flood

@target: you know what leaves me a bit perplexed? The excellent (but really excellent) nearly unanimous reception that this album has received (just take a look at Metacritic)... now, that it’s a nice record there’s no doubt, but it’s not exactly an impeccable or particularly striking work. I was wondering how much the fact that he hasn’t made any missteps yet, the fame he has built over the past few years (as an intellectual and "indie" author, as a student and protégé of Scott Walker), and therefore the unconditional esteem he enjoys from industry insiders, have influenced all this. But if this work had been done by any Brett Anderson or Richard Ashcroft (and come on... it wouldn’t be that unlikely, more or less), are we sure that the reception would have been the same? All this, of course, with unchanged esteem for Jarvis, who for me remains one of the greatest English artists out there.

here are the grades.

The review is really well done, congratulations! As for the album, I still have (after several listens) mixed feelings... it's a good album, pleasant to listen to, yet it doesn't engage me as it should (or as I would like it to), perhaps I was really expecting more (the Pulp are far away...) at times it seems too bare and, worse, rather predictable. The rating would be a 3.5.

Good collection, although compilations of only ballads can eventually become a bit too "sugary." I still believe that Madonna works "better" in more excessive and flamboyant (sonic) attire rather than as a refined interpreter of ballads (even though she has shown that she can handle herself well in that context). The cover made with Massive Attack and Neelle Hooper is perhaps one of the best things of her career together with I'll Remember, which is also included in the album.

I forgot an h...

Liberty!!?? But it's one of the worst records I have in my collection (and I can assure you the competition is fierce)...you really can’t recommend an album like that, it’s terrible! I suppose (or hope) that the Duran have done better in the early years of their career. I don't know this Medazzaland...but your review, come on, it's really too harsh; in the end, you hardly analyze the album and prefer to highlight only your dislike for the band in question...what have they done to you? :)

the votes.

Dave, too much is too much! It's fine to review Madonna's entire discography, but at least let some time pass between one review and the next, or you'll end up achieving the opposite effect! As for this collection... I didn't buy it, not only because it seemed (at least to me) useless as it lacks a single new track, but mainly because it has a rather questionable tracklist. The order is not chronological, and Madonna changed her sound so much in the '90s that those tracks all together clash quite a bit; some combinations seem absurd to me. Also, not all singles from the '90s were on par with those from the '80s... and often the less interesting tracks were released as singles. In short, this, while featuring some great pop tracks, doesn't hold a candle to The Immaculate Collection (now that's really excellent)... for her '90s work, I would have preferred a "best of" with a proper selection of tracks, not necessarily singles.

Yesterday, however, I saw a version in the store that also includes a DVD with (almost) all their best videos (in that case the cover rose is red) and since almost all of them are directed by Corbjin, I’d say it’s worth it; I think I might consider it too!

P.S.: anyway, better this collection than the last one by U2 which has a terrifying tracklist where the most represented album is All That You Can't...enough said.