before?
Yes. It's not my favorite Divine Comedy album, so only a couple of times.
Notes:
- it's tricky because the overstuffed arrangements are my favorite part of the album, but they tend to drown out the vocals and distract from the songwriting.
- "Frog Princess" has everything I've ever wanted from Neil Hannon. So snarky it turns on itself and becomes genuine.
Verdict:
His most popular album for a reason. Boldly silly, painfully clever, loads of genre play and goofy references.
Listen Again?
Probably not, although the "Theme" (if not the whole album) really is the best starting point for his discography.
Rated 6/10
#270
Heard Before?
Yes, but not in forever. I've always thought "Floating in Space" to be the only Spiritualized album worth a re- listen.
Notes:
- the melodies may be lazer guided (or not), but it's the timbres that make the album worthwhile. many interesting sounds keep me engaged even when the songwriting fails to, as it mostly does.
- I've devoted a lot of time to hearing and making music like "Symphony Space" but I've never heard better.
- vocals are servicable, but other similar acts (Starflyer 59 comes to mind) do the same thing better, with more structured songs.
- yes it's too long, but that's kind of the point. either soak it in or skip it.
Verdict:
Gorgeous sound design does not an album make, but it comes close enough.
Listen Again?
I still think "...Floating in Space" is the only Spiritualized most people need to hear, but I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed hearing this again. It's not good, but it feels good.
Rated 8/10
#269
Heard Before?
Yup, but not with any serious attention.
Notes:
- 80s metal is rarely noted for great bass tone, but this sounds fantastic!
- the whole mix is just right, so crisp and bright, but without the mechanistic gloss that coats recent metal albums.
- mostly i appreciated this as the antidote to the dour, endless and underwhelming Master of Puppets, which i pushed through recently.
- while the guitar solos lack the creative pyrotechnics of Hammett or Van Halen, they serve the songs well.
- on this album especially, Iron Maiden finds the perfect balance between the ludicrous and the serious, delivered with absolute commitment.
- i got vocal envy. yup. for real.
Verdict:
It's a beast!
Listen Again?
I'm not opposed. And if Iron Maiden isn't funny enough on its own, you should really check out Anton Maiden.
Rated 2/10
#268
Heard Before?
Duh.
Notes:
- like with the Simpsons or Mad Magazine, everyone agrees that U2 was once good and is now terrible, but no one agrees on the exact turning point. my vote is this album.
- U2 can't really be blamed for inspiring an entire genre of polished-turd evangelical "worship music", but i do anyways.
- Daniel Lanois is a god, successfully making these aimless stupid simple songs and mediocre performances sound huge and meaningful. I'm sure Eno is also at least partially responsible. i couldn't endorse the production highly enough.
- contrary to their own beliefs, the Edge did not invent the delay pedal, and Bono did not invent singing.
Verdict:
Every youth pastor's favorite album. Side A is unavoidable and Side B is forgettable.
Listen Again?
I would listen to anything Lanois had a hand in, but can this please just go away forever?
Rated 4/10
#267
Heard Before?
Yes.
Notes:
- it's the Who - massively talented as individuals, absolutely monstrously talented as a group.
- it's the Who - songwriting is completely hit and miss.
- it's the Who - obnoxious and unfunny.
- it's the Who - production values are optional.
Verdict:
It's the Who.
Listen Again?
Every time I revisit this album I really want to like it. But I just don't. So, no?
Rated 8/10
#266
Heard Before?
Yes indeed.
Notes:
- organ is my favorite instrument, so this is an easy sell.
- such a crisp, immediate recording. love the bass and drums.
- joyous and sprightly sax playing keeps everything bright and soulful.
- just enough compositional variety to keep things moving while preserving a consistent mood.
Verdict:
The easiest listening. Smiles all around.
Listen Again?
Oh yeah. And i was just reminded that the Midnight Special comes from the same session, so I've got that queued next.
Rated 4/10
#265
Heard Before?
Yup. Although I'm more familiar with their Greatest Hits CD that I got when I started Columbia House. I was a dull 12-year-old.
Notes:
- i laughed when i saw this come up because it's just so terribly bland. but then i tried it and it has a strong opener, for real.
- vocals are hit and miss. much better when he leans into the affected delivery.
- the lead guitar is truly impressive, both a technical achievement and highly expressive in a way I find actually compelling.
- but yes, the bland is real. the backing band has all the thrill of faded beige wallpaper, and the songwriting holds nothing of interest.
Verdict:
Tasteful, terminally boring.
Listen Again?
Nope.
Rated 6/10
#264
Heard Before?
Of course. Although I am in Canada, where Rush is more of an institution or mysterious force rather than a group of musicians.
Notes:
- Neil Peart has more great drum fills in this album than most drummers in their whole career. Too much is never enough.
- "what about the voice of Geddy Lee / how did it get so high / i wonder if he speaks like an ordinary guy"
- it's an interesting group when the lone guitarist completely shreds, but is still consistently outshone by his bandmates.
- the slow songs really kill the momentum.
Verdict:
Essential prog on side one, mostly drab side two.
Listen Again?
Probably the title suite. Honestly I was surprised at how much I enjoyed revisiting it.
Rated 4/10
#263
Heard Before?
I heard the first four or five Eels albums as they came out.
Notes:
- everything good he ever did is right there on the first track. even later songs that i truly love ("Cancer for the Cure", "I Like Birds") are just retreads.
- "Manchild" almost works as a maudlin closer. almost.
- i do appreciate the pop formalism of the songwriting, but without interesting sounds or anything to say, that only goes so far.
Verdict:
B-side Beck.
Listen Again?
No.
#262
Heard Before?
Not at all.
Notes:
- vocals sound like a parody of the hippie sixties. yikes. i guess it really was like that.
- my absolute favorite thing about this album is the chintzy too-loud organ parts.
- the mix sounds like someone hit random faders.
Verdict:
Best left behind at Woodstock, where it clearly belonged.
Listen Again?
Nope. But I have a soft spot for Section 43.
Rated 8/10
#261
Heard Before?
Yup, but not since it came out.
Notes:
- is anyone cooler than Janelle Monae? nope.
- for a vocal pop album, the vocals very often get lost in the very busy mix.
- if i believed in such a thing as too many ideas, this album would be a key example.
- even completely ignoring the lyrics as i usually do, it took me several listens to really get what was going on. worth it, though.
- even when the hooks are lacking, the strength of the arrangements and performances holds it together.
Verdict:
Deliriously ambitious if not necessarily inventive. Janelle earns every last bit of her star power here, and still leaves me wanting more of her.
Listen Again?
Maybe not the whole thing, but it's sent me scurrying back to her other albums, all excellent, if not quite as much of a wild ride as this.
Rated 4/10
#260
Heard Before?
Oddly enough, not that I remember.
Notes:
- Bauhaus sticking to the formula, for sure.
- production is thin and trebly, like a lot of 4AD stuff. forgiveable.
- mostly about mood. the songs could use more structure.
Verdict:
Bela Lugosi is, believe it or not, still dead.
Listen Again?
I enjoyed this album while it was on, but I'm not sure that anyone needs to hear more than maybe three Bauhaus songs.
Rated 8/10
#259
Heard Before?
Many many times, although I've always been more of an XO fan.
Notes:
- if i was more of a lyrics person, this album would be far better.
- production is suited to the material - rough and raw. if i didn't know what was coming on the next album, i would love it.
- tightly built, emotionally resonant songs.
- vocals are wonderful, but again too my ears he came into full bloom later.
Verdict:
The peak of lo-fi sadboi pop.
Listen Again?
I'm certain someone is going to put it on again, probably soon. I do have teenagers, after all.
Rated 10/10
#258
Heard Before?
Purchased at a yard sale when I was a teenager because I read about it on allmusic. Listened to many many times since.
Notes:
- as a songwriting formalist, it doesn't get much better than this. so balanced and well-considered.
- "carefully orchestrated pathos" is my favorite poetic device, and is used judiciously here.
- production is just right, an odd blend of rigid professionalism and first-take rawness.
- arrangements are similarly perfect - every little touch is the right one.
- the title track and "Way Over Yonder" are a bit dull, but only enough to emphasize the shine of the other tracks.
Verdict:
The singer-songwriter goldilocks zone.
Listen Again?
I don't need to, but I just might.
Rated 8/10
#257
Heard Before?
Yup.
Notes:
- I'm obligated to point out that THIS LIST NEEDS A TWO-ALBUMS-PER-ARTIST LIMIT, NOW!
- i might have enjoyed this more if I hadn't just heard the superior-in-every-way This Year's Model.
- his need to sing in nearly every measure of every song is as distracting as ever. so many words, so crammed together. even Wu-Tang songs have more breathing room.
- at least the songs are concise. you wouldn't know it from my writing, but i delight in concision, truly.
- the obvious pastiches (blues, rockabilly, etc) are fine, but the album is better for watching his own style blossom.
- production is a real weak point, with no clarity or punch. and the wonderful sense of collaboration with the Attractions is sorely missed.
- "Watching the Detectives" is perfect.
Verdict:
Aim or not, he didn't really hit the mark until later.
Listen Again?
Not the whole thing. But I was glad to give it a chance.
