Mike76

I bought this record six or seven years ago after falling in love with that masterpiece "A Day," listened to (would you believe it?) right at the dark nights of a disco club. That track is a masterpiece: those dreamy keyboards, that driving rhythm that suddenly changes, that cold-romantic vocal style, everything fits together perfectly. With all the arrangements they nailed in this track, they could have made TWO or THREE great songs instead of spending it all on creating ONE masterpiece. The rest of the album fades in comparison, but there are other great tracks like "Equal Ways," a romantic synthetic ballad with a crescendo ending, the driving "7th Time" with "asexual" vocals, or the dream-pop-esque "No Words." Ivo was right about the Xymox; "Medusa" is also a good album, even if it lacks a standout track. As for the rest, I don't know anything else about them; I've always been advised against their albums after 4AD, and "Creatures," indeed, upon a distracted listen, seemed more useless than bad. However, the two 4AD albums remain, in my opinion, memorable, not trivial, and capable of renewing a genre that was practically already dead, and the label "pretty packaging but little substance" perhaps only applies to what they did afterward. The review is good, even though I disagree on many points ("Cry In The Wind" is Depeche Mode-esque, "Stanger" is the masterpiece of the album, "A Day" is avant-garde); nonetheless, it is well-written and enjoyable to read.

What a coincidence, I've ordered it from my trusted shopkeeper a month ago and I've been waiting for it. I'm already starting to salivate...

Well, I put "light" in quotation marks for a reason. For me, the Hoahio want to propose pop (in their own way, but still pop) and entertain the listener. This is a quirky and disorienting album as much as you like, but it certainly doesn't aim to assault the ears of those who listen, even if it does have more than a few rough edges. Then, it's obvious that someone who listens to radio-friendly pop might find it undigestible.

For me, the only completely throwaway tracks are "Wendy Time" and "Cut"; the rest of the songs range from decent to good.

They also passed me "Meditations," and I’m enjoying it more than this...

Well, a piece of crap record bought by millions of people, so it can't be criticized! Great reasoning. I humbly ask for your forgiveness, universal judge.

It's obvious that Jane's Addiction, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nirvana, U2, and R.E.M. (without even digging into more underground bands) outshine this shitty cover band called Guns N' Roses. But the best part is that these Led Zeppelin wannabes don't just pale in comparison to contemporary groups; they also fall short against bands that emerged 5, 10, or even 15 years before them. It's easier to list the bands they were inferior to.

There's no doubt that the "strong suit" of the Guns was their covers. However, even their "original" songs were covers in a sense. I don't know if you get what I mean...

...And maybe also Guns'n'Roses! Oh yes, those are the '80s to remember.

Big D, among the good (at what?) of the 80s, you forgot to mention Bon Jovi, Europe, and maybe even Van Halen.