Album Rating: 3.5

Its not fast enough on the album, make it a few beats quiker and it might sound better.

its just bad.
"broken box is one of the best songs they've (josh) ever written"
what about everything on their first, rated r, and everything josh wrote while in kyuss?This Message Edited On 02.04.06

alieneater. why wont you learn that people have their own point of views. you dont think that broken box is the best, but that person does. and face it, lullabies is a pretty sweet album. (and where is your "better" over the years and through the woods review huh? its been over a week)This Message Edited On 02.04.06

Album Rating: 4.0

[QUOTE=AlienEater] what about everything on their first, rated r, and everything josh wrote while in kyuss? [/QUOTE]



Read carefully- I said ONE of the best.



And besides, the first cd (sans "Regular John") is pretty subs-standard and I never saw what the big deal was with Kyuss.This Message Edited On 02.04.06

For me, Lullabies was a good album but it lacked the magic of the other three. Where the past Queens would find a groove and play it out start to finish, this release struck me as Josh and co. trying to do something a little different and never finding their footing, never deciding if they wanted to be the old Queens or a new band.

Album Rating: 4.0

I am not exactly sure I see what makes this album "bluesy"? The fact that Billy Gibbons played on it?

I find it strange that people based the review on my opinions.

Album Rating: 4.0

This is definetly one of the weeker, if not the weekest Queens LP, it take quite a few listens to really dig into it, I have learned to love all the songs except for "The Blood Is Love" That just drags on far too much for me.



This might seem wierd but for me there are 2 types of albums, an album that sounds better on a sound system, and one that sounds better through headphones, and this one is that later for me, it has a more personal feeling then the other Queens releases.

Album Rating: 3.5

[quote=Cathedral]I find it strange that people based the review on my opinions.[/quote]:wave: Not me.

Yeah, this used to be a 2 to me too, but eventually grew on me.

it used to be a 1 for me, but now it's a 3 or 3.5

Album Rating: 3.5

yeah i agree with kripes and alieneater, the first time i heard it a few of the catchier songs made it a 2 or a 2.5 for me, but then it eventually dropped down to a 1. now that i've gone a bit deeper into some of the more experimental tracks, its up to about a 3.5

Personally I think its great how they fused hard rock and blues. Face it, they were never going to make another CD like SFTD, if they did it would be regarded as an inferior copy.
I admit it takes a few listens but once you "understand" this album it rocks.

Best song is "Everybody knows that your insane", just learnt the guitar solo and it kicks ass!

Album Rating: 4.0

And rated R "owns" that album....

Album Rating: 3.0

Burn the Witch is lyrical ecstacy.

Album Rating: 2.5

this CD is still not very good even after a year or so. :

Album Rating: 4.5

I agree with Zesty, you are basically saying that you were hyped for the album and you were disappointed (deeply). I guess people have their opinions, but your opinions are based off of previous QOTSA albums which in comparison may be better but that doesn't effect the new listener's opinions who have never heard of QOTSA or their music. Imagine being 'brain-drained' and picking up "Lullabies..." as your first album. Then, write a new review.

i am still disappointed how QOTSA went from the best mainstream rock act to complete and utter shit after SFTD.

Starting with this