Well, I'm a fan of Sarah Vaughan, but not of live albums. She is possibly my favourite vocalist of the big band era, so I gave this an honest chance. It's pretty cool. But I'd still rather listen to her studio recordings. I don't get anything from the MC introducing, or the crowd coughing, or Sarah and the band messing up one of the tracks. On the closing track, "How High the Moon", she sings (without breaking her stride) "Ella Fitzgerald does this song real crazy", then does a kind of impression of Ella's scat singing. Now there's something cool that you wouldn't hear in the studio I guess. Her voice sounds great as always, and the original concise selection of 9 tracks is strong. (All the reissues more than double this number. Will we ever get away from the early CD era mentality of "cram as much bonus stuff on the disc as possible"?) Overall, this is probably a 3.5 from me, but I will round it up to 4 given that none of Sarah's studio material seems to appear in the 1001 list (which by the way is a fucking travesty given how many redundant picks of post-1960 white male rock music they managed to fit in).

I love me some Fela Kuti, but I've listened to his early-70s stuff more than the rest. My favourite album is "Gentleman", and I stand by that as being his best work. However, "Zombie" is close behind, and I hadn't fully appreciated it until now. The album was a critique of the Nigerian military, and it resulted in violent suppression of Kuti, his family and his followers. But the music is also worth holding up on his own terms. The original record has two 12-min tracks (the other two are reissue bonus tracks), and as usual they are energetic explorations of funk and jazz, matched with African rhythms and call-and-response. "Gentleman" has an even better elastic energy to it, but "Zombie" is a little more polished. Many of Kuti's albums do follow a blueprint, but it's such a good and original blueprint that it doesn't matter! Perfect 5 for this one.

Awwwww yeeeeah. I like 1970s Elton John in general, but this one is his masterpiece. It's a sprawling, baroque romp through rock n roll nostalgia and piano pop that still sounds fresh. The songwriting is great, and Elton is on top form. The sequencing of the tracks starts off well, pulling the album into a coherent whole. "Jamaica Jerk-off" is pretty stupid, and "Roy Rogers" is a weak point. But I don't even care. B-b-b-benny and the motherfucking jets.

Man, how do you begin to appraise this. It's 3 hours long, for starters. It also represents multiple huge bodies of work (i.e. Ella Fitzgerald's, but the Gershwin bros' too). I've got the 1990 Verve edition, which crams it onto 3 CDs... but even then, this is not a regular triple-album. It's a monolith. Maybe I'm an idiot, because I always vaguely thought this was an anthology collecting some previous Gershwin records by Fitzgerald. But in this case, the collection is the original. It was a 5 LP boxset release. The deluxe version originally cost $100, which is something like $900 in today's money. I'm now even more impressed, at the ambition of the project, and the fact that there was no compromise on quality at this scale. When you consider that Fitzgerald had multiple other albums released in 1959 and 1960, the whole thing is fucking insane. Unlike some of those other albums, I don't think the idea here was "here is Ella's rendition of some famous songs", but rather "here are the definitive versions of a modern canon". And it achieves that aim completely. Anyhow, the songs are gorgeous, and they suit Fitzgerald's voice amazingly. This is Ella at her best, showcasing the Gershwins in their best light. To me, the quality of the music is beyond reproach. On the other hand, there's no getting away from the fact that it's not an album in the contemporary sense, and it makes for a weird listening experience. It would be more enjoyable to just listen to the 15 best tracks, but that's not really the point, since this is deliberately a monolithic document. Do you listen to individual tracks, or sit through 3 hours straight? Or do you recreate the original 5 LPs, and do one at a time? It doesn't ultimately matter, because it's perfection however you play it. So, not really an album... but rated as an album? 5/5. And as a seminal document of American music, and an essential touchstone of twentieth-century culture? 5/5. It's kinda stupid to say a celebrated recording is underrated - but this is underrated... in that it's one of the most important set of recordings ever made, and the discussion it receives in most quarters isn't equal to its sheer skill, beauty, scale, ambition, and contribution to culture.

I've listened to this and their debut at least once. But I mustn't have been paying attention the first time, because this is stellar. As it plays, you can hear the process punk and new wave being transmuted into what would become the lo-fi shambolic style of indie rock later in the 1980s. I love how they sound rough around the edges, without ever lacking in purpose or conviction. The whole thing is weird and fantastic. On another listen, I can also see the 1960s psychedelic influences coming through, which I hadn't really thought about before. If this group are a throwback to 1960s rock, they are actually improving on the original. I wouldn't change anything, so 5/5.

I never get that much pleasure from Birth of the Cool or Kind of Blue, compared the 1960s Miles albums, or even many of his 1950s albums. Both albums are obviously landmarks in jazz, but they're not particular favourites of mine. It's been a few years since I last heard this one. Some stellar playing and you can hear the new era in jazz coming directly in bebop's wake here. The one vocal track at the end always made this feel even less like a "proper album", so I'm enjoying the 2003 mono remaster that takes this track back off. Overall, I'm grateful it happened and had the effect it had... but it's an unexcited 3/5 from me. I'd go to 3.5 if halves were allowed.

Most of my 1950s music is jazz, with some blues thrown in. I'm not very knowledgeable about the rock canon, and I guess the closest albums I am familiar with would be Elvis Presley's first two or Bo Diddley's early stuff. Even compared to Elvis, this is pretty saccharine stuff. Like some of the other records in the 1001 list, I can appreciate the historical influence and importance without being personally enthralled. 12 tracks in 25 mins is impressive, and a reminder that concision is normally a virtue.

I'm generally a fan, but probably haven't heard this album as much as their earlier ones, nor as much as Paul Simon's solo records. It's good. Less folk and more soft rock. Lots of stuff that Simon would develop later on his own. I don't think this is a high point of his career, and I definitely prefer "Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme" (which is also on the 1001 list). However, it's still got the S&G magic. I never understood how a live cover song made it onto this album. It doesn't belong at all.

I like all three of his albums, but haven't listened for a couple years. I remember the debut one best, which has a '60s folky sound turned melancholy. This one has some more upbeat stuff, but Drake's distinctive vocals give it all an edge of darkness. The music is great, and his lyrics so striking. His voice isn't technically great, but spot-on for the art he created. I can't think of anything I would change, and the album realises Drake's peculiar vision.

I began to get interested in music around the time this came out (but I was into Oasis at the time). I look back on all britpop with the opposite of nostalgia... so I guess I'm looking through shit-tinted glasses here. It's also hard not to hear a whole generation of vapid indie rock that followed from this. Trying to be objective... it's well-played, and sometimes catchy. There are a few moments of wistful melancholy, which is a true indie staple. But mostly, it's like they've taken the most boring elements of rock, pop, punk and other styles, and mashed them together into soaring anthems of mediocrity, with all the blithe confidence of a New Labour party conference. Might get a 2/5... but it's also 16 tracks / 1 hour long.

I went through a short Nirvana phase as a teenager, but I've never been a huge fan. And as a pathetic snob, the hype around Nirvana/Kurt put me off revisiting. I don't remember much about this album compared to their other two... Pleasantly surprised! I like the noise rock elements and the more distorted/discordant moments more than the "standard grunge" sound I remembered. This album has aged well for me, and I enjoy it more now than I did in the past.

I've heard the big hits, but never sit down and listened to Tina Turner. Not sure what to expect at all. Holy cow, this is good. Her voice is great and the songs allow her to showcase a full range of emotional power. The music is brashly 1980s with schmaltzy sax and synth. But it works really well, and the whole album rocks out, with little touches of funk, soul, R&B, etc. Even the cover songs (Beatles, Al Green, David Bowie) cohere with the album as a whole. 5/5, glad I gave this a chance!

I'm already a fan of this band. Belle & Sebastian - If You're Feeling Sinister (1996) is unequivocally their best album, but this debut from earlier the same year is still good. They are all about self-aware melancholy wistfulness and the indie sad-happy dynamic. Stuart Murdoch's twee song-writing and clumsy vocals are the main point of interest, and sadly the songs on this are just not as strong as the follow-up album. I really like the lo-fi synthpop of "Electronic Renaissance" and quite wish they'd done a whole album of that (Casiotone for the Painfully Alone style). Overall, their next album definitely deserves its place on the list, but this one is 3/5 to me.

I remember this group from the 1990s. They were big in the UK at least. I never heard this debut album before. It's an energetic funk record with strong elements of jazz, soul, disco, etc. I can see why they were popular at the time, since they have a more exciting sound than most chart-topping pop. However, the problem with these kinds of "revival" style is that the earlier stuff inspiring it is normally better. So, in this case, I'd much rather go back and listen to the greats of funk, jazz, etc., rather than a slick 1990s update of it. After much thought, I've decided I don't really care about originality... but if you are creating sounds that already exist, you need to do it with a sense of "authenticity" I guess? This feels a bit like a plasticky pastiche of some better music that came before. Also, I always found the frontman insufferably annoying, so maybe all of this is my own prejudice against him. In any case, 2/5 to give credit for good musicianship and the mostly groovy results.

Finally one I've never even heard of! I'm not a huge fan of the 1960s American folk scene. This is pretty engaging though. He's got a deep, brooding voice and the musicianship is strong. There's a kind of melancholy mood through the album even when the songs are ostensibly happy. First time I heard the original version of "Everybody's Talkin'" ("everybody's talkin' at me, I don't hear a word they say") - didn't previously know whose song that was, to be honest. Towards the end of the album, you get some psychedelic touches, including an 8-minute raga (or the American folk equivalent to a raga). I can see how this might be a treasured album for some. Its not a style or period that majorly does it for me, although I will keep this and listen again sometime.

I've heard this before (must have deleted an old mp3 copy), and a lot of other indie folk from the 00s decade. It's not a genre I kept up any interest in. I think I saw this band at a festival, and it was pleasant enough in a field with a beer. However, it hasn't stood up to sober scrutiny now. I find this album extremely boring. The moments of "chamber pop"/"art pop" are occasionally engaging. But most of the album is dreary subdued indie with residual folk flavour. I'm completely happy with quiet and slow music (I love ambient music, for example), but "slow motion indie" is a terrible concept. I started to think maybe I'm just personally turned off by all the genres at work here... but then I consider something Midlake - The Trials of Van Occupanther (2006), which does quirky indie folk infinitely better and would be more deserving of a place on the list. 1.5, would delete again for a third time.

1960s psychedelia is not generally my bag, but I'm happy for any album to change my mind! Quite liked the sound on this, which ranges across folk, pop and rock, with hints of 1960s surf rock. I enjoyed the more esoteric and strange tracks, with some small echoes of Pink Floyd - The Piper at the Gates of Dawn (1967). However, the standout highlights were actually the straight pop ones, like "This Will Be Our Year" - a great track. The song from the perspective of a WW1 soldier was unexpected but interesting. But also some throwaway tracks which haven't aged that well, like ""I Want Her, She Wants Me". Overall, this is a good example of a genre I'm not hugely into. 3.5, but it does deserve a place on the list, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's five-stars for other people who like the genre.

Already had this, and listened to it a few times. Some classic tracks here. But to be honest, I wasn't really looking forward to revisiting. I like first-wave and third-wave ska, but I always felt second-wave (2 Tone) ska was overrated, esp. by UK folks who were alive at the time and see the whole era nostalgically. Giving it a proper listen... I'm pleasantly surprised. More punk elements than I remembered. But most of it is insanely catchy and danceable at the same time. Really laid the blueprint for third-wave ska, more than I'd appreciated before. But it also stays closer to the Jamaican original. I love the unity ballad, "Doesn't Make It Alright" - Operation Ivy should have covered this. (Or did they??) There are a couple of throwaway tracks, and some puerile lyrics occasionally… but 4/5.

Never really clicked with Led Zep but it's been a while so let's see... Well, the music is hard to argue with. Takes rock music back to the blues while also being ambitious and new. They play soft, they play hard - it pretty much all works. However, hearing Robert Plant doing his rockstar screeches "baby baby baby baby", "my woman shook me all night", "baby baby baaaaaaaaby" ruins the whole thing and makes me queasy. I'm starting to realise this is the reason I don't like much mainstream rock. If only instrumental versions of albums were a thing, like they are in hip-hop. As it stands, the vocals start off cheesy but become annoying around the 200th time he squeals "baby". 3/5 for excellent musicianship.

I know it's a classic of the genre, but it never made much impression on me, and that hasn't changed. The production is good with nice old-school sampling, but there's something lacking from some tracks. The flow is amazing, especially from Wyclef Jean and Lauryn Hill. But on some tracks, the lyrics are mediocre and throwaway. This is one genre where I definitely want the lyrics to have an impact on me. I like Wyclef's ragga style and the Caribbean influence you don't hear so often in American hip-hop. I also like the soulful elements, esp. on the two big hits. But I've got no love for the questionable Bob Marley cover shoehorned in at the end. The album doesn't justify its hour-long running time (and rubbish intros/skits are another thing that ruins many hip-hop albums for me).

I've been listening to lots of 1970s reggae lately, so happy to give this another spin. Another record that is clearly important and influential, but which is not one of my favourites. HOWEVER, just as I was thinking how it always sounds a little too slick, I read that the Island release was remixed by the label without the artist's blessing/input. Can't believe I didn't know that. Now listening to the original Jamaican mix for the first time, and it has so much more of the darker, atmospheric sound I look for in roots reggae. Also just generally finding that the record is clicking with me more than it did in the past. None of the tracks are filler, and the instrumentation is great. My only mild criticism is that I'm not a huge fan of Burning Spear's voice (or let's say "the lead singer", since he hadn't yet taken the Spear name for himself). It's good and it fits the whole sound, but it doesn't compare to some 1970s reggae vocals. Overall, loved this a lot more on revisiting (and hearing the original mix).

Oh boy. I like Nina Simone, but I've only listened to under 50% of her discography - so it's great to add another album to my collection. Got to say, this is a weird choice as the ONLY Simone album on the 1001 list. Why not Little Girl Blue, High Priestess of Soul, or Nina Simone Sings the Blues - all three of which are more iconic? Wild is the Wind seems to be a collection of leftover tracks from other album sessions, and was out of print for many years. Having said that, it's really good! The style range from folk to blues to soul to jazz. Mostly ballads, but a few upbeat tracks. Love songs sit alongside tales of suffering. All held together by her smouldering voice with its dramatic flare. It might be a little miscellaneous, but it's certainly a good sampler of her talent.

I've listened to this and Sonic Youth - Daydream Nation (1988) in the past, and never quite understood the level of praise for this band. I think part of the problem was I'd already listened to a lot of post-hardcore and noise rock, and I failed to appreciate how innovate Sonic Youth were in carving out space for those genres. You can hear a lot of Fugazi emanating from this album, for example. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how original/influential a record is if it doesn't click with you personally. Thankfully, this did fall into place for me on revisiting it! I love the noisy, discordant, and experimental moments. But I also love that this album surrounds them with clean indie/rock frameworks. It's a great record, even if it'll never mean as much to me as it does to other listeners.

As for this album, it's a nimble, uncompromising distillation of everything good about 70s punk, reimagined as an artistic statement from another world. It's catchy but haunting. It's simplistic but ambitious. It's hardcore punk mixed with synthpop, yet it predates both. It's a post-punk paradox and a strong example of PERFECTION.

I like the small amount of Sam Cooke I've listened to (like on anthology collection, and my wife blasting "A Change is Gonna Come"). However, I hate live albums so not really the target audience for this. It sounds like it was on hell of a night. Sam gives it a raucous soul feel. Lots of hyping up the audience and getting everyone dancing. I can see the value of the release, since you don't hear this energetic, unrestrained style of singing on his studio material. Also interesting back story (recorded in 1960s, shelved until 1980s for not being friendly enough for white customers). I still don't really see the appeal of sitting around listening to a recording of a concert. And soul is not a genre that particularly does it for me.

Yeah, this smoooooooth. I like both Sinatra and Jobim, but I'm not a huge buff of either, and never heard their collaborative material before. It's bossa nova filtered through the big band tradition, as you might expect. Silky smooth and understated orchestra, with Jobim's gossamer guitar and Sinatra in his effortless lounge mood. The whole thing is chilled and quiet to the point of somnolent. But it's a thing of beauty. Ten tracks in under thirty mins too, which works perfectly for this style. One or two tracks aren't true perfection, so it's 4.5 from me. If you haven't heard this before you die, play it at your funeral.

Finally some punk! I'm familiar with their first album ("Teenage Kicks" era), but never went any further. The first album is a decent early example of pop punk, with some of the sneering energy of punk mapped onto catchy songs about girls. I'm not a huge fan of the band, but I can see why that one made the 1001 list. This follow-up album has a more precise, controlled sound with less punk edge - so it's crossing further into "power pop", and parts of it have a hint of retro 1960s pop rock. It's pretty competently done, and I quite like the singers voice, which has a slight vibrato when he occasionally holds a note. However, the song writing is boring and the tracks get samey. I've never massively liked the first album, and I like this one a little less. From Buzzcocks to The Jam, there are so many bands that do a similar thing much better. Even staying in Northern Ireland, Stiff Little Fingers - Inflammable Material (1979) would be more deserving of a place on the list. So to me, it's unfathomable that The Undertones get two spots on the 1001 list. Presumably just because John Peel liked them.

I heard her 2019 album but don't remember much about it. Somehow, I never realised she's Beyonce's sister! Anyhow, this record was surprisingly good. Lovely soft but powerful vocals. Smooth and cool contemporary R&B / neo-soul sound. Unfortunately, there are a number of things letting this down. First, shitty rap features. I love hip-hop, but hate the trend of getting rappers to chuck random verses into a pop/R&B record. And in this case... Lil Wayne? Really? Someone felt Lil Wayne is what this album was missing?? (Sadly, I think her 2019 record suffered even more from "guest spot syndrome".) Second problem is that the spoken interludes about African-American experience are really interesting, but make the album feel fragmented and bloated. Overall, the great moments on this made me long for her to make a more focused album that properly showcases her voice and aesthetic. 3.5/5

More 1960s psychedelia for me. Never heard of this bizarrely named outfit! It's a concise and energetic record. I like the surf / garage rock elements. But I particularly like the noisy guitar and spaced-out warbling sounds on the hallucinatory opening track ("I Had too Much to Dream Last Night"). Unfortunately, the album doesn't consistently deliver on its promises. There are some generic rock tracks where the singer whines about "gettin' some loving". And there are two awful, forced twee folk tracks, one of which involves a dodgy British accent (the band are from Los Angeles...). Overall, some cool moments and I'm glad I heard it. But it doesn't convert me to 60s rock, and I can't see it qualifying as essential listening for many people. 2.5

I like 1990s techno and IDM. I like Warp Records. Somehow I never checked out this duo's music. I was pretty excited to find a new gem from this scene. Sadly, that's not what I got. Firstly, it's mostly downtempo with some ambient - so not quite what I thought (I have seen it referred to as a techno record in multiple places). But that's okay. More problematically, I find it completely half-baked. Lots of lovely sounds, but the tracks mostly feel like unfinished sketches. It's more than an hour and fifteen minutes long, and it just feels like a rough draft of ideas that needed more work. I really don't want all my mini-reviews to be "my favourite album is better than this favourite album", but let's put this in perspective. In 1994 alone, Autechre and µ-Ziq released their sophomore albums (but I assume both artists are represented elsewhere on the list, so we'll let that slide). Also in 1994: Robert Hood - Internal Empire (1994) / Plastikman - Musik (1994) / Alter Ego - Alter Ego (1994). Also in 1994, Atom™ released a DOZEN albums, and every one I've heard is more coherent than this one. There's so much to choose from, it just seems bizarre that this record made the cut.

I can get down with some British prog, but it sometimes looks rather quaint next to German kosmische. Genesis have never been a favourite of mine, and from memory I would have said 3/5. Happy to revisit it, and I enjoyed it more than expected. (The 2014 half-speed remastered vinyl sounds amazing btw.) Some of the tracks seem to think they are more stupendous than they are, confirming all the things people say about prog's pretentiousness. However, 90% of this record sounds great. I love the mixture of folk and classical influences (albeit superficial?) into rock. I even like most of the silly whimsical lyrics. 4/5

After seeing the Dictators on previous page, I was just thinking I hadn't revisited any "proto-punk" records for a few years. I don't remember liking the Dictators, and I didn't remember much at all about the Sonics. Looks like I downloaded this album in 2013, and I probably haven't revisited it. Anyway, HOLY CRAP this is better than I remembered/expected. Under 30 mins, and just a burst of energetic garage rock, containing most of what is good about rock n roll. As someone who isn't generally a huge fan of the mainstream rock canon, this album is fun enough to make me temporarily change my mind. The sound is crisp and competent, but with enough sloppiness & rough edges to make it sound like they're not trying. They cover some early rock "standards". They keep everything simple & it works just fine. My only complaint is that singer keeps trying to do a James Brown "WAAAAAAAH" / "WOOOOOOW". It's fucking annoying and lame whoever does it.

Never got around to listening to the Waterboys before, so I was looking forward to hearing what I've missed. Sadly, I found the album very uneven. Some amazing tracks like "Sweet Thing", which turns into a weird Beatles cover (and itself received an odd hardcore punk cover by Comadre, which sadly isn't on the site). Some tracks that are at least memorable, if not my cup of tea, like "We Will Not be Lovers". However, from track 6 on it's mostly generic Irish folk-rock that any pub rockers in Ireland could probably play equally forgettably. I'm not a huge folk-rock fan (or a big listener of Irish music), but I don't think I'm being biased in saying the album falls drastically short of the standards set by its own high points. Edit: also a shit album title, since there's nothing nautical or bluesy here. 2.5

Never listened to a whole Springsteen album. After watching Blinded by the Light (cool 2019 film about a British Muslim kid obsessed with the Boss in the 1980s), I was quite open to hearing more. I can appreciate the craft of this album. "Promised Land" and "Darkness on the Edge of Town" are great well-written songs. Others like "Racing in the Street" are relatively memorable. Sadly, most of the album just washes over me. I've tried it three times, but only the standout tracks really do it for me. I'm not a huge fan of this style of rock music, and not massively struck by Bruce's vocals. Overall, I enjoyed it, and I wouldn't mind hearing another album, but it's a 3.5.

I love hip-hop, but I don't generally fuck with gangsta rubbish. NWA's Straight Outta Compton is one exception, so let's see if Ice Cube's solo stuff will click.... No. It's shit. Production is pretty catchy, but repetitive, and full of irritating skits with unfunny jokes. Ice Cube's flow and delivewry are alright. Lyrics are the usual misogynistic rubbish about kicking pregnant women in the stomach and so forth. Man, he really likes talking about his dick. What artistry. Yeah, we could say it's raw and aggressive because it's the art of the disenfranchised urban poor. But let's all remember that this style of hip-hop was successful throughout the 1990s because largely white audiences lapped up increasingly extreme stereotypes of the exoticised African-American man, like a modern and aggressive version of minstrelsy. I will defend hip-hop as a genre, but this is crap. "Endangered Species" featuring Chuck D is tolerable, though it's offset by a shitty Flavor Flav appearance later. To be clear, I don't need my hip-hop to be sanitised. But it needs to have something (anything) that lifts it above the level of hateful hyper-masculine posturing. 1/5 To end on a positive note, here's a great hip-hop album from 1990 that should be on the list: Master Ace - Take A Look Around (1990)

Oooh look, it's more 1990s British indie rock. I remember the name, but not any of their songs/albums. To be fair, this one is reasonably decent. Although considered a studio album, it was recorded live in a concert hall with a small orchestra and an audience (though thankfully you can't tell on the album that this was a live show). They are songs... about love, ranging from the romantic to the absurdist and twee. "If you were a horse, I'd clean the crap out of your stable" is a great line to sing with earnestness against orchestral accompaniment. I'm not opposed to orchestral pop, and the guy's voice does suit this setup. A bit like the Springsteen record, I can appreciate the craft and I wouldn't object to hearing their other material. But I'm not falling in love with this record. 3.5

Awwwww yeeeeah. I like 1970s Elton John in general, but this one is his masterpiece. It's a sprawling, baroque romp through rock n roll nostalgia and piano pop that still sounds fresh. The songwriting is great, and Elton is on top form. The sequencing of the tracks starts off well, pulling the album into a coherent whole. "Jamaica Jerk-off" is pretty stupid, and "Roy Rogers" is a weak point. But I don't even care. B-b-b-benny and the motherfucking jets.

Never heard of this band. It's late 1980s indie. If you really like The Wedding Present and other bands of that era/scene, and you are looking for something similar, you could do a lot worse than this. It seems to be quite critically celebrated. Maybe I'm not in the mood for this today, but it sounded dreary and dated, and I already can't remember anything about it. For me, The Smiths discography is already more than enough of this kind of sound - and The Go-Betweens don't seem to have a particularly striking take on it. 2.5

Ok, so a few pages back I said "I also rate EBTG. None of their albums are a total smash, but there's always something interesting happening that I can enjoy". I retract my statement, because upon revisiting, this one is their smash. Within a few years, they'd got from folk, to jazz-pop, to indie rock, to synthpop. Now they slide effortlessly into the downtempo/trip-hop craze. Tracey Thorn had featured on Massive Attack's second album with great results. Cynical people might say they were just changing their sound to chase whatever seemed popular. But the results don't lie, and this album has a great carefully managed electronic palette that doesn't sound cheap and dated like the work of many other "pop turned synth" artists. Thorn's vocals gel so well with that sound. "Mirrorball" is a weak link, and the two remixes included on the original album are doing nothing for me.

I've heard this band in the past, but never properly checked them out. This one apparently is the third and greatest album, just before one of the founding members left. It's quite pleasant. 30 mins of throwback rock n roll with a country tinge and some blues cover songs. If you are a big fan of 1950s/60s rock classics, you would definitely have a blast with this. I tapped my toes along to the whole thing, and there weren't any dull moments. But it's not a style I'm particularly enamoured with. 3.5

I think I listened to my dad's copy many years ago, but happy to give it a fresh listen. It sounds like an indie band remixed by a DJ, which is what it is. I was pretty disappointed by the other Andrew Weatherall project I had a few pages back in this thread. But happily, the most house-leaning tracks (like "Don't Fight it, Feel it") are strong. The few tracks of straight-up 60s psychedelic rock homage are pretty dull. The vocal samples around "Come Together" and "Loaded" are cheap, and the album feels bloated at 1 hour 5 mins. Slightly strange that the album is regarded as groundbreaking, when it's a logical extension of what Happy Mondays and other bands had been doing for a few years. However, it's pretty fun and cool. 3/5

Somehow I have never listened to this. Couple of punk tracks here, but much of it is alt-rock being shaped by a punk legacy. I can get along with that. Listened to it three times and it's a grower. "Androgynous" and "Unsatisfied" have a haunting melancholy about them. Towards the end of the album, "Gary's Got a Boner" is shit, and the next track "Sixteen Blue" is also a weak point. But then they wrap up with the insanely memorable "Answering Machine". It's slightly uneven up to this point too. I'm going to give it 3.5 and not feel too bad, because it already made the collage.

I've never been a fan of thrash metal. I tried listening to Slayer and Anthrax as a teenager, but didn't really get it and went back to punk music. However, I'm amazed I didn't enjoy Anthrax at least, since this album is basically as close to hardcore punk as metal gets. I like it. It's tightly controlled, fast and melodic. The singer sounds good. It's fun, but without becoming full-blown cheesy nonsense. My only complaint is the shouted gang vocals, which sounded dumb in NYHC punk and still sound dumb here. 4/5 - maybe even a 4.5.

I already reviewed Screamadelica this week, and it was enough. This is a weaker version of the same. Dreary indie rockers play derivative psychedelia. I'm sure it was an amazing soundtrack to doing drugs in fields in the 1990s, but it hasn't aged that well.

Another record that I've somehow never got around to listening to. Therefore, it wouldn't have been my obvious hip-hop choice for the 1001 list. However, it is good! It has some of the appeal of early Tribe Called Quest, but with the sprawling hippie stuff stripped away, and a more crisp, contemporary sound throughout. It didn't blow me away, but yeah, he's a major talent of the genre. I'm going to say 3.5

Brand new to me. I'm not much of a guitar buff, but yeah Jeff Beck's guitar is crisp, expressive and forceful. Rhythm section is really punchy and robust on this. Apparently this was a major influence on heavy metal, which I guess I can hear. If I had to criticise the music, I would maybe like it to commit to being either bluesy or proggy or full-on rocking. It's in this sort of middle ground (but this is barely a real criticism). The real problem is in the vocals. Lyrics are pretty generic with some blues covers and some tracks that go "baby baby baby my little woman". The singer is Rod Stewart. He's technically really strong, but I just feel pure annoyance every time I hear him. I'm sure I can hear his hideous feathered mullet. I wish this was instrumental, or that Jeff Beck had found any other vocalist in the world. 3.5/5 for solid musicianship, but I will not be coming back.

Another new one to me. It's an eclectic mix of rock, soul, ska, and funk. Pretty fun. Maybe I'm just not in the mood, but it's not doing a huge amount for me, and feels like a plasticky mish-mash of things (which probably isn't fair to it). Recommended for fans of Sublime though, for sure. It might improve on future listens, but 3/5 for now.

Niiice. I've listened to their first two albums and Remain in Light quite a lot, but never paid as much attention to this one in the middle. It's great. Imagine having strange enough ear to take all the sinister, menacing energy of post-punk, and filter it into weird surreal funk stuff. There are some "straight" rock moment and a ballad, but none of it is really played straight. It's like a group of weirdo aliens trying to make their idea of normie human music and failing beautifully. Not the best Talking Heads album imho, but I guess it shouldn't be punished for sitting amongst greatness.

I got slightly into Dirty Projectors around the time this was released. I don't listen to whole lot of indie rock anymore, and didn't even have a FLAC copy of this - so I guess it has been years since I revisited it. Damn, it's still good. I love the abstract songwriting and idiosyncratic delivery. I love the way layered voices are used, and I love how the music is crisp and precise, but carries a big sense of possibility, like they might go off in another direction any moment. Can't think of anything I would change about this, so 5/5.

Johnny Cash is alright. Still not a fan of live albums. It's exactly what you expect. He sings, he interrupts the songs to laugh and ask for a drink of water. The inmates cheer. I'd rather hear a studio album. I love the fact that he records a new song at the end, written by one of the inmates.

I had their second album as a teenager, and went through a phase with it. Never checked out their other stuff. This one has firmer roots in stoner & psych rock. But it's stripped back to the rock basics. Guitar sounds good. I always liked his voice and what I can hear of the lyrics sound intriguing. I prefer the bigger sound of the follow-up personally. Also massively not a fan of this trash album cover, but I won't factor that in.

I've heard the majority of Numan's albums, and this is the one. Absolute 80s classic. (Edit: it wasn't the 1980s yet! He set the tone for a whole decade of pop.) Coiled-spring energy of British New Wave combined with the new electro sound from USA. I love the deliberately artificial/robotic aesthetic, which would go on to be a direct influence on Detroit techno. The rhythms are a cold, mechanised version of rock, while the melodies are otherworldly synth. "M.E." turns the synth into a deep guitar sound, and is a highlight I'd slightly overlooked in the past. My only complaint is there's some minor repetition of ideas - e.g. "Observer" basically sounds like "Cars". But I don't even mind hearing that idea twice, tbh. FIVE.

Man, how do you begin to appraise this. It's 3 hours long, for starters. It also represents multiple huge bodies of work (i.e. Ella Fitzgerald's, but the Gershwin bros' too). I've got the 1990 Verve edition, which crams it onto 3 CDs... but even then, this is not a regular triple-album. It's a monolith. Maybe I'm an idiot, because I always vaguely thought this was an anthology collecting some previous Gershwin records by Fitzgerald. But in this case, the collection is the original. It was a 5 LP boxset release. The deluxe version originally cost $100, which is something like $900 in today's money. I'm now even more impressed, at the ambition of the project, and the fact that there was no compromise on quality at this scale. When you consider that Fitzgerald had multiple other albums released in 1959 and 1960, the whole thing is fucking insane. Unlike some of those other albums, I don't think the idea here was "here is Ella's rendition of some famous songs", but rather "here are the definitive versions of a modern canon". And it achieves that aim completely. Anyhow, the songs are gorgeous, and they suit Fitzgerald's voice amazingly. This is Ella at her best, showcasing the Gershwins in their best light. To me, the quality of the music is beyond reproach. On the other hand, there's no getting away from the fact that it's not an album in the contemporary sense, and it makes for a weird listening experience. It would be more enjoyable to just listen to the 15 best tracks, but that's not really the point, since this is deliberately a monolithic document. Do you listen to individual tracks, or sit through 3 hours straight? Or do you recreate the original 5 LPs, and do one at a time? It doesn't ultimately matter, because it's perfection however you play it. So, not really an album... but rated as an album? 5/5. And as a seminal document of American music, and an essential touchstone of twentieth-century culture? 5/5. It's kinda stupid to say a celebrated recording is underrated - but this is underrated... in that it's one of the most important set of recordings ever made, and the discussion it receives in most quarters isn't equal to its sheer skill, beauty, scale, ambition, and contribution to culture.

I quite like Pink Floyd, but never understood why this is regarded as their magnum opus. They have plenty of other albums, both earlier and later, which I prefer over this one. Still, it's solid. Maybe it's sprawling and unfocused... or maybe a dream-like collage of styles coming in and out of focus. I like that the album is confident enough to reward a patient full-album listening experience. I also like the actual songs when they do show up, and I like how the lyrics root all the psychedelia into down-to-earth post-war British experience. But yeah, it is sprawling and unfocused, and perhaps a little too mild-mannered than any rock album deserves to be.

On Day 1, my album was Birth of the Cool, and I said neither of these classics ever clicked for me. Well, I'm definitely enjoying Kind of Blue this time around. I always saw the skill... but first few times I heard it, I was just getting into jazz and was listening to it alongside Miles's fusion albums, which made it sound a little sedate. But it just has an energy of a different kind - a sort of rolling boil that never bubbles all the way over. I love how it's effortlessly laid back compared to bebop. My favourite jazz style is hard bop, and this has the same attention to clear melodic lines. Sidenote: I must be a hopeless ignoramus, because I still can't get my head around what "modal jazz" is in layman's terms. I gather that bebop used virtuosic chord progessions, whereas this uses modal scales for calmer, more expressive and melodic palette? However, I barely know what a chord is, and I can't get my head around what a mode is. It doesn't matter as long as I can enjoy the record, but it would be nice to work out what is happening, and be able to spot how it works in other jazz albums too. (I like a lot of Bill Evans, but again I couldn't tell you what exactly makes it modal...) Anyhow, this album is all quality. But I find it tapers off in excitement, beginning with the amazing "So What", then getting slightly less gripping with each track. 4/5 - glad I finally appreciated this one.

First thought: weren't these guys "world music for people who don't like world music"? I sort of avoided them after hearing a couple of commercial crossover tracks, although they were good on Paul Simon's Graceland, which propelled them to stardom. I'm happily surprised by the quality of this. Great acapella harmonising with a small number of male voices. Recording seems fantastically done (and I think I read Paul Simon produced it?). There's a deep echo-ey resonance to the voices, which sail through the tracks, making it all sound easy. Personally, I find the English-language tracks aren't quite as enjoyable. Maybe it's because I can't understand the lyrics on the other tracks, so I'm just getting a pure enjoyment of the voices without literal meaning. Or maybe it's because these guys are more comfortable and practised in their native tongue. But in any case, it's still a solid album which makes me want to check them out more. 4/5. Edit: this also feels like a tokenistic inclusion on the list, given how little traditional/folk/ritual music is given coverage. But it would be stupid to hold this against the album itself.

Never heard of this, and I know almost nothing about country music. Is this where the country genre began, in this kind of mythical "wild west" aesthetic? The album title is completely accurate, as the album alternates between two different types of song: 1) narrative ballads, telling stories of gunfighters who shot various people; 2) introspective cowboy songs about life on the plains, and so forth. The whole thing is vaguely absurd, since it keeps a completely straight face while invoking a simplistic "wild west" neverland of a great American past. (No surprise to find out Marty Robbins was an outspoken ultra-conservative, since right-wing politics depend heavily on laughably glorified ideas of a great, lost national heroism.) On the other hand, the music is pretty enjoyable. I prefer the trail songs to the gunfighter ballads. It does get a bit samey, so I made the right call avoiding the reissues with bonus tracks! 3/5

Well, I'm a fan of Sarah Vaughan, but not of live albums. She is possibly my favourite vocalist of the big band era, so I gave this an honest chance. It's pretty cool. But I'd still rather listen to her studio recordings. I don't get anything from the MC introducing, or the crowd coughing, or Sarah and the band messing up one of the tracks. On the closing track, "How High the Moon", she sings (without breaking her stride) "Ella Fitzgerald does this song real crazy", then does a kind of impression of Ella's scat singing. Now there's something cool that you wouldn't hear in the studio I guess. Her voice sounds great as always, and the original concise selection of 9 tracks is strong. (All the reissues more than double this number. Will we ever get away from the early CD era mentality of "cram as much bonus stuff on the disc as possible"?) Overall, this is probably a 3.5 from me, but I will round it up to 4 given that none of Sarah's studio material seems to appear in the 1001 list (which by the way is a fucking travesty given how many redundant picks of post-1960 white male rock music they managed to fit in).

Tempted to just give this 5 stars and move on. One of the albums that got me into hip-hop, and it doesn't sound like anything before or since. Dizzee Rascal gets annoyed with people saying Wiley is the godfather of grime music, because he was producing/co-producing this music first. Whatever the case, the production on some of these tracks is really unique and instantly recognisable. His vocal style is completely idosyncratic too. And it's worth remembering that Dizzee was 17/18 years old when this was recorded, I believe? Some of the lyrics are stupid sex & violence style rap - but others are strikingly insightful and honest. The feature by God's Gift is mediocre, and there are one or two weaker tracks musically. SO on reflection, 4*.

82 whole minutes of tedious dad rock. Life's too short to spend finding anything else to say about this. According to the list, everything Nick Cave ever recorded will need to be endured and evaluated before we all die.

For some reason, I remember listening to his final album when it was released. However, never really listened to earlier Womack. I'm not especially qualified to evaluate how this compares to other soul/RnB/funk from the era, but damn it seems pretty damn good to me. I got the 2021 remaster, and it sounds really well defined to my inexpert ears. You've got funky party anthems like "Stand Up", and slightly generic bedroom preludes "Lay Your Lovin' On Me". But my preference is for the long, reflective ballads like "Games" and "Just My Imagination" (weirdly with a country tinge to it. Edit: apparently he had at least one whole album of "country soul"!), which really take you on an emotional/narrative journey. I'm not a huge fan of the growling soul thing he does sometimes, but Womack's voice is definitely a strong asset here. All the musicianship is good, and the bass particularly stands out on some tracks.

More soul up next! Coincidentally, Womack makes an appearance on guitar here, as well as Eric Clapton. Although Aretha Franklin obviously had an amazingly powerful voice, I find this kind of big gospel voice slightly bellowy, and not that expressive or enjoyable to my ears. The recording job doesn't sound like anything special here - most of it is brash and lacking clarity (on the 1988 CD master at least, but I think it's the source recording itself), and the songs don't really strike me, other than the amazing \"(You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman\" and the evocative \"Good to Me As I Am to You\". Some of the stronger tracks are mildly reminiscent of some classic Motown tracks - but not enough that I would bother coming back to this. 2.5

1960s folk-rock and psychedelia are not my favourite flavours, but this is pretty good! It's a dreamy, hazy 30 mins of acoustic songs with touches of rock and country. There are a couple of weaker tracks, but most of the songwriting and musicianship seems strong, and the whole thing is coherent and atmospheric. Since it has managed to make an impression on me, despite not being in a style that I generally enjoy, I think this has to be 4/5.

Listened to these guys once before, but didn't hold my interest. On proper inspection, I can appreciate the way they take retro rock sounds and make a big, clean, stripped-back sound, which feels both classic and fresh at the same time. Lots of people out there are looking for new versions of the rock sounds they were mourning the demise of. However, that's not me whatsoever. While I can appreciate it on a shallow level, as a fine pastiche of bluesy rock n roll, I also find the whole thing massively boring. Also, I don't want to keep coming across as having no attention span, because some of my favourite albums are long and slow... but this album simply suffers from being 55 mins long. It's no-frills rock music ffs: get in there, play it loud and fast, then gtfo. 2.5

I've listened to this and their debut at least once. But I mustn't have been paying attention the first time, because this is stellar. As it plays, you can hear the process punk and new wave being transmuted into what would become the lo-fi shambolic style of indie rock later in the 1980s. I love how they sound rough around the edges, without ever lacking in purpose or conviction. The whole thing is weird and fantastic. On another listen, I can also see the 1960s psychedelic influences coming through, which I hadn't really thought about before. If this group are a throwback to 1960s rock, they are actually improving on the original. I wouldn't change anything, so 5/5.

I liked this when it came out, but I was a kid. Never enjoyed them since, and was expecting to despise this on revisiting. However, it's actually pretty good. Songs strike a good balance between rock energy and catchy, inoffensive pop. I don't even mind the Mancunian singing too much. And the less familiar tracks in the middle were actually quite consistent (rather than low-effort filler). 3/5 - which is roughly 3 more than I expected to give it. :)

Unremarkable orchestral stuff with dreary guitar stuff and whiny vocals. I saw these guys live when I was going through a brief post-rock phase. They put on a big visual spectacle show, but I honestly can't remember what I ever enjoyed about the music. I guess it felt like serious, artistic music to me at the time, and I was a try-hard. But it's really the most insipid elements of ambient, classical and rock brewed together into a weak and unsatisfying infusion. Couple of interesting brass moments, and one or two tracks were the vocals actually sound alright - but these are dribbles of interest in an overlength ocean of tedium.

More 1990s indie-dance stuff. This is much more consistent than the Primal Scream records I reviewed. The music is pretty impeccable, blending rock & pop seamlessly with house - not superficially, but as a full synthesis, that no longer sounds like any of the component styles. It sounds really good. Manages to evoke the 1990s amazingly, while still sounding fresh. Production job is definitely good quality here! However, I don't really get any enjoyment from Sean Ryder's drug-addled leering. I'd prefer the whole album if it were instrumental, or even better if it had some talented singers and songwriters involved... This is probably what ruined the album for me the first time, when I borrowed my dad's cassette copy back in the 2000s. Despite the Ryder depreciation, it's still a 3.5.

Listened to these guys before, and never loved or hated them. I quite enjoyed revisiting this. I like the slightly odd songwriting, which is tamed into a conventional song structure. The music is fine, but can go quickly from feeling energetic and elastic to feeling quite dreary. I'm not a massive fan of the singer's voice. Final track, "Oddfellows Local 151" is possibly the best track, unexpectedly. Never really noticed that song before. They probably belong on the list as a seminal alt-rock band, but it's a 3 from me.

Always loved this one, since I first got into jazz. However, the more I know about jazz, the more I appreciate this album - because I can see that there's rarely been an album of this calibre in the whole sub-genre of fusion this helped launch. I love how the tracks can start off sounding kinda like twiddly improv stuff, but they are far from undisciplined. Pseudo-symphonic structures emerge across the 10-30min tracks. Every instrument is lithe with vitality, and there isn't a dull moment over the whole 90 mins. If you compare it to bebop: instead of solists stepping to the front from the ensemble, this is like a group of virtuosos jamming together, and occasionally one of them is doing something different over in the corner, which only enhances the crazy beauty of the whole. 5/5 easy.

This is a tolerable EP. I guess it's on the list because it was a big influence on Kurt Cobain and the whole grunge sound. From my hindsight perspective, it's pretty forgettable. In fact, I've listened to it 2.5 times and can't remember much about it. 2.5

This southern hard rock stuff is not my scene at all. However, this is better than I expected. There's some bluesy stuff, some energetic guitar solos - but the strongest parts are probably the soaring rock ballad type tracks, like "Tuesday's Gone". The different styles are staggered, so you get changes in pace across the album. It's a strong album, with good musicianship. Still not really to my taste, and I'm not sure I'd revisit in a hurry. 3.5

A pop singer ripping off Oasis. It sounds almost as bad as that description suggests. However, the songwriting is full of earworms, which is what made this such a successful pop album. Personally, I find "Angels" and "Old Before I Die" slightly irritating - but they are certainly memorable and instantly recognisable (at least to me as a British person who lived through the 1990s). So the album has to get some credit for being annoyingly catchy. 2/5.

I like a lot of post-punk, but somehow never checked out this band. Psychobilly, "punk blues", and cowpunk are all things I don't care about - so maybe those labels put me off. But holy shit this is good. And holy holy shit, it sounds so much like Pixies. I mean, you could say it sounds like Pixies ripped off Gun Club... or more positively, it's like discovering a Pixies album I never knew existed. I surprisingly enjoyed the punk energy given an Americana tinge, and I definitely enjoyed the Black Francis-esque vocals. I haven't had a chance for a second listen, but I'll stick my neck out and say 5/5, because this is seriously good.

Wow, this is stunning. I don't know if it's my own blinkers or those of the music world, but I feel I would have heard this album, and a lot more praise for it, if it was by a male artist. Anyhow, love the bluesy rock sound, which sounds fresh and edgy as well as being "proper rock". I love her voice, which has power and grit, but also a kind of fragility to it. Pretty fucking perfect. 5/5 and added to my personal collage. :)

Quite listenable, disposable pop rock. Some of the songs are pretty stupid, like "Silas Stingy" and the half-baked concept of radio jingles adds nothing. I quite enjoy the way it waters down psychedelic rock into a poppier concoction. No idea why it belongs on this list when at least three of their stronger albums are already included! 2.5.

I love a bit of kosmische, but Neu! have never been my favourite for whatever reason. On this album, I think maybe the spacey ambient music and the rock elements are too separate maybe, so it feels like a record of two halves. I also don't love the vocals, and find the final track a bit weak. Still a quality recording. It's interesting how "Hero" foreshadows post-punk, even though this a few years prior to "punk proper". I'm thinking 3.5 for this. I hope there are plenty of other albums in this genre on the list.

Wow! Why have I not listened to 10cc before? I had in my head that they were cheesy soft rock, which they kind of are. But this has great, quirky new wave energy. Musicianship and songwriting are solid throughout, and the whole thing is fun without being flimsy. It's like XTC doing hard rock covers of the Beach Boys. 5/5 what a revelation.

The vocals are very strong and expressive, the songs are catchy, and the music is competent. But there's something I've never been able to stand about her music. Her voice grates on me, and the style feels like a boring pastiche of soul and vocal jazz, when I'd infinitely rather go back and listen to Billie Holiday or something. 2/5

Never heard of this. It's on the softer, loungier side of downtempo, with lots of organic instrumentation collaged into a chilled, cerebral hour of electronic music. Personally, I found the slightly harder-edged tracks like "Nadia" and "Serpents" were the best - so I would have preferred the whole thing to be a more muscular trip-hop album really. The incorporation of Indian vocals and instruments works well, and gives the sense of "fourth world" aesthetics. Overall, it's pretty good with a few too many low points. 3.5.

Quite fun garage rock fused with punk. Having listened to a fair bit of garage rock and a lot of punk, this didn't really seem like anything remarkable. I like the female vocalist's style. I would rather listen to The Reatards or the New Bomb Turks, or many others.

Cheesy pap. Most of the songs sound the same. Hard to hate it, because it's light-hearted enough - but I can't even be bothered finishing the whole thing.

My dad brought this to my attention last year. Folk rock is not really my thing, but damn this is quality. He has a deep, smooth, sometimes almost slurred voice. The music is clean and detailed folk rock, with some strong touches of blues. Tracklist is slightly weird, as it feels the first side is folky and the flipside is more rock. I'm not a fan of that division. The whole thing has aged really well! Sounds fresh as the day it was bottled. 4/5

I already have this, but it clearly didn't make a memorable impression on me... It's pretty good though. Post-punk of the kind of slow-burning new-wavey variety. There's strong elements of "punk proper" still here, but also traces of what would become gothic rock, and some vocals & lyrics that foreshadow industrial/neofolk. It's never going to be in my top 10 post-punk records, but still glad I re-listened to it. 3.5

When I was a punk teenager, I hated the Clash. Fuckin' poser major-label rockstar sellouts, maaaaaaan. This mainly came from Crass (true punx), who sang stuff like "CBS promotes the Clash / But not for revolution, just for cash" (see also: "they say we're trash / but the name's Crass, not Clash"). Nowadays, I don't care about that stuff. But this album doesn't mean anything to me, because I never listened to it. I also still feel that their later albums (which I've heard more often) are overrated - but I will decide about those when they turn up on this list... As for this 1977 debut: it's pretty good! It's a solid punk album, but with slightly more musicianship and flare than many albums from this era of punk. The 1979 American version looks a bit bastardised, so I'm going with the original tracklist. Some of the softer moments sound like The Jam (who I LOVE), while most of it has a harder punk energy. Despite what anyone may say, the cover of Junior Murvin's "Police and Thieves" is shit. It only works until you've heard the original, which you then realise it's just an inferior imitation of. That's the sign of a shit cover version.

Never listened to k.d. lang, but always imagined this would be dreary, middle-of-the-road stuff. Happy to give it a spin and find out... but yes, my preconceptions were justified. It's so much background music, it's like sonic wallpaper. Can't exactly hate it, because it gives the room a certain pleasant feel, like a aural dehumidifier in the corner... 2/5

Classic slice of garage-leaning rock energy. I love the sound, and I quite enjoy the sense of frustrated angst in the lyrics - though Iggy does bring a lot of that "baby baby baby ugh ugh gimmee some lovin" vibe, which I find one of the most laughable things about rock music. Tempted to say 3.5, but then I do fully agree that everyone should give this a spin, so I guess it's a 4!

I've never given this much of a chance in the past, but it is so much more interesting than Raw Power. It has a lean, menacing sound, and the addition of crazy jazz-rock saxophone adds a whole extra layer. Both this record and their debut have long, spacious tracks which complement the short, punchy ones. 4/5.

Never listened to a whole album by Isaac Hayes. I like his voice, and the whole funk-soul aesthetic. The album only has four tracks, so they need to all be stonkers. The slow-burning, emotive-but-groovy feel works well across the first two long tracks. Unfortunately, the longest track, "By The Time I Get To Phoenix", isn't doing that much for me, with its rambling spoken word and extremely minimal/gradual pay-off. Overall, a 3 for this - I enjoyed it, but I'm somewhat ambivalent.

Already got this one in my library. It's pretty good, but I can't get away from the fact that his debut album is so much better to my ears, and much more deserving of a spot on the list. I guess Superfly was his big influential breakthrough, being the soundtrack to a movie? I think maybe the music is better on Superfly, but the songwriting on his debut is stronger. In any case, this has got a muscular, funky sound. It's a concept album about the perils of drugs, lifted up by Curtis's silky smooth voice. I'm feeling a 4/5.

Hey, it's been almost 20 years since I listened to this. The opener, "Novocaine for the Soul", still sounds good. The rest is boring middle-of-the-road alt-rock. His gruff monotonous voice starts to grate. The music sounds dated and flimsy. The songwriting often seems to aim for the profound, but ends up being the ramblings of a bore. 1.5

I'm not a huge ABBA listener but I respect their well crafted pop music. Great pop is like candyfloss - sweet, bright, satisfying, and capable of transporting you back to a carefree time. Now this particular album is their mature one, which contains none of the big hits and has a sombre, brooding feel. The music is good, the songwriting pretty consistent. It sounds good. But does anyone want grownup candyfloss? This isn't what most people are looking for when they listen to ABBA. I'm glad they made this album, but I'd still much rather turn to the catchier, poppier albums earlier in their career. 3.5

Sounds like generic country music to me. Every time I sample a high point of this genre, I wonder what the low points must sound like... because this just sounds exactly how I expect the genre to sound in my head. I've listened to another of his albums in the past, and that made no impression either. 2.5... I don't feel equipped to judge country, so "it's not you, it's me".

I like a fair bit of early industrial music, but don't know much industrial metal. I have listened to Lard and Revolting Cocks (which were affiliated projects), but never took the time to listen to Ministry. I've sat through this one twice, and I have to say I'm not a huge fan. I respect the fact that they are combining different sounds, but none of it sounds especially invigorating to me. The music and vocals become monotonous, while the spoken word samples are annoying. Checking out a sample of their earlier 1980s stuff, I suspect that might be better (to my ears at least). This 1990s album basically just feels like unexciting heavy metal with a slight industrial palette. 2.5

I've heard Tom Waits' first couple of 1970s albums, and his highly celebrated 1980s ones - but never checked out Nighthawks. To be honest, I'm not a massive fan of him. This one is interesting, because it was recorded by recreating a live jazz club atmosphere in the studio. As someone who dislikes live albums, I was surprisingly impressed by the results. Maybe it's the way the band plays and Waits acts up, knowing they've got a live audience there - but certainly there's an effortless atmosphere to the whole thing. The music is laid-back, blues-tinged, small-group jazz - good but unremarkable. Waits's vocals are the point of difference. He's a gruff, growling, inebriated, slurring showman. His blues-jazz singing is pretty good. His rambling introductions have a slight charm. He's very indebted to Beat poetry, with his setting to jazz of a bohemian, down-and-out persona, evoking the gritty details of American urban underbelly nightlife. Another 3.5 for me, but I can see why others might love this one.

OK so I don't like or understand country. But there's a certain strain of "alt-country" I can get behind, even if I'm ignorant of the style it's an alternative to. Bright Eyes are a good example, and some moments of this album sound reminiscent of them. Much of it is more rugged, with some straight-ahead rocking and some Americana kinda ballads. I've listened to at least two Ryan Adams albums in the past, but this one clicked better with me. I also just discovered that he covered Taylor Swift's 1989 album, and it's possibly even better than the original. I'm feeling a solid 4 for this one. It's good stuff.

Yeah, I used to fuck with this one as a teenager. It's been a while. The 1001 list already diminished my appreciation of the Pixies (just a tiny bit), by exposing me to The Gun Club, who apparently did this sound better and earlier! I like how the Pixies can be catchy, fun, and even poppy, but still keep the qualities of discordance and noisiness. I guess they are a kind of pivot point where noise rock (interesting that Ambini produced this) started giving way to "noise pop". Anyhow, I actually prefer their next album, Doolittle, and I don't think there's any justification for having both of them on this list. 3.5 for Surfer Rosa.

I'm not a huge Bob Marley fan. I'll happily give his records a spin occasionally, but my humble opinion is that he is far from the greatest reggae artist. He was the most accessible and commercially successful, which is a very different thing. This one is one of the better albums in his discography, and I don't mind the bluesy/rockish elements. But it's fairly lightweight compared to a million other 1976-78 reggae albums, including solo records by his former Wailers (who I think had been replaced with session musicians on this record?). I don't know how many of these are on the 1001 list, but I would definitely rather recommend albums from the same period by Yabby You, Augustus Pablo, Bunny Wailer, Max Romeo, Junior Murvin, and others. When you consider that a masterpiece like The Congos - Heart of the Congos was released in the same year, it basically blows Marley out of the water, in my humble opinion. Another example of an album that made the 1001 for being famous/successful rather than being on par with countless superior albums that didn't make the cut. 2.5 for this.

I'm familiar with this one. It's pretty cool. Booker T's electric organ is peachy. For both positive and negative reasons, you can tell these guys were the house band at Stax. Positively, they already play great together, even though this was their first album; and you can hear their larger contribution to soul, blues and rock embodied in this short album. Negatively, this instrumental album, once you get past the amazing and influential title track, does often sound like a backing band, waiting for a vocalist to show up. I suspect this album was chosen for the 1001 list entirely on the basis of the title track, which should certainly be on a list of singles to hear before you die. 2.5 - good music, but not really as an album...

Wow! I had vaguely heard of Carole King as a famous songwriter, but never checked out her own recordings. This one is fantastic. All the songs are King's, and all delivered amazingly. Two of the songs were co-written with her ex-husband when they were a writing team, and two of the songs had already been hits for other artists. I was expecting the softer folkier vibes, but this album also has a strong R&B/soul feel, which I might have expected given that Aretha Franklin and The Shirelles were the artists who already recorded two of the songs. I'm not a fan of Aretha's style, and I actually prefer King's version "You Make Me Feel". In essence, this is just a great album from start to finish. Perfect 5.

Looks like something I might be interested in... Baaba Maal seems to be a big figure in the music of Senegal, and this is his debut with friend Mansour Seck. It has great vocals from both, in traditional African stylings. On the best tracks (like Muudo Hormo) we also get cool, traditional, organic percussion that fits perfectly. Personally, I'm not a huge guitar fan, so the turn-off for me is the predominance of acoustic (and one time electric) guitar across this album. Having said that, these guys tend towards beautiful, simple melodies that repeat and gradually develop. The best tracks are hypnotically repetitious, which is just the shit I love in any genre of music. It seems like this has just been chosen for the list as "world music for guitar fans" - but I can put up with that, because it's a mesmerising album. 4/5.

Bright, happy Scandi-pop from the 1990s. It's got a kind of dreamy, cool vibe, rather than pure cheesy pop. I remember the big single from this. The whole album sounds pretty good - better than most Britpop of the period at least. I don't think there's enough here for it to be essential listening by any means... 3/5

Do people actually listen to this weird ultra-cheesy strain of rock music? I lost braincells whilst listening to this.

Flimsy, fun but forgettable pop-rock. The new wave sound is here, but basically stripped of most of the coiled energy I find enjoyable in new wave music. "Hungry Like the Wolf" is pretty good, but the title track offsets it by being so annoying. 2.5

Not a huge fan of them, but I've always had a mild respect for Super Furries. This album is like if Britpop was actually any good, and was heavily inspired by psychedelia and 1970s rock. Still not a very consistent album though. 3.5

As I've found out over this process, my relationship with 1960s psychedelia is very hit and miss. Some of it surprises me, by being more appealing to my tastes than I would have thought. Sadly, this record is not one of those... It's a sort of cheesy pastiche of "ye olde Englishe folke" filtered into mediocre 60s pop. Moreover, it is just quite boring, with vocals and music both being unremarkable. 1.5

Damn, this was surprisingly enjoyable. In my head, I thought CS&N were the big commercial end of folk rock. When they do the poppier sound here, I actually enjoy it more than I expected. But most of the album is strongly coloured by psychedelia and whimsy instead. I love the vocal harmonisations, and I like the understated, patient building of most tracks - this is a group who are confident in the quality of their craft. Great record! 4.5

I can't stand Rod Stewart. The stuff with Jeff Beck was saved by strong musicianship and writing, but this one is mostly just Rod crooning cover songs.

Yeah, I fuck with this. It's a great balance between socially engaged, conscious, and conceptual hip-hop & the hard, raw sound with its roots in Compton. Sometimes, the metaphorical and conceptual stuff seems to think it is cleverer than it is, and the album gets a bit loose and sprawling at times. But it still combines most of the stuff I love in hip-hop. Shame I'm not into his other material so much. Solid 4 for this.

I love me some Fela Kuti, but I've listened to his early-70s stuff more than the rest. My favourite album is "Gentleman", and I stand by that as being his best work. However, "Zombie" is close behind, and I hadn't fully appreciated it until now. The album was a critique of the Nigerian military, and it resulted in violent suppression of Kuti, his family and his followers. But the music is also worth holding up on his own terms. The original record has two 12-min tracks (the other two are reissue bonus tracks), and as usual they are energetic explorations of funk and jazz, matched with African rhythms and call-and-response. "Gentleman" has an even better elastic energy to it, but "Zombie" is a little more polished. Many of Kuti's albums do follow a blueprint, but it's such a good and original blueprint that it doesn't matter! Perfect 5 for this one.

This is the kind of album that makes me regret not listening to it sooner, because I could have been enjoying this one for years already. Perfect blend of punk, indie & menacing, angular post-punk vibes. Great strong vocals. Whole album is lean as hell with no spare flabby moments. 5* quality.

I've never fully dived into latin jazz, probably as some of the famous albums I've checked out have been a bit clean/safe/chilled sounding. This one is WILD. Lots of hypnotic drumming and chanting. Very strong roots in African traditional folk musics, with the jazz and latin sounds making this a fusion feast. Would like more in this vein please. 4*

Are there any 1960s psychedelia albums that didn't make this list?? This one has quite a clean, robust sound, somewhere on the rockier end of the psychedelia spectrum of this period. Some blues and r&b influences sneaking in. But there are also some space-age moments and a little psych whimsy here and there. I can respect the quality of this, even though it's not to my tastes. 3*

I'm a fairly big Bowie fan, but imho this is among his most boring albums. Not technically his weakest or his most inconsistent... just quite a boring follow-up to Ziggy Stardust. I don't what it means to "sigh like Twig the wonderkid", but that's a top contender for Bowie's most irritating lyric. Bowie on a bad day is still worth hearing, but this is 3* or 3.5* to me, and definitely shouldn't be on this list.

What I really love in 1950s jazz is bold, clear melodic lines, and the sense of huge energetic possibility kept just under control at a rolling boil. "Bemsha Swing" has this sound and is great. Some of the other tracks are just a little too chilled out, and piano isn't my favourite jazz instrument anyway. But however you look at it, this is an album of amazing quality. 4*

Neil Young unremarkable eighteenth studio album? Yeah, that sure seems like essential listening along with everything else he ever recorded. Kudos to the creators of this list! 2*

For a while, I had a CD copy of "Bashin'" by Jimmy Smith in my car, and I played that album a lot! I love this style of soul jazz, with meaty melodic lines of hard bop, and that electric Hammond organ taking it to church. Hail Satan, this guy is cool. I already had the Chicken Shack album downloaded, but I guess I wasn't ready to move beyond Bashin' until now. Objectively speaking, this album is the stronger and more consistent of the two. I can't find any moment on the album that doesn't make my brain happy, so 5*.

Heard this in the past and it didn't make a big impression. When you look at the beginnings of punk music, there are a few distinct tributaries flowing into it. I guess I quite like the garage rock proto-punk, but I'm not really into this glam / hard rock style. It's a pretty solid rock album - nice energy and quite consistent. But it's not really for me. 3*

Yet more 60s psych. This one goes "ooooh baby baby *10 min guitar noodling* baby I need your loving". The noodling parts are pretty far-out and cool. It's one of the cleaner and more interesting live albums I've heard - but I still dislike live albums, and would prefer this as a studio recording. 3*, might listen again once in a while.

Never really listened to Springsteen until I saw the film "Blinded by the Light", which made me want to give him a try. I found "Darkness on the Edge of Town" was a pretty cool album. This one is more anthemic, and I'm suspicious of anthems. Pretty good songwriting/storytelling. 3.5*

Poorly aged pseudo-jazz for romancing yuppies. And there was I thinking "smooth jazz" was only a radio format. It's real and it's inoffensively insipid.

I have his album "Todd" from the next year, but don't remember much about it. I know he has a reputation for being uncompromisingly non-commercial in his approach to pop & rock. Sounds good on paper, but doesn't necessarily lead to good albums... Well, this one is surprisingly enjoyable. I like the aesthetic of short, almost-incomplete songs, which allows a restless switching around of styles. There's a sense of humour throughout, and some earnest emotional content. It's a fun album. 4*

An album of total beauty. Sensuous, delicate, powerful. Love Bjork's voice, the song writing, the gossamer details in the music. Would give this a 6* if possible. <3

I liked the Prodigy and Fatboy Slim back in the day. Never got into the Chemical Bros, so this has no nostalgia attached for me. The big beat sound hasn't aged that well. It's like the brash soundtrack to the New Labour party conference after-party. Nice crisp rhythms, some pleasing melodies and samples, vague sense of Y2K optimism that the world isn't a pile of shit. I dunno, 3* or something. I'd prefer some bleak techno or jittery IDM.

Glad I revisited this, as it's better than I remembered. Still not a huge Waits fan, but I appreciate his beatnik-blues persona thing, and here it is combined with experimental touches. The whole thing is compelling, and I feel each song taking me on a weird narrative journey. 4*

Man, this is better than I remembered. The melodies are thick, heavy and robust, basically the beginnings of doom metal I think? Ozzy's voice is mildly annoying, but I think that's because I'm hearing him saying "Sharon, where are me keys Sharon?". The young Ozzy actually had a pretty good voice and it suits the music. I like the socio-political leaning lyrics. It's a good album. 4*

This one's a dilemma, because you can hear in every track the enormous influence it had on hip-hop, in the production, the flow, the lyrics, and the many samples and references to Run DMC found in the genre. On the other hand, it doesn't strike me as an amazingly enjoyable album on its own terms. The beats, melodies and turntable techniques sound really good on some tracks, but too sparse on others. The lyrics are often simplistic with a nursery rhyme flow (and actual allusions to nursery rhymes). I'm sticking to my guns and not rating things by how influential they were. 3* for this.

I love Paul Simon, but this 1983 record is a weird choice for the list. His self-titled album (1972) and masterpiece Graceland (1986) both made the list. 1965's "Paul Simon Songbook" would have showed another side of his work. "There Goes Rhymin' Simon" (1973) is a great and celebrated album. Even 1980's "One-Trick Pony" is stronger than this one, imho. Anyway, it has some good songs ("Song About the Moon", "Cars are Cars") and it is still a thing of quality craftmanship, because it's Paul fuckin Simon. 3.5*

Always heard this name but never checked him out. Oh, so it's like Thom Yorke's dreary background cabaret project. Snooze.

I'm somewhat indifferent to the Smiths. They have some pretty great singles, but the albums can feel samey. It's groundbreaking indie but nonetheless it feels dreary and self-indulgent. Still good for a listen, and I do like the hapless heartbroken Morrisey persona. 3*

Confession: although everyone seems to recommend PJ Harvey, I've only heard Let England Shake and I didn't like it. This one is better, but still not a big hitter for me. It takes some of the better sounds from alt-rock and steers it back into the mainstream of rock music. I like the unexpected Thom Yorke feature. I like Harvey's voice on the more lyrical tracks and when she uses more of her range - but not so much in the straight-ahead rock moments.

This is definitely on the better end of 1969s pop-rock-folk. I enjoyed the whole thing except the truly bizarre Vera Lynn cover in a mock English accent. Half the album is Dylan covers, and tbh you'd be hard pushed to find a better version of 'All I Really Want to Do'. Nice dreamy but clean and catchy vibe to most of this. I'll push the boat out with 4*

It's been many years since I've listened to Hendrix. I really enjoy the rockier moments (like "Cross Town Traffic"), and I enjoy the blues elements as well as the far-out spacey stuff. However, most of the 60s poppy psychedelia moments show their age quite badly and the olde worlde mystical themes come off as a bit twee. The album also doesn't really hand together as a continuous listen and feels longer than the actual 75min runtime. I listened to the album three time before rating, because I want to enjoy and see what other people love. However, I find the many great moments are tarnished by the weak point. 3.5*

I like 99 rappers but Kanye ain't one. I remember hearing his first couple of albums and wasn't a huge fan. Then I heard this one, and I can at least observe there's some ambition, but it put me off listening to any more of his stuff. Interesting, I had this and Charles Mingus TBSATSL in close proximity: both have long titles, dark themes, and are explorations of the artist's tortured psyche. One is an artistic masterpiece and the other is mostly self-indulgent rubbish. On the plus side, I like some of the production on this, esp the early tracks. And I like Kanye's flow when he actually raps properly, which is really the first few tracks. The bad points are that this is a disorganised mess of an album with a million collaborators used as a substitute for overall design. Kanye's vocals disappear for the whole middle part of the album, and we have a sea of unenjoyable guest spots. For me, the worst element is the lyrics. I can't help but pay lots of attention to lyrics if they are present in a piece of music - it's just the way my brain works. In hip-hop especially, well-crafted lyrics are one of the main sources of greatness. Most of Kanye's are just toxic ramblings about his actual arsehole and also how much of an arsehole he himself is (but he's self-aware, so that makes it art). I even had a look at the AllMusic review to see what I'm missing here. Andy Kellman writes in his glowing 4.5* review, "As the ego and ambition swells, so does the appeal, the repulsiveness, and -- most importantly -- the ingenuity." Does it though?? "Whether loved or loathed, fully enjoyed or merely admired, this album should be regarded as a deeply fascinating accomplishment." Should it though?? I'm barely even interested in the personal lives of musicians whose work I love, so I'm really not sold on the idea of poring over the unenjoyable album of an egomaniac celebrity like it's a fascinating document. It's halfway to hot garbage. Edit: also, I don't require music to have a social message or agree with any of my own beliefs, but I also want to add that casual misogyny ruins many hip-hop albums for me. I don't have any time for it, and it makes me doubt whether I want to listen to this person talking for the next 40-50 mins. (Or in Kanye's case, 70 mins.)

It's been a while since I binge-listened to most of the Mingus discography. I'd forgotten just how good this masterpiece is. It takes the legacies of blues and swing, distils it into wild avant-garde big band jazz, and triple-filters the liquor through classical, folk dance and Spanish guitar. It's a mind-melting achievement, which sounds incredibly fresh and urgent and unique, even after decades of being a widely celebrated record. I love how the ferocious energy bubbles up into different sounds, then a lid goes on temporarily. The ups and downs give it a narrative structure - not that it tells me a story, but that you feel it taking the shape of a progressing narrative. But honestly, I'm making it sound academic and boring, when it is actually an energising rollercoaster. 5*

This hasn't done much to give me an appreciation of the Monkees. From what I gather, they were a pretend band for a TV show, but this was the first album where they actually had creative input. It's listenable and inoffensively pleasant. But just seems like middling "1960s psych-pop lite for mass appeal". 2*

I already listened to Baaba Maal's earlier album with Mansour Seck for this list, and I dug that one. This one is less driven by acoustic guitar (which is a welcome change), and there's more of a worldbeat//fusion vibe. It's enjoyable and Maal is clearly a talent - but the whole thing has a contrived crossover feel that cheapens it. From looking online, it seems most streams and info relate to the 1993 mix of the album, which has even more of a brash, commercial and dated 1990s sound. I'm basing my rating on the 1992 mix which at least has more of an organic atmosphere. I'm glad there's some African music on the list, but it feels like the editors didn't dig very deep here. 3*

Oh boy, this is good. I went through a short DnB phase as a teenager, but that led me into breakcore, then IDM and techno. There's only so many rabbit-holes you can go down, so I never really made it back to much DnB or jungle. All the beat arrangements and the bass lines are great here. There's not a huge amount of melody on top - some occasional piano loops, etc. What Goldie largely does is layer up ambient textures. But instead of making ambient music with beats, the end result here is really lively and drum-driven, with the ambience giving it a floaty, cerebral quality. For many of these tracks, I felt like I was just a brain and a pair of ears floating in a jar of music. There's some bassy, noisy elements as well, to give some rougher edges. For me, the only weak point is the lack of variety in the vocals or vocal samples. Sometimes they verged on the cheesier side of house music for me. But they normally fit with the track and are arranged really well in the track, so it's a small grumble. For this corker, a solid 4.5*.

Hard to believe this is from 1968. Not because it's ahead of its time... but because it sounds like where boomer music went to die after many decades of ossification. It's pleasant enough in the background, like the closing credit music to a passable family film. But good lord it's the most boring album I've heard for a long while. "The Weight" is a song I've heard previously, and that's easily the highlight to the album. In fact, it's the only track where anything interesting or compelling happens. The rest feels like tired old country-rock tropes played with muscle memory alone. Most of the lyrics have a slight "olde worlde" air with some cliches about the rambling outlaw figure. Zzzzzzzz. 1*

I'm not a big fan of the Velvet Underground, but I enjoyed the laid back sound of this record, which is fairly different from their more iconic debut album. Their music can be quite inconsistent and unpolished, like listening to a band whose songs aren't quite ready. But I quite liked the casual bohemianism of this one, and at the same time it felt like a precursor to lo-fi indie music. 3*

I'm fond of the 1980s British synthpop sound, but feel like lots of the bands were singles-driven. Maybe I'm wrong. Either way, this record shows Depeche Mode in album mode. It's pretty consistent and well paced. The singer has a very distinctive voice, but hardly any variation - after about half the record, it does begin to seem like the songs blur into one. Overall, it's good but inessential to me. 3.5*

ELP are probably my favourite progressive rock band. However, I don't generally like live albums, so I always overlooked this one. I mean, it epitomises everything bad people say about prog... it's overblown, pretentious, self-indulgent... I mean, it's a rock band playing adaptations of of Mussorgsky. C'mon. But in spite of all that, it's a fucking barrelling, irresistible rock show that is fun as hell. I particularly love the organ work, and the fast, choppy bits which sound like proto-math rock. On top of that, it's a live album that actually sounds good and offers something different from their studio records. My only complaint is that some of the slower/quieter parts don't work so well - but they do reflect the source material and they give the album balance. So it's 4.5*, but I'm happy rounding it to 5*.

Wow, glad I revisited this. I listened to Siouxsie and the Banshees when I was younger and was big into punk - but I always found most of this punk-adjacent stuff was lacking the raw energy. I also never got into gothic rock and it's still not a genre I care for. Having said all that: holy shit this is a strong album. More interesting, artistic and consistent than 90% of "classic" punk records, so teenage me was wrong to dismiss it. I've long enjoyed the dark, menacing restraint of post-punk which this has down to a tee. But it also makes them work with softer new wave elements. Favourite track is probably "Monitor", but this album is solid from start to finish. 5*

This is one of those albums that you really WANT to be better than it is. Latifah is technically very good, but she has that late 80s lyrical style that feels very dated in hip-hop. From memory, I feel like Monie Love (who features here) had a more interesting lyrical style on her debut record. Some of the production and features here are really good. The track with Daddy-O from Stetsasonic is the highlight track with great vocals and production. Mark the 45 King does the majority of production, and some of it is great but some is boring. He also raps on one of the stronger tracks. De La Soul make an appearance which is pretty enjoyable, but Prince Paul's production is frustrating as always. On the one hand, he's an amazing producer with incredible samples and loops. On the other hand, his stuff from this period has these "goofy" irritating skit elements which ruin whole albums. KRS-One produces a mediocre track but doesn't rap which is a shame. Overall, some of the production and vocals are pinnacles of the period. But the two components are not always strong in the same tracks, and sometimes they are both weak. The house track "Come into My House" is the low point of the album which deducts at least half a point by itself. 3*

When it comes to hip-hop, I'm a fan of good lyrics. Why would you listen to someone talking for an hour if they having nothing interesting to say? Largely, this mean I'm not a fan of gangsta rap. However, I've I did have a soft spot for Cypress Hill about 15 years ago when I used to smoke weed. I had this album on CD and have fond memories of smoking bongs and playing old Sega games. Listening to it again after all these years, holy fuck I'm blown away by how consistently great DJ Muggs is. He takes short snippets of funk and soul, then transforms them into these new compositions which are quintessentially 1990s. It's amazing how much hip-hop producing had progressed since the 80s. In terms of lyrics, there is lots of stuff here about guns, drugs and cars... but it's nowhere near as obnoxious as most gangsta rap, and the two rappers have such cool, compelling flow. Overall, even though this is lyrically a little boring and even though I don't smoke weed anymore, this is an immensely enjoyable record. 4*

Very cool album. Reminds me of Fela Kuti, because both musicians created fun, vibrant, energetic music which still had enough cultural clout to get them arrested by an oppressive regime. Veloso's sound is recognisably Brazilian (even to me who knows little about Brazil), but mixed with diverse strains of pop and psychedelia. It sounds fresh and crisp and lively, even when your average 1960s psych record now smells like mothballs. Vocals are effortlessly cool. The lyrics glide over me, since I don't understand a word of Portugese - but it's an enjoyable language to listen to. I've listened to this 4 or 5 times and have no complaints at all. 5*

Wow, there really is a lot of Britpop on this list. But Pulp are one of the few worthwhile bands from that scene. "Different Class", their more celebrated album, is also on the list. "This is Hardcore" has a more world-weary, less quirky style of songwriting. The sound is more "mature", but less attention-grabbing. I've always liked Jarvis Cocker's vocals and his writing. However, there is a queasy dreariness to the album, which I find in so much 1990s British pop/rock. Overall, I enjoyed revisiting this, but I wish it wasn't over an hour long, as it does end up dragging. 3.5*

A heavy metal platter of stodgy commercially-produced cheese. I find this style of overblown rock/metal laughable... in an annoying way, not a fun way. 1.5*

I first heard of Julian Cope recently, as he wrote one of the leading books about kosmische/krautrock. I looked him up and thought "holy shit, here's a long recording career I know nothing about". So I'm coming into this album with a pleasant and intrepid feeling of discovery... Well, it's pretty good. I put it in the niche category of "solo male rockers (normally previous members of a post-punk or new wave band) with long and adventurous careers making authentic, non-compromising albums which I respect but don't completely love in all their sprawling incoherence". This record is a semi-concept album. The concept/narrative is pretty loose, and stretches out across 18 tracks / 1h:15m. Within it, there are lots of nice catchy/poppy moments as well as strong elements of rock and alt-rock. I enjoyed it quite a lot on second listen. It doesn't really hang together perfectly, but I like its ambition. It also just sounds better (and more unique) than the vast majority of more "classic" albums on the list. On that basis, I'll be generous with 4*.

Fuck this is good. Here's another one that makes me regret not listening to it years ago. I'm familiar with Joni Mitchell's first couple of albums from the late 1960s, and I like them more than most American folk-singer-songwriter stuff of the era. But "Blue" is another level. It exudes "mature album" vibes from every aspect: nice understated poetic lyrics; dynamic, expressive vocals that feel much less affected than the 1960s warbling; music that sounds clean and simple, but perfectly shaped around each song. It also plays through perfectly as a coherent and concise album. 5*

I kept listening to half of this, then getting sidetracked and coming back to it a week later. Happily, it kept growing on me each time. It's got raw punk-leaning rock moments, bluesy americana vibes, and vulnerable emotional stuff, all mixed into an indie rock package (but back before indie sucked). Name your favourite 1990s alt-rock album and this is probably better! I like her voice and songwriting quite a lot. It's fun and self-aware but genuine. 4.5*

Not a familiar name to me. The music is often good, on the vintage folksy end of pop rock. I read afterwards that Midlake were involved - a band I quite like. John Grant's lyrics and vocals are a bit hit and miss. "Sigourney Weaver" is a pretty great track, with classic Elton John pop vibes underneath jokey film references. But sometimes the songs are unremarkable and dreary. As the album goes on, it starts turning into pastiches of familiar styles. Overall, this has more substance than most pop and rock records, so I can admire that - but it doesn't have much repeat listening value for me. 3*

I love 80s/90s hip-hop, especially albums with something interesting to say (though it doesn't have to be political). For some reason, I've never been a big Public Enemy fan, though on paper I should be. Terminator X has some great, unique production that hits harder than almost anything from this era. Chuck D is eloquent and mostly enjoyable to listen to. But for some reason the combination just isn't pleasant for me. It's too monolithic or something... All I know is: I want to hear a turntablist album from Terminator with no vocals, and I want to hear Chuck rhyme to some chilled/jazzy golden age beats. Did either of these thing happen? If not, it's a crime to culture. Finally, I understand that Flava Flav's goofy high-pitched nonsense makes him the ideal hypeman to balance against Chuck D's seriousness. But I just find him really fucking irritating. I never want to hear another YEAHHH BOI ever again. Overall, this is probably their best album, despite the first three being more famous. There is no way in hell this list should include three Public Enemy albums. I'm giving 4* to this one, and will say mean things about the others when they come up.

Full disclosure: if I had to pick one genre to consign to the garbage bin of history, it would be post-rock. This pompous snoozefest of a genre is a pet hate of mine. I'm already familiar with this Tortoise album and it's better than most of the genre that would come after. There are some strong elements of kosmische/kraut, minimalism, and ambient - all genres I love. But I'd much sooner listen to the originals, rather than have it all filtered through slow-motion indie rock. Having said that, the opening 20-minute track is actually very enjoyable. The five shorter tracks don't really do anything interesting. 2.5*

Somehow, I never got around to listening to the B-52s until know. I expected all the kitsch 1960s surf rock throwback stuff, but the overall sound is way better than I expected! This is a solid new wave record with some discordant punk elements alongside irrepressible rhythms that make me do a chair-dance at my computer. Some strong Devo vibes, but I think I actually prefer the B-52s now! 5*

It's been a while since I listened to Dylan. A few years ago, I binged most of his discography, realised how much of it was dreadful, and never went back. This one is his transition from acoustic folk to folk rock. It's definitely an important album which shaped the future of folk, rock and pop. But that doesn't mean I like it. The music is pretty listenable (though nothing too exciting), and I quite enjoy Dylan's monotonous droning voice from this period (not like years to come where he would sound like Kermit the frog). My major issue is that Dylan's poetic songwriting is a major part of his talent/appeal/acclaim, and I think it mostly sucks. Desolation Row and Highway 61 Revisited are alright songs. Most Dylan albums have a handful. But large swathes of his songs are just pseudo-surrealist boring storytelling. I still find it hilarious that he won a Nobel prize for Literature. Overall, I have no regrets about not giving this a spin for the last decade... 3*

Not sure I've ever listened to this in its entirety before. It's pretty great! Buckley has a sublime, expressive voice. The music and songwriting don't let him down either. "Once I Was" is a gorgeous ballad. I want a whole album of that. There's some of the darker side of folk-psychedelia in some of the songs. The only thing I don't dig is the "olde worlde English village fete" side of American folk. Also find it slightly weird that Buckley seems to have an English accent at times. Overall, it's gooood. 4*

More British dad rock. I've listened to this before and it's alright. Better than most Madchester and Britpop shite. Fools Gold is a great track which didn't appear on the original tracklist (as it was a non-album single). If they made a whole album with that funk-leaning sound, I'd be into it. As it stands, lots of the tracks are dreary indie-pop. Waterfall is catchy dreary pop. Then there's a song that sounds like Waterfalls played backwards, just because it's psychedelic, innit our kid. 2.5*

First track is a fire-breathing monster. Wild, yet controlled and soulful - just my favourite kind of jazz. On first listen, the rest of the album was a bit of a come down. Now I've revisited a few times, actually I'm loving almost the whole record. Great compositions, great passionate musicianship, and a few African sounds coming in (though these aren't uncommon in American soul jazz anyway). My only complaint is the final track, which I don't find a satisfying way of rounding off an album that is already 70 minutes long by that point. Overall, highly recommend this. 4.5*

For some reason, I gave Massive Attack and Portishead a lot more attention than Tricky when I dug into trip-hop. Didn't remember much of this. But it's a strong album that has aged well. Tricky has good sound design and great brooding atmosphere to many of the tracks. Martina's vocals are a stunningly good fit. Should really check out her own solo material sometime. Overall, this is peak downtempo. 4*

I'm familiar with the big hits, but never checked out a whole CHIC album. At first I found the long tracks and relentless disco rhythms a little boring for a full album. Then I imagined myself at a 1970s roller disco and it all made sense. This is some funky, fun, quality stuff. There's an assured confidence to creating a perfect groove then sticking to it for nine minutes straight. The eight-song album is an underrated format too. Would skate around for another few laps. 4*

Don't really know much about this style of music (the softer, vocalist end of Brazilian jazz), but I can't really see that this album is anything special. It seems to be a compilation of miscellaneous tracks released after she died. I imagine it sold well, and that's the only reason it ended up here. It sounds alright. I would be open to hearing a proper album of hers. 2.5* for this one though.

Who listens to this garbage? Maybe I hate fun. But I feel like rock music is cheesy enough without being concentrated and fermented into this kind of super-cheese. 1.5*

I loved DKs as a teenager, so great to find that their music definitely holds up. I love Jello Biafra's warbling voice, which is filled with equal parts scornful disdain and childish humour. Also love East Bay Ray's trademark surf-style guitar which is so characteristic of the DK sound. Some of the songs the puerile silliness gets too much, but this still blows must punk albums out of the water. 4.5*

Nice to see this on the list. I listened to all of Bjork's pre-solo projects a few years ago, and some of them just had novelty/curiosity appeal, but The Sugarcubes are good on their own terms! Nice mixture of post-punk and alt-rock. I remember their next two albums sound more poppy, so this is probably the one to get. Bjork's dynamic vocals are a strong presence - but I would recommend this even to people who aren't fans of her solo stuff. 4*

Never listened to this industrial group for some reason. It's a good record! Love the lo-fi experimental sound, which has a kind of collage feel applied to grizzly rock sounds. The best tracks are menacingly dark. Sometimes the deep growled vocals verge on making it a caricature of edgy cool macho music (or like a homage to early Swans). The track "Charlotte" has a kind of gothic cabaret feel, which I did not enjoy at all. But overall, 4*. It's like Swans meets Faust or something. Glad I heard it.

Man, I really don't want to listen to U2, a band I've always disliked. I tried to put aside my preconceptions and listen with an open mind. But nah, I can't help hearing my distaste for Bono in every note. It feels like mediocre rock music dressed up in self-importance. Or a veneer or creativity covering crass commercialism. It doesn't help that I know this album was them switching to alt-rock as a response to being panned for co-opting roots rock. If I was listening without preconceptions, maybe I wouldn't hear those things. But it's impossible to say for sure because I just fucking dislike U2, okay? It's not offensively bad though. 2*

This isn't my favourite Kraftwerk album, but damn I'd listen to those 1970s synths making any old noise. The sound is kind of clinical but warm at the same time? (Like receiving great news in a doctor's office.) I like the hypnotic title track and the whole concept of the album, but the shorter tracks on side B have some great moments of ambience. This was their first album in the recognisable Kraftwerk electro/pop style, and I suspect it's on the list mainly for historical importance. But it is still a great record. 4*

Lol, that front cover encapsulates hard rock. Three British guys cosplaying as leather-clad gothic cowboys and managing to look serious about it. The sound is slightly better than I remember. It has more of the stripped-back energy of punk than most heavy metal records. However, it does get a bit samey even in 36 minutes. The songs are mostly mindless crap about getting drunk and having sex. "Jailbait" is particularly repulsive ("you're jailbait. I just can't wait"). I'm not even morally objecting - it's more that I just want to vomit at the thought of Lemmy having sex with an underage girl and writing this song after. 2*

Yes, this is great! I already know and love this album. Drum and bass is a style of electronic music I'm not massively familiar with. I guess it's mostly a singles-oriented club genre - but this one is an ambitious, fully-realised album that also makes you want to get on a dancefloor. I love the cerebral ambient moments combined with thumping energy. I love the basslines, which I guess are often being sampled from jazz/funk/soul records? I actually think the shorter version (which was originally the 1CD/cassette release) works amazingly in a single sitting, but I'm not opposed to hearing the whole 140-minute double album anytime! 5*

Country-tinged singer-songwriter music does not sound like my bag, but damn this is a beauty. Lovely song writing. Great voice, great music which draws from blues, country and folk. How does he make songs about cowboys and Jesus sound so profound? 4*

Another drum&bass album? I'm game! I enjoyed this one, but it's certainly not up there with Goldie and Roni Size. This has some lovely Indian sounds which I guess expanded the range of the 1990s electronic scene. The strings and vocals cohere well with the beats. But it ends up a little samey across the record, and it is definitely on the lounge/chillout end of the electronic spectrum. 3*

Surprisingly good! As a teenager, I was into punk and thought metal was cheesy. Now I think they're both pretty cheesy but occasionally great. I love the energy of this style of thrash metal. I like the dystopian atmosphere of despair paired with some killer grooves. For this style of music, I find 30-35 mins makes the perfect album. This is about ten minutes too long - but it's a small complaint. 4*

I am pretty ignorant about Steely Dan. I think I listened to "Gaucho" once a few years ago. The pop-punk band The Ergs have a catchy song called "Aja" which mentions this album - but for some reason I never followed it up. In my head, Steely Dan were a middle-of-the-road soft rock band, which is kinda accurate. But I really wasn't expecting the amount of funk/disco on this! I love the sound. I love the songs. I love the structure of the songs, which often opens out the conventional pop/rock song into a sprawling jam. Some elements are schmaltzy. They seem to be deliberately, knowingly schmaltzy, as an aesthetic choice - but that doesn't make it better. Overall, this is great. It's 40 mins, but every time I listen I've thought "that can't be over already??". Sure sign of a good album. 0% drag. I also want to add: the hook from "Peg" must be the absolute best sample Prince Paul used for early De La Soul. 4.5*

Good to revisit this mammoth record. I have a soft spot for ambitious triple-albums. I love the lo-fi throwaway aesthetic of much of this collection, which ironically produces more memorable and lasting songs than if they were polished up. The songwriting on the first disc is amazing, and I can't help suspecting that this first part is a stronger album by itself than the whole project together. Maybe my brain/ears are just fatigued by the time I get to the last disc. Next time, I think I will listen to the three discs in reverse order to give the backend of the album a fair hearing! I suppose a certain amount of unevenness is inevitable though, as this is a crazy sketchbook of an album with raw ideas shooting around in all directions. I'm glad to see it on the list. 4*

Oh boy. It's been a while since I listened to this. Back when I first got into hip-hop, I really loved early De La Soul, probably at the expense of some of their peers (though I did have a copy of this album). In retrospect, this hangs together as an album way better than the first few De La records. As much as I admire Prince Paul, all the fucking skits and interludes are irritating. "People's Instinctive Travels" has such a great vibe. It's positive but effortlessly cool as well. The production is peak early 1990s hip-hop. The lyrics and the vocal delivery are instantly recognisable. I love how they describe the life of NYC young people hanging out, but they make it almost into a nomadic mythology. I'm not a huge fan of the intros/interludes, and "Pubic Enemy" gets pretty old. Otherwise, almost perfect. 4.5*

This is bland, inoffensive indie-folk background music. There are plenty of parts where I thought "that's a nice lyric" or "that instrument sounds good". Can't say I found it enjoyable or memorable overall. 2.5*

Never heard of this band. I'm pretty happy with this album after a couple of listens. It's upbeat new wave stuff with a really catchy title track, some more brooding post-punk moments, and some curve-ball sounds like plasticky reggae and disco. The whole thing is quite bubbly and enjoyable but with an artistic touch and a vintage indie-pop sound. It's not competing with my favourite new wave or post-punk albums, but it's a strong showing in the 1980s Scottish indie category! 3.5, rounding up to 4.

Very fond of this album. The olde worlde English fete aspect of American folk never got less annoying than it is on the opening track. But they switch up the style of music a few times as the album runs. I love S&G's voices working together across the album. "Patterns" is lovely poetic songwriting. The first four tracks are basically untouchable, but I'm less in love with side B of the album. "A Simple Desultory Philippic" I've always found annoying as Paul Simon doing a Bob Dylan impression is only interesting one time at most. I have to say, I think Sounds of Silence is a more consistent album, even though it is surpassed by the opening four tracks of this follow-up. Putting three of their five albums in this 1001 list seems questionable, especially when Sounds of Silence isn't one of them. 4*

This is my album 175 out of 1001. Back in the salad days of album 18, I revisited Sonic Youth's "Sister". I finally developed some respect for this band, writing "I'd already listened to a lot of post-hardcore and noise rock, and I failed to appreciate how innovate Sonic Youth were in carving out space for those genres. [...] It's a great record, even if it'll never mean as much to me as it does to other listeners." Sadly, "Goo" means even less to me. The first 5 tracks have a great energy that has some of the noisy chaos of their early work, but also a nimble muscularity. From "My Friend Goo" onwards, the album loses steam for me. Even aside from this unevenness, I think Sonic Youth have an original talent which I can admire, but which I doesn't necessarily make me FEEL much or make me want to come back for me. 3.5*

What happened to the indie-folk revival thing? Did it die yet? This one has some striking moments, with some strong lyrics, some lovely vocal moments, and the occasional memorable melody. But overall, I find it forgettable and samey. I think my issue is that filtering any genre through indie-rock is never going to improve it. 3*

Here's a very iconic album that is undeniably "of it's time". Oldfield takes elements of prog, kosmiche and crossover classical, and mixes them up in two long tracks of New Age noodling. I guess it sounded far-out and futuristic at the time, especially for a mainstream audience who maybe hadn't heard anything more experimental than Dark Side of the Moon. Now it sounds deliciously retro and evokes the analogue hi-fi era. This is an LP for inviting your friends over and sitting on beanbags in a 1970s living room. On track 1, the announcing of each instrument by a narrator is a bit too "Peter and the Wolf" for me. Otherwise, track 1 is pretty untouchable. The b-side isn't quite as good, and I object to the weird growling vocals halfway through, as well as the comical sea shanty music at the end. Overall, it's a piece of "psychedelic art rock lite", but I love all its warm, dated, spacious sounds. If 50% of prog rock or New Age music sounded this pleasant, the world would be a better place. 4*

After many years of being dismissive of pop music, this was the album mostly responsible for changing my mind. A great pop album is relatively rare but hard to beat for repeat listenability and sheer joy. I love the catchy songwriting, the tragi-uplifting moods, the retro-saturated music, and Taylor's voice which has moved fully (at least temporarily) from country starlet into pop industry force of nature. I have two small complaints: 1) the damage of the "loudness war" is noticeable on some tracks, where there isn't enough dynamic range to let the different elements sit comfortably; 2) on "Shake it Off", the bit where she says "THIS SICK BEAT" is cheesy as fuck. Otherwise, this is perfection from start to finish. Can't wait to hear the re-recorded version assuming it is still on the way. (Also if you've managed to read this far, check out Ryan Adams's cover of this whole album, which is a worthwhile listen.) 5*

Does the list include every single "Madchester" record? Although I really don't like Sean Ryder as a vocalist, he's not quite so annoying on this album. However, the music is less exciting than on "Pills n Thrills" with its fusion of house and indie rock. "Bummed" still sits more squarely on the rock side, but with lots of funk and psychedelia. It's got a zany energy all the way through. However, I'd be happy to never listen to it again, and I expect 90% of repeat listeners are just nostalgic for taking ecstasy in a field before they got an office job and the internet was invented. 3*

Soft geriatric rock with pleasantly gravelly vocals and some nice blues/country instrumentation. You get the impression Dob Bylan is churning this out on an evening off, but maybe that's just an endorsement or his talent and/or a careful effect of the laid-back vibe. I think Dylan is the most overrated lyricist of all time, and sometimes I find it hard to overcome this. But I've managed to set that aside and enjoy this record for its merits. The 16 minute closing track is an uncompromising touch. 3.5*

Pink Floyd meets 1990s indie optimism meets an electric organ. It's pretty likeable - although I've listened to it numerous times over the years and it's never left a lasting impression. There's a nice balance between the bright anthemic meets and the discordant & abstract collage bits that glue it together. I'm not sure the introduction of a string quartet and a gospel choir is handled that well. Feels a bit "wouldn't it be cool to have some violins here", which is often the case when rock bands do this. The pacing of the album is also a bit off: tracks 8-9 wind down so much, a big chunk of the album feels like you're waiting for it to finish.

Wait wtf, why do all these songs sound significantly better/rawer than the versions I've been hearing for years? Were they significantly rerecorded/remixed/remastered for mainstream appeal? I'm a big fan of 1970s reggae, but always found Bob Marley a bit over-commercial and tame in comparison to many other artists from the era. However, my 1990 Tuff Gong copy of this album is changing my mind rapidly. The songs sound much cooler and more impactful than I remember them. The album still has quite a subdued and "safe" sound compared to lots of what would come from Jamaica in the late 1970s. However, I'm definitely finding a lot to admire in the instrumentation, Marley's vocals, and the lyrics. I'm pleasantly surprised from re-listening to this.

Excited for this one, as I don't think I ever got round to hearing a whole Sly album. Cool funk and soul sounds as expected. Some of the tracks are catchy hits, but there's also sprawling psychedelic bits. I like the aesthetic, but some tracks feel unpolished compared to others. The second track ("don't call me...") is not doing it for me - not because of the racial subject matter; I just don't think it's a well-executed song, and the production values seem a bit lower. Overall some great bits here, but it doesn't strike me as a great album taken as a whole. 3.5*

I dislike Nick Cave's voice and find his songwriting alternates between pompous and cringey. He is particularly good at love songs that churn your stomach whilst simultaneously boring you. The music is fairly solid in a plodding and unexciting way. I've now listened to a fair number of his albums, so I'm comfortable in my informed opinion: me no likey. 2*

Vapid low-effort rapping with reasonably good production, lightly inflected by industrial music (which apparently enough for people to convince themselves this is groundbreaking). I wish Kanye would talk about his dick and his ego a bit more, because there are at least three lines that don't mention these things. 2* unfocused boring shite.

Please don't make me listen to stodgy stadium metal. Please don't make me listen to a stodgy stadium metal live album. Please don't make me listen to a stodgy stadium metal live album that aggrandises itself with an orchestral window dressing. OH GOD IT'S MORE THAN TWO HOURS LONG. 1*

Quaint whimsy-pop with... is that a fucking harpsichord? I quite enjoy it in a dreary sort of way - but they go to far into the cockney music hall vibe with tracks like "Harry Rag". Then side B is a real surprise, because more of the tracks are "rock with a dash of whimsy" (instead of vice versa), and I remember why me and my friends used to listen to the Kinks as stoned teenagers in around 2004. Ending an album with a track like "Waterloo Sunset" is an absolute power move. Overall, it's a bit of an uneven album with a couple of misses - but I like it anyway. 4*

Wow, never even heard of this, but it's a gem. Good indie music is sort of balancing act. It's sad but uplifting. It makes arty references, but it's ultimately a collection of nice little love stories. It's wryly cynical, but earnestly vulnerable. It's catchy and carefully crafted, but it still sounds like it was written in a basement underneath a golf club (as this apparently was). Everything strikes the right balance here. Love it. Also, I've now realised the Camera Obscura song "Lloyd, I'm Ready To Be Heartbroken" is a reference to the closing track of this album (which is the highlight of the album). 4.5* because it's great, but it's missing that nameless little mysterious ingredient that will make me always love Camera Obscura more than this.

Absolutely nothing fancy about this, and its simplicity is a breath of fresh air. Just hypnotically pretty acoustic guitar, a world-weary voice, and some great songwriting. This seems like the most relaxed and least self-aware of his three albums - like he got the confidence to just do his songs and leave it at that. His voice sounds very natural here, and he has the confidence to leave many of these songs under the 3-minute mark. None of this needs any padding or embellishment, because it's pure stellar music-making. I probably say this every time I give one of his album's a proper listen... but I think this one might be my favourite Nick Drake album. 5*

At there best, The Rolling Stones take the influences of blues and rock n roll, then turn it into a new form of sleazy, punchy rock. However, I find they are pretty hit and miss with it. This album has three songs I actually think are good (the opener, the title track, and the closer). "Love in Vain" and "Country Honk" are dire pastiches of blues and country, which I would happily never hear again. The remaining four tracks are somewhere in the middle. The best bits are really strong, but the weaker tracks really let the album down. 3*

This is a pretty good listen and it's always nice to see electronic genres appear on the 1001 list. Some of the sounds have an impeccably warm 1990s vintage feel to them. I like how genre-spanning the album is, with elements of techno and drum & bass, but also bits of ambient and downtempo. Overall, I'd like the album to have more uptempo energy, which it only gets on the standout tracks. The spoken word samples don't do anything for me and are an annoying feature. I suspect this record was picked because it defines a specific era of British music culture (pretty much where the 1990s rave scene meets Glastonbury). There's no shortage of 1990s electronic albums that sound better than this one. 3.5*

Never heard this. It's a pretty cool listen. Apparently this group were involved in the UK import of acid house. Much of this (especially the first half) sounds like straight-up retro electro. There isn't a four-on-the-floor beat for the first three tracks. Then there are bits of techno, house and breaks, with just a little bit of the squelchy acid sound. The whole thing feels dated, but in a good way - like a fantastic time capsule of late-80s futuristic drum machine fun. Each track has a different style and mood, and the whole thing is balanced and paced well. Really enjoyable album! 4*

Okay, well now it makes even less sense that their debut EP made it onto a 1001 albums list. The album is pretty listenable grunge stuff. It competes with / complements Nirvana reasonably well for your listening pleasure. My problem with the grunge sound is (and this might be misinformed or unfair): it kinda has the swagger of garage rock, it kinda has the heaviness of heavy metal, it kinda has the alternative appeal of indie rock... but it's kinda too apathetic to be any of these things, so it ends up a muddy mess of nothingness. 3*

This is a pleasant surprise. 30 minutes of clean but energetic rock n roll. The first three tracks have a sparse punchiness, a kind of stripped back sound - and I was a bit disappointed that didn't continue. I also have a viscerally negative reaction to the idea of rock ballads - but the more I listened to the slower tracks, the more I could appreciate them as good examples of the format. Every track is more or less well executed and the running of the album is good. I'm not going to rush out to hear more in this style, but this is a solid record for sure. 4*

Never listened to The Police beyond a few of the big hits. This is surprisingly good - very catchy New Wave pop-rock. I find Sting's vocal delivery a little bit annoying, but it's not a deal breaker. i cannot for the life of me work out why the album is called "white reggae". It has the very lightest of Jamaican influence in the rhythmic use of guitar. The songs are fairly consistently good, but the album doesn't seem to hang together. It takes a couple of weird turns in tone and genre which make it feel miscellaneous. I'm not rushing out to recommend this but it is pretty decent, so 3.5*

Joni Mitchell's voice is such an elixir for the ears. Very expressive and dynamic, with the perfect mix of vulnerability and cool aloofness. I could listen to her sing a shopping list. But the songs here are mostly elaborate monologues of experience and emotion. It's pretty hard to make those kinds of song work, but her voice brings them alive. The music is good, with interesting jazzy additions to the folk palette - but really it's all a backdrop for the voice. The final track is impeccable vocal jazz performance, and I would love to hear a whole album of that. Overall, this album doesn't quite reach the soaring heights of Blue, and I don't really like how it takes a sharp turn in sound for the last three tracks (though they are still good tracks!) so I have to give it a 4*.

Hell yes. I've been listening to this for years, but sometimes their early albums sound like "the juvenalia leading up to Remain in Light". Actually this is an audacious good debut album. Arty weirdo rock that stays wildly carefree and fun. I love how the the lyrics, the voice and the music all have a tendency to tailspin into free association, then come back again. It's an incredibly satisfying record from front to back, and if the Talking Heads had stopped here it would still be a landmark album. 5*

Me and my whole friend group bumped Rage when we were 13-17, and we had some pretty questionable taste, including nu-metal - so this album must be crap. Hey, what d'ya know - it actually holds up pretty well. The guitar work is pretty dynamic, with distortion, texture, solos, and riffage. A lot of the guitar is rhythmic, which combined with rock drumming, super muscular bass, and spoken/rapped vocals means like 90% of their sound is rhythm. I respect how they combine rock, hip-hop, punk, and funk-metal. Zack is a very compelling vocalist. Cynically, you could say that the vague and angsty political messages are carefully formulated to make teenagers feel like revolutionaries when they break school uniform code or smoke a cigarette. However, some of the songwriting is also pretty memorable and good. My main issue is that lots of the songs use a technique of having a kind of breakdown in the middle, followed by a gradual build-up, then a crescendo where Zack shouts a slogan. I'm sure it works great for a mosh pit, but it gets pretty formulaic, and it also means most of the tracks end up 5-6 minutes. Overall though, I'm glad this is still a surprisingly solid record even when I'm no longer a bong-ripping teenage rebel. 4*

I remember listening to The Idler Wheel when it came out in 2012, but I didn't get the hype and never dug further into Fiona Apple's work. This debut album is definitely very cool and accomplished. Piano-pop sauntering up the indie charts. Her voice is robust and undeniable. The first 5 tracks have a really distinct touch which sets this apart from your run-of-the-mill 1990s songwriter record. But the later 5 tracks slow down into more generic ballad territory. I mean, still high quality, but backing down from the promise of the A-side. Actually, "Never is a Promise" is very memorable and sounds like Regina Spektor at her peak (before Regina Spektor had even released an album). It's not a perfect album, but damn it was worth hearing before I croak. 4*

Gorgeous indie-pop with bouncy 80s synths, toe-tapping percussion, and catchy melodies. Lyrics are what would happen if you binge-listened the best songs of the Smiths in the dark for months, then took some pep pills and started writing uplifting, chart-busting earworms. The vocalist sings like he's doing the show-stopping monologue at the finale of an amateur theatre camp. Parts of the album sound like you are eavesdropping on his unpolished, lo-fi bedroom rehearsal. The rest sounds like you're hitting the dancefloor firmly under the influence. Everything about this is fantastic. (The artwork of Fela Kuti's wife seems misplaced and the US cover is much better.) 5*

As a budding jazz listener, I'm sorry to say I've never listened to Ibrahim before. Based on this album though, I haven't been missing all that much. The instrumentation and composition is all solid, but like a lot of post-bop and a lot of 1980s-90s releases, the music sounds tame, overly polite, and basically lacking in most of the energy I love in 1950s-70s jazz. Tracks 3, 4 and 8 have some satisfying swing/groove to them, so those are the highlights for me. However, I can't see this as an essential addition to the jazz canon, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned a lot of people off the genre entirely. 2.5*

Lots of conflicting feelings about this one. I'm a Bowie fan, but this isn't one of my favourite albums - and I'm not of the absurd rockist opinion that you need to understand every phase of David Bowie's career to understand modern culture. I assume the 1001 editors would disagree. On the other hand, I was thinking how would this album sound if I wasn't mentally measuring against every other Bowie album. The answer is I would be pretty blown away by this album if I wasn't hearing it in the context of a pretty exceptional discography. The six tracks basically go like this: slow-motion hard rock Bowie; timeless pop bop Bowie; prayer in the church of love Bowie; new wave Bowie; rocking out in a funk lounge Bowie; balladeer Bowie. Yet the album is coherent and the quality is pretty consistent despite the variety. Length of album is good, and the structure of six lengthy tracks is cool. I'm talking myself into bumping this up my informal hierarchy of Bowie album tbh. I'm feeling a 4.5*

Another live double album? I'm not convinced about this. I'm not even convinced that any Van Morrison album deserves a place on this list. In it's defence, this one is a nice recording which captures Morrison in his prime. Lots of these songs actually sound punchier and better than the do in the studio albums. So you could make a case for this being the most essential document of Van Morrison. However, it is really long and gets tiresome. I object to the idea of trying to replicate a full concert experience by bloating the album format to it's limit. 3*

Still feeling fairly ambivalent about American folk and not well equipped to rate it. I guess folk of this style is like a storehouse for American mythologies of rambling men and the frontier spirit, etc. Even when the singer is the son of a doctor from Brooklyn. It's a curious style of American storytelling but I can't say I find the music, vocals or lyrics particularly gripping. I also suspect this was chosen just because it influenced Bob Dylan and other later artists. 3*

So stodgy and po-faced I can't be bothered writing anything about it. 2*

Damn this was a nice listen. Maybe it was walking in the rain at night that did it, but it seemed the perfect balance of melancholy and uplifting. I love how they take rock and fortify it with bits of jazz, blues, folk, without (in my opinion) looking down their noses at the fun or energy of rock. It doesn't quite reach the grandiose splendour of Aja, but there isn't a dull moment here. 4*

Never knowingly listened to this band, but their style of alt-hard-rock definitely has more variety and dynamism than lots of the rock canon. The whole thing is pretty listenable and not boring - but there's a kind of sleazy posturing feel to it that I dislike, along with the singer's voice. I've listened to it three times and I don't hate it, but I probably won't be coming back. 3*

1980s hip-hop can sometimes be heard to appreciate, because in many ways it sounds crazily dated compared even to the "golden age" of the 1990s. The beats tend to be a bit too clean and crispy, whilst the rhyming about your rhyme skills perfectly on the beat can seem corny in retrospect. Once you get over these things, damn this is a solid album. Jam Master Jay excels on really spacious production, where the electronic futurism of electro meets rock licks. "It's Like That" is a classic, but really everywhere you look there are little snippets of lyrics that echo down the halls of hip-hop almost four decades later in the form of countless samples and references and influences. But more importantly, the record just sounds fun and enlivening and maybe even fresh once you get over its anachronisms. 4*

I absolutely love the depressive, ethereal mood of this, and the complementary textures of synth and guitar. The sound is quite spacious and organic feeling, and yet the mood is oppressively downbeat. It's a strong album, with nice attention to detail whichever instrument you focus on. I like Smith's voice quite a lot, and it's instantly recognisable and evocative. The album feels too long for me at 72 mins, and there's definitely some fat/repetition that could have been shaved off to make this perfect. 4*

I've tried listening to REM albums a few times, and they are generally well-crafted with their own recognisable sound. However, they are also drearily forgettable. I guess if this album had any emotional impact, it's something like "generalised listlessness". I can see how this would be a powerful time capsule album, if this was like the soundtrack to your adolescence. But who spent their adolescence listening to toothlessly slow-motion indie? What's annoying me is that I actually like the vocals, the songwriting, and lots of the sound - but it's so lukewarm in delivery that I'll forget all these songs by tomorrow. 3*

Led Zep are kind of a standout from the dusty hall of dad-rock fame, and this is possibly their best album - but fort some reason they've never clicked with me. The music is really punchy and self-assured, with the ability to go off into extended looser passages, whilst not losing any of the energy and focus of the record. I think the issue is Plant's vocals. He's a strong singer, but I can't stand his style, particularly when he goes "oooh baby mamma I need your lovin' yeah yeah yeeeaah". It's screechy and lame. And he writes lyrics about being a wandering bluesman on the American highway, when in fact he dropped out of grammar school in Birmingham or something. Nothing against Plant personally, but I would definitely listen to Led Zep records where the vocals were replaced by AI with Syd Barrett or something. That would be cool. Overall, the quality of the album is undeniable, even though I personally can't enjoy Plant's vocals. 4*

I remember this coming out, when I thought I was too cool for popular indie records, but damn the singles were pretty catchy. Now that i have no delusions of being cool, I'm warmly surprised by the album! It has strong garage rock and post-punk sounds, but softened into radio-friendly indie. The energy is good and there are some earworms on here. Compared to most mediocre British indie on this list, this is pretty rocking. 4*

The singles are pretty memorable, so I had high hopes for this - but sadly it's like so much pop music where the album is largely filler. Destiny's Child definitely belong on a list of 1001 singles, but putting them here is an odd decision. 2*

I love lots of electronic artists and genres, but I really can't get along with Justice. The sound is big, bold, clean and energetic, but ultimately feels brash and soulless to me. This style of electro-house feels like it takes influence from the 1990s "big beat" sound, but it doesn't have the same sense of humour, use of break beats, or even danceability. I do love Mr Oizo's earlier albums, which come from the same wheelhouse, but have lots more interesting going on. 2.5*, not bad but entirely disposable.

I'm not that knowledgeable about Stevie Wonder, but this definitely feels like the album of a significant artist somewhere near their peak. I love the range and expressiveness of his voice and the variety of song structure. The funk tracks like "Boogie On Reggae Woman", "You Haven't Done Nothin" and "Bird of Beauty" are immediately catchy. The sombre soul tracks (which set the overall tone of the album) can feel a bit slow and like the music isn't doing much but acting as a carrier for the vocal. The whole album has a rich tone and texture to the sound. I like the gospel elements on tracks like "Heaven is 10 Zillion...". Personally, this makes me want to go check out his funkiest albums. But this one is still a quality piece of work. 4*

I've actually never listened to a Jackson album, so I was kind of excited to hear this on the basis of "Beat It" and "Billy Jean". Unfortunately, most of the other tracks are lukewarm ballads with dated, low-effort, studio-band backing. The cameo from Paul McCartney is pure cringe. "Thriller" is better known for the video than the song itself, which isn't that good and has an annoying voice-over thing. "Wanna Be Starting Something" and "P.Y.T." are the only non-single tracks which had some energy and interest to them. Overall, either Jackson is a singles artist, or this was a bad choice of album for the list. 2.5*

This is one of my favourite albums of all time, so very happy to give the 2018 remaster another listen. Damn, this album is good. It has artistic vision, it has emotional power, it has happy and sad, it has punchy pop moments and weird experimental ones. It all hangs together well. It's like entering into Kate Bush's immersive world for 47 mins. I could lose 50% of "Waking the Witch" and a couple of minutes from "Hello World" - but otherwise this is perfection. 5*

There are a lot of catchy house-pop tracks from the 1990s, but not many of them still sound as good as "Groove is in the Heart", and even fewer could be scaled up to the album format successfully. This one is 48 mins of good vibes with almost no filler, and a guest spot for Q-Tip from A Tribe Called Quest. House music ranks fairly low on my personal list of electronic genres, but I respect Towa Tei who went on to make a load of good solo albums that are generally solid. I'll be very happy to check this record out again in another 10 years, and I'm pretty sure it will still sound great. 4*

I've always liked Blondie's big songs, and I guess always thought of them as a singles / greatest hits band. I hadn't realised how many of their best songs come from this single album. It's an absolute goldmine. The sound is punchy, cool, energetic, and Debbie Harry's charisma is pretty irresistible. It's a smash! 5*

I love the Beasties, but normally gave the most attention to Paul's Boutique (masterpiece) and Hello Nasty (I remember buying it and playing it to death as a kid). Ill Communication and the Root Down EP are like a perfect mid-career pair, which contain all the elements of the Beasties in microcosm: catchy raps, funk instrumentals, bursts of hardcore punk. The Q-Tip feature is great. I don't dislike the kind of new age Buddhist chant stuff, but I'm not sure it belongs tacked on the end of this album. In fact, the album is slightly too long and gets a bit flabby on the second half. It's still bloody great though. 4*

I'm not really into gangsta rap and i expect no album will change this. I just find the lyrical subject matter obnoxious. However, I have come back to this album more than any other Wu Tang project. The production is great and the flow/cadence from Raekwon and most of his guest spots. He's definitely a wordsmith, even if i don't get on well with the mafioso posturing. 68 mins is too long and there are skits/intros that are like listening to paint dry. 3.5*

This list includes four Rod Stewart albums from 1968 to 1971 (two solo, one with the Faces, one with Jeff Beck). I have a visceral dislike of Stewart's raspy mulleted crooning. I can't stand listening to him, which is a shame for the musically-solid Jeff Beck album. "Every Picture Tells a Story" is stodgy old blues rock with some strong folk leanings. The music is pretty listenable, though there are a couple of weaker tracks even on this 8-song album. It doesn't matter anyway, because I'd rather listen to a scratched chalkboard than Rod Fucking Stewart. 2*

Damn this is one of the hardest ones to rate so far. I'm into progressive, cosmic and ambient styles - so Can are pioneers of lots of stuff I enjoy. I've listened to this record a number of times over the years. It goes through the looking glass of rock music, and the other side is freaky. The best moments are mind-bending and funky. But I've never enjoyed to jibbering vocals. The whole b-side of the album gets into stretched-out soundscapes. Are they visionary blueprints for ambient, drone and industrial music to come? Yes... but they are also unlistenable garbage in parts. Overall, this is an album I largely respect, but with large chunks I don't enjoy. 3*

I never listened to this because: A) I don't really like modern R&B; B) I never liked Odd Future, and this got mixed up in all the hype around them. Hey, it's a pleasant surprise! The music/production is good, and is really eclectic in an understated kind of way. It picks over R&B, hip-hop, soul, funk, and rock, but smooths them all together into a low- to mid-energy collage paste. Call me crazy, but it's like the R&B equivalent of vaporwave. The vocals and songwriting are really good! I love delivery and arrangement and the vocals; they are really clean and expressive, but arranged kinda organically to give a laid-back feel. The Andre 3000 feature is pretty killer. 4*

Well, after previously claiming that no Van Morrison albums belong on the list, this is... embarrassing. I always liked the sound on Astral Weeks, but it is an uneven album. This follow-up is a very solid album with a totally new sound. Good songs, and Morrison's distinctive voice on top form. The blend of blues, folk and soul touches into pop-rock works great. The album has variety but it hangs together well. I'm not allowing my judgement to be clouded by the next 50 years of stodgy releases and Covid misinformation mania that came from Van the Man... 4.5*

Overblown pomposity, throwing bits of jazz and folk at rock 'n' roll then calling it innovation. Now we have a definition of prog rock out the way. Once I got over being grumpy about it, I decided on second listen this is pretty good. The folk, jazz and even r&b influences are really well done. I do wish this was a straight jazz-rock record. But it does also have to have a vague concept about pagan fertility cults (of course it does). There are definitely more than a handful of landmark prog albums that sound worse than this. It is growing on my by the minute. The electric organ really rocks. 4*

This is super sparse. Most of it almost feels unfinished. I checked out one of the more celebrated remasters, and the guitar (the whole mix really) still sounds so claustrophobically constrained. I like the atmosphere, which is sinister and stripped-back. But there isn't enough here for me to enjoy. 2.5*

Squeaky clean, poster-boy pastiche of yesteryear rock styles. I've never been a fan of this stuff. A couple of nice tracks, and I like how he borrows from garage rock, psych rock, etc. within his blues rock palette. But overall I find the songs and the sound uninspiring. Maybe I'm not nostalgic enough for "good old fashioned rock n roll". 2.5*

I've been listening to this album off-and-on for years. The "Sexy Boy" smash single and the opening track are very memorable, but I couldn't recall if the rest of the album falls off. I'm pleasantly surprised, because the whole thing is quality. The sound is a smooth downtempo blend of trip-hop, classic pop, disco, jazz, lounge, etc. Sounds pretty schmaltzy on paper, but it is done so well, with great attention to detail. Good pacing across the album too. Très bien! 5*

Good lord, this is one of the most boring albums I've ever heard, and I've listened to like 2 hours of sinewave drones. I can see the overlap with the trip-hop scene at the time, but doesn't even have any of the residual energy of hip-hop or beat-driven music. This is like stretching out rather genteel sounding pop and jazz into monotonous tapestries of nothing. 1*

I've heard of them, but never listened to this record. There is a huge amount to admire. Smooth and expressive soul/R&B vocals. Samples and loops. A cerebral spoken word sermon. A hip-hop track that puts me in mind of Native Tongues questing. A flute-led dance track. Funky electric bass playing. It's an adventurous and varied album. The house-adjacent beats feel quite dated, and that's very nearly a deal-breaker for me. I also probably don't know enough about modern R&B for their innovations to mean that much to me. But it certainly is a groovy and enjoyable record. 3.5*

Heard this one before a few times over the years. I'm generally not a live album fan, so it's cool to see a band who chose live albums as their main format, and it does capture a sense of raw urgency. I like the energetic rock sound. I can appreciate how this music would have felt like revolutionary counterculture if you were there in the audience at the time. But in hindsight, a large part of this just "oooh baby baby I want you right now, I'm the man for you, ramalamalama". You have to fairly invested in the mythology of rock music to still see this as revolutionary. Enjoyable record though. 3.5*