Reviews by x-minor_miracle-x

Heard Before?
Yes indeed. I was after all alive during the 90s.

Notes:
- typical list-fodder. universally acclaimed and overplayed. but does it interest me?
- midtempo, midrange, not very dynamic.
- the lyrics sound meaningful, but i didn't bother paying attention.
- subtlety is the main theme here. slight variations in mixing, arrangements and songwriting, along with some masterful sequencing, keep things moving along quite nicely. i really appreciate how the ebb and flow of instrumentation props up what are very simple songs.
- for me "ignoreland" is the strongest and most interesting song, while "star me kitten" is the only real dud.
- a second listen revealed lots more fascinating subtleties, especially in the drum and keyboard parts. truly stellar production. still don't really care about the lyrics.

Verdict:
This strikes me as "mature" music, for better and worse. Much to admire, little for me to love.

Listen Again?
I'm only getting older, maybe it will appeal more later.

Heard Before?
Nope.

Notes:
- one of the key reasons i started this project was to find new music. less than 200 albums in and I'm already leery of things I've never heard of, most of which are bland UK acts, often new wave.
- typically i use this part of the review to make observations about various elements that jumped out on my first listen. but honestly I'm tired and nothing really stood out.
- it's too long, but it gets weirder as it goes along, which is for me a good thing. "Reward" and "Strange House" actually held my attention.

Verdict:
Pretty much for UK new wave completists only.

Listen Again?
I'll give it another try to hear what I missed the first time around, but I can't see seriously returning to this over the many other new wave albums I enjoy.

Heard Before?
Only "Buffalo Gals".

Verdict:
Ignore the name on the cover and all circumstances of the album's production and it becomes a fascinating relic of the early sampling era. Talk about plunderphonic, but the beat of Soweto is, in fact, indestructible.

Listen Again?
Unlikely, but I'm glad I finally heard the whole thing.

Heard Before?
At this point I think we are all born having already heard this album.

Notes:
- before listening carefully this time around, i was intending to write that there is nothing wrong with this album except its odd cultural dominance.
- instead i found plenty not to like. multiple vocalists is great, but here we have the umpteenth group to underuse their superior female singers. not a surprise, but still a disappointment.
- "Don't Stop" is quite limp. there's no build, drive or variation, and those lame synth pads throughout really don't help.
- "Songbird" is completely forgettable, a beige wallpaper ballad. "Oh Daddy" isn't far behind, despite the lovely vocals and terrific bassline.
- too often, the arrangements are static and just plunk along. so much midtempo, midrange, undynamic porridge. it would be harder to notice, but the undercooked songs sit right beside the brilliant ones.
- on the positive side, the drums and bass sound fantastic throughout.
- "Dreams" and especially "The Chain" were two of my favorite songs of the 70s until i heard them ten thousand times.

Verdict:
Why at this point in history anyone decides to purchase and play this deliberately is beyond me.

Listen Again?
Ha! Not by choice, but i don't have much choice, do i?

Heard Before?
Many times when it came out, but not in the last 25 years.

Notes:
- many tricks are employed to make the best use of very limited vocal ability. i can relate.
- maybe the most dynamic mainstream album of the 90s.
- unlike most industrial acts, these songs are structured like rock songs, rather than dance music, and are so much the better for it. not only that but the songs mutate constantly, with no two verses ever sounding the same, and choruses that stretch and grow. lots of other cool sections, too, without ever sounding proggy or overcomposed.
- production production production. he's the best sound designer of the whole industrial scene. synth patches and drum sounds are different on every song, there is shockingly creative use of samples, and a gear list that would make Hans Zimmer blush. the mix is deep, wide and wonderfully varied. wow.
- the only production mistake is the use of shitty electric guitar tones, but all the great industrial acts made the same mistake around this time.
- the biggest flaw by far, and it can't be overstated, is the lyrics. i get that he's playing an unsympathetic character, but i have zero interest in anything this character has to say. yuck. we just don't need another portrayal of permanent adolescent toxic masculinity, no matter how accurate.

Verdict:
I don't like this album at all, yet my admiration for it is boundless. Best leave it to the incel audio engineers.

Listen Again?
Maybe as a production study piece. It did remind me that I should give The Fragile another chance.

Heard Before?
Duh. Seriously the biggest struggle I have with this list is separating the art itself from its cultural context, especially the dominant mainstream. Who on god's green earth wakes up in the morning and wants to hear this album yet again?

Notes:
- so pleasant that it hurts. it truly hurts.
- song after song it features many musical elements i enjoy, bludgeoned into a bland paste and lacquered with a thousand layers of dull familiarity. ugh.

Verdict:
Of potential interest to twelve year olds and dudes who peaked at that age.

Listen Again?
I doubt the lord will be kind enough to spare me.

Heard Before?
Only "Me and Bobby McGee"

Notes:
- I lost interest in classic rock a long time ago, so this list can be irritating to slog through. However, it has also led me to gems like this.
- perfect sequencing, which to me is an underrated art.
- i get tired of song after song about toxic hetero relationships, but it comes with the territory.
- the band is on fire, so much so that it doesn't bother me that he arrangements are crowded and the mix is a bit muddy.
- especially enjoy the piano/organ interplay. "Woman Left Lonely" is gorgeous.
- obviously this is a vocal showcase, and she delivers completely on every song. electrifying.

Verdict:
The songs have nothing much new or interesting to offer, but who cares with these stunning vocals, and the best kind of undiluted rock energy. Turn it up.

Listen Again?
I just might. It wasn't so much a surprise as a reminder of the power that this genre can still summon.

Heard Before?
Too many times. At first I resisted it, then it became my favorite album of the 90s, now I never need to hear it again.

Notes:
- while Beck is certainly in top form here as a songwriter, vocalist and lyricist, make no mistake - this is a Dust Brothers album, and their finest moment.
- from start to finish, a glory box of exciting sounds, quotable nonsense and genre-mashing.
- the Deluxe Edition is completely unnecessary, but worth hearing once if only to look behind the curtain.

Verdict:
"Silver foxes lookin for romance / in the chain smoke Kansas flash dance ass pants"

Listen Again?
I'll need another long break, but yes.

Heard Before?
Finally, a real surprise from the list! Completely unfamiliar.

Notes:
- instantly sounds like it was released exactly ten years too late.
- dirty, claustrophobic, buried-vocals mix perfectly suits this kind of noise and aggression. bass tone is monstrous and the drums are a blur of cymbals. i love it.
- songwriting just isn't there. I'm not necessarily asking for pop structure, but some hooks would be nice, or a dive into mathy complexity. instead we get an endless barrage of forgettable riffs.
- i was expecting the surprisingly enjoyable nine-minute "Getting Bright at Night" to close the album, but it just keeps going after that for no discernible reason.
- there's a sax solo somewhere, and a noise coda on "Seasick" that mixed things up a bit, but too little too late for me.

Verdict:
If your two favorite ever songs are "White Heat White Light" and "Raw Power", this is your album.

Listen Again:
Probably not. I gave it a good twice over today, but I know too many similar-but-better albums.

Heard Before?
Too many times. When it came out I was working at a coffee shop with my best friend and he would play it constantly.

Notes:
- I understand why this is their most popular album, but it still sounds to me like a re-tread of The Soft Bulletin with weaker songs.
- the mix is glorious and the arrangements are fantastic. so many cool sounds and ideas, although most songs are too long. anything with a chorus gets repeated too many times.
- more slower songs than I remembered.
- the crowd noise motif irritates me.
- i could happily listen to just the drum tracks from the whole album.

Verdict:
The Lips at their most gorgeously overproduced and poppy. It's faux-naive stargazing music for people who don't want to grow up.

Listen Again?
Probably not, although it was fun to hear again after so many years. I will, however, put on the rawer, weirder and more exciting Embryonic right now.

Heard Before?
Yes.

Notes:
- in my memory this was the "dance-pop Bjork", but there's certainly variety here, and very little of either of those things.
- I've listened to her whole catalog, and the critics are correct: she can't write a vocal melody. but for the most part the idiosyncratic vocals work for me.
- the lyrics are well-considered if you want to pay attention. i mostly don't.
- songs are adequately constructed, enough to make the fantastic arrangements shine.
- so why do I love Bjork? her ears, mostly. album after album she successfully explores a wide range of interesting ideas, with an ever fascinating and expanding range of sounds.
- horns, harp, vibraphone, piano, hand drums, synths, drum machines and so much more. all these get used in ways that pushed the envelope for the time and still capture my interest.

Verdict:
I think it fails as pop or dance music, and it's too demanding to play in the background. But this sound world is still worth some deep listening.

Listen Again?
Entirely possible. I haven't given up on Bjork yet. I would put Homogenic on this list instead.

Heard Before?
Only "All Good People".

Notes:
- the mix is pristine, exactly suited to the material.
- arrangements are excellent, and the solos don't go on for too long.
- vocals are quite lovely, and mostly stay out of the way. lyrics are forgettable, which is a good thing in prog.
- I'm a synth fan, so I would prefer to hear a bit more keyboard. Lucky for me, Rick Wakeman steps in to remedy this on later albums.
- not earth-shattering, but a pleasant and interesting warm-up for Fragile and Close to the Edge.

Verdict:
Prog at its most light and fun.

Listen Again?
Saved the opener for later.

About the List:
To me, the whole point is to expand one's musical worldview. It NEEDS a two-albums-per-artist limit. Sorry, Dylan fans, but it's true.

Heard Before?
Yes, but I wasn't paying close attention.

Notes:
- as with most Dylan albums, the mix is atrocious. thin, trebly, too many instruments given too little space in the back of the mix, while the harmonica cuts swathes of destruction in front.
- but of course this is a lyrics album. song structure gets subsumed beneath the desire to get all the words in. for poetry, there's very little compression of thought.
- even with these severe limitations, there is brilliance here that rewards close listening. although i personally find it difficult or even exhausting to pay close attention when the instrumentals are so secondary.
- "I Want You" is a pop gem which left me very much wanting more of the same.

Verdict:
A goldmine for people who care about what Dylan has to say and don't mind nodding along to the ho-hum ebb-and-flow tunes for an hour.

Listen Again?
Meh. I'm really happy to hear all these Dylan songs once, but I prefer music with more going on musically.

Heard Before?
Not at all.

Notes:
- hard for me to get past one of my least favorite production styles. too much compression, pointless reverb, everything too loud all the time. almost completely lacking in dynamics, and everything is midrange.
- arrangements are similarly unrestrained, in the sense that everyone needs to play all the time, while seemingly not listening to each other.
- the songs seem not to have been written but to barely coalesce, while still not sounding like a proper jam. could be the near-complete absence of hooks. repeating the same stupid non-melodic line twenty times ("i want to die alone in bed") doesn't count.
- the endless caterwauling of the whinging man-child vocals also repels me.
- at least all the performances are spot on and committed. they all truly believe in this music, even if i don't.
- and yes, it's 1995, so every song and the album as a whole is waaaaaay too long.
- but wait? what's this? did i actually enjoy "Life's An Ocean"? I think I did! Hard grooves, use of space, an actual verse melody, fabulous bassline.
- "Reprise", while completely unnecessary, makes a virtue out of its meandering. No vocals really helps.

Verdict:
Marvelously competent lads grooving away in a hall of mirrors. Must be great to be them. For me I was mostly waiting for it to get interesting, and then just waiting for it to end, and then I was suddenly somewhat invested.

Listen Again?
Lord save us all, but I did queue up "Life's an Ocean" for later. We will see how it fares out of context.

Heard Before?
Only "Tiny Dancer" and, oddly enough, "Rotten Peaches". I know the greatest hits album, but I've always been too snobby to really dive in.

Notes:
- I'm not always a lyrics person, so my first impression was that every song is too long and wordy, except the charming and mandolin-featuring "Holiday Inn".
- but on my second listen, I was with my partner, who danced and sang along to every song. this greatly increased my appreciation. although we both agreed that "Indian Sunset" is a must-skip for obvious reasons.
- the mix is servicable, wisely foregrounding the vocals and compressing the orchestra far to the back.
- arrangements are busy and often overcooked, but i can tolerate the gooey cheese.
- the proggy title track is worth extra listens just to let it soak in.

Verdict:
Appropriately piano-heavy campy storytelling from the master of such things. Theatrical! Unlike many famous-for-one-hit records on this list, the deep cuts are worth it.

Listen Again?
Maybe I need to give Sir Elton a better chance.

Heard Before?
Yup.

Notes:
- front-runner for "Most Ironic Album Title"
- forgot what a snooze this is.
- there are certainly some interesting ideas, but you can see them coming from a mile away and then they get driven into the ground.

Verdict:
This dead horse has been flogged enough.

Listen Again?
Obviously not, but it did give me a desire to listen to actually exciting electronic releases from the same year. Iaora Tahiti, here I come.

Heard Before?
Yes.

Notes:
- I have a soft spot for the Abba formula. Pop structures with midtempo disco rhythm section, bombastic piano and group vocals? Sure!
- maybe I'm just old now, but I appreciate the grown-up themes of the songs. truly adult contemporary.
- I didn't remember "Tiger" and it amused me greatly.

Verdict:
Consistent, dependable, well-crafted. More like furniture than music.

Listen Again?
I'm not sure anyone on earth needs more than Abba Gold.

Heard Before?
Yes, borrowed from my uncle during my blues phase when I was twelve.

Notes:
- did you know they are from Texas?
- why is the bass so loud? i don't know but i don't mind.
- simple, clear arrangements showcase the weak, derivative vocals.
- more range than i expected. contains every kind of song that one could reasonably expect to hear in a 70s biker bar.
- I'm clearly not the target audience for this. I've never drank beer or raised hell (mostly read books and made music).
- "Master of Sparks" jumps out at me for it's story and the ghostly guitar line during the verse.

Verdict:
Great soundtrack for polishing one's Honda Gold Wing.

Listen Again:
No, but it was amusing enough this time.

Heard Before?
Only "Child in Time".

Notes:
- rock organ is one of my favorite instruments, so I was instantly sold on that.
- this album's reputation as the heaviest thing going in 1970 rings true, especially on something like "Into the Fire".
- once things get underway, there isn't much in the way of surprises, but there is just enough variety to hold my interest.
- lyrics are perfectly ignorable.
- the mix matches the performances perfectly, with all the instruments just distinct enough, but still blending as things get heavy. vocals are half-buried, which is ideal.

Verdict:
Organ-heavy hard rock wankery. If you have long gray hair and a leather vest, this is the perfect soundtrack to thinking about your glory days.

Listen Again?
Probably not, but I'm very glad that I heard it. I'm fine listening to something once out of curiosity - that's how I can make my way through this list.

Heard Before?
Only the title track.

Notes:
- these beats are fantastic. the drums are dusty, the bass is funky, there's (for the era) lots of variety between tracks, and the beat switches, drops and modulates enough to keep things moving and interesting.
- his flow is fine, if dated, and he at least attempts some different styles.
- i don't know how to describe the lyrics except as a goldmine of unintentional comedy. whatever he's going for comes off, most of the time, as the complete opposite. hilarious as that can be, i just end up feeling bad for him. did people ever take this seriously? for real?
- but i should give Todd some credit, because the one posse cut is truly awful. he's at least better than his crew.

Verdict:
Cheesy rat indeed, but with sick beats.

Listen Again?
Nope.