1001 Albums Summary

There's no other music I know that so completely blends the old and the new. Like, so many of the chords and styles refer back to older jazz and soul and funk, but the production and beats sound eternally fresh and unexpected. The mix is playful, something like Janelle Monae, I guess. Hard to describe better than that.

Parts are harder/louder/more like Bush than I expected. Like, I thought Britpop all sounded like the Trainspotting soundtrack, which is fine, but I like some of this harder stuff even more. Still, I think I would like this a lot more in a fast car, rather than as background music while working. I like that the drums sound like live drums, in a room. Ok, the wild piano-driven instrumental moment on track 7 is the first time I thought, "Something unusual and special is here." Starting to get it. Only other really special moment is this 6:12 final song: mellow, with like an organ or accordion or something, long and repetitive and nice.

Margo hates Dylan's singing, and I always think, "Oh come on, it's fine." But 3 songs on, I'm kind of agreeing with her. He sounds strained, tired, so far. Yeah, one song into the electric set and it's already SO MUCH BETTER. Kind of shocked to read on Wikipedia that the crowd heckled this half. He just sounds less nasally, more certain, more musical.

YEEESSS! So glad to see this pop up!! I mean, it's hard as always to separate good memories from contemporary responses to music. Like, when track 2 "The Things You Said" starts, right away it's comforting and perfect--but is that me or the music? I also put so many of these on mixes in high school, since of course DM on a mix is like auto-cool points. I really do like this more as I'm older. Even the mega-weird final track "Pimpf" is delightful in its weirdness, not off-putting. I guess I want to give it a 4.5 but I can't quite figure out why I'm hesitating from the 5.

I mean, I'm 3 minutes in and I've already learned that Genesis did prog and that Peter Gabriel sang for them, and that's on top of the fun Renaissance-y start of this album that has already morphed into organ-heavy awesome rock. What I'm saying is that I'm really pleasantly surprised. "Firth of Fifth" just paused 3 minutes in for a bass-and-flute solo moment. I swear, this album is amazing. Throughout, it's those unexpectedly awesome instrumental jams that really make the album. I'm kind of shocked I've never heard this until now.

Well, I thought Fatboy Slim was a hip-hop artist, so that shows how much I know about music from my junior/senior year of high school (!?). But ok, I recognize track 2, and I see "Praise You" is coming up too. It's like the Prodigy-style stuff. Ah. It's not that I don't like this stuff. I do! It's just that after digging into the more complex stuff that came after this (drum-n-bass, glitchy modern electronica), this just feels very calm and repetitive and regular. I like it, still! But you know. (Only 3 songs in so far, though.) Ok, yeah. Plenty of songs have an immediate feeling of, "Ooh!" followed by an eventual feeling of exhaustion.

Doesn't work as well as background music as I hoped/expected--just too engaging. Oh, track 4 was sampled by Moby or someone: "I've been downhearted, baby." Ok, that was pretty rockin. Especially like the variety of moods and styles, and his powerful roar.

Never liked this one as much as #1, but skimming Wikipedia taught me a lot: Left-Eye's alcoholism and arson and rehab, all the producers who were part of it, how many copies its sold, etc. Makes me go in with a bit of a fresh eye. Track 3 "Kick Your Game" is immediately better than I expected. I wonder if it's all the Mariah I've been listening to, with that 90s Jermaine Dupri beat. I guess this is the key: if I listen to it alone, not as "the 2nd TLC album," it's really great. But if I listen to album 1 and then album 2, I'm disappointed. Gotta note how much I love the idea of including interludes on these albums. That was so 90s hiphop/R&B and so important.

This is why I love Wikipedia. Didn't know he was in the army for 2 years while old material was released. So this really is what people were waiting for! (Also cool that it's from just 4 days of recording.) Fever!? He recorded Fever??!! I like it. I find I'm enjoying this the way I've been enjoying all Elvis in the last couple years: more than I'd expected but still probably wouldn't put in all the time. It's pretty solidly 3 stars for me in that way. Except this last track "Reconsider Baby," which is a KICKIN 12-bar blues sax piece. (Do I like it better when Elvis isn't singing? Say it ain't so?)

I don't ever remember hearing of this band before. Looking at this album cover and 1 minute in and reading Wikipedia, that doesn't seem like such a shame. This guy's voice is really annoying. Did I love the 90s? Do I? Do I really? I actually just popped over to see if it was over, since I thought it was probably over, but it was just the end of song 5 out of 11. Still, this is helping me try to decide the difference between a 1 and a 2 star album. Ok, def a 2-star. When it's instrumental, it's not really that bad. I just don't like his voice.

Had no idea this was as old as 1980. 2 songs in, this is less annoying than I expected, since I've never really loved their singing. It's striking me as fine/nice/pretty good--not how they want to come across, I know. Yeah, it just stays like that. It's all the same emotional note, like a flat buzz that doesn't change much in the background. It's like the definition of a 3-star album.

Great Wikipedia article for context--didn't know this was his big breakthrough, etc. Quote from there: In a Rolling Stone review, Michael Hill praised Prince for "working like a colorblind technician who’s studied both Devo and Afrika Bambaataa and the Soulsonic Force, keeping the [1999's] songs constantly kinetic with an inventive series of shocks and surprises." 3 songs in, I see why this is described as so cross-genre. It's been synthy, soully, and now track 3 is like an updated 50s sock-hop. I like it! I'm dancing in my chair a lot! It just gets so good as it keeps going. I was thinking 4 stars for so long, but it's just SO CREATIVE and varied that I think it needs a 5?

I have no idea if I can get work done with this on, but shoot, let's try, because this album kicks. The thing is, it's just so FUN. Casual and laid-back and makes you smile at the music and the rhymes. I think it's a 4-star album to me, listening today. But if you think of it in context, it's a 5 in terms of importance. Usually I'd lean toward 4 here anyway, but I think it deserves a 5. It just does. Rewards multiple listens, right?

Is it a 4-star album with 5-star memories? Maybe--but those long songs take it to the next level, right?

Track 1: "Oh yeah, ok, very 1970, nice piano, no complaints" Track 2 (the cover of Moondance): oh, he was not the person to sing this song. What genre is this album, anyway? Also, he was 25, which makes it seem even less fitting. But ok, as it goes on, it's often mellow and peaceful in just the right ways. Glad Moondance the song was a fluke. This harspichord flute thing on Everyone is nice and fits the overall mood. Enough to lift it above a 3 star album? HAHAHA nope.

This is the least excited I've been yet at listening to something. The first track is . . . more familiar than I expected? I don't think I've actually heard any of this, but if you've heard Korn you've heard Korn, right? I guess I'm saying it's silly but less intensely offensively awful than I thought? Still, what can one do while this is on . . . except be mad? And I'm not mad.

His *13th album*??! He was shot BY HIS FATHER when he was 44??! Only one song in, I'm loving those angelic floaty background vocals he recorded. Laughed out loud when a song started that sounded like the same chords and bass line as "Let's Get It On," only to see that yes, one of the 8 songs is called "Keep Gettin' It On." But I love it. Love those bongos on track 5.

Never hearda this one. (I mean, of course, "There She Goes," but that's it.) 4 songs in, it's not offensive--like, I'm not annoyed by his voice or the songs or anything. But on the other hand, I'm so bored that I'm inclined to go 2 stars anyway. Doesn't 3 imply that I enjoyed it in at least SOME way? As it goes on, 2 is starting to seem harsh. I really am not disliking this silly, boring album. Let's do 3.

It's just really boring. But unlike The La's, I'm actively annoyed by this guy's whiny voice. Some instrumentation (strings!) is kinda nice, but it's a solid 2. Hmm.. Track 6 "Captain's Table" is nice and thoughtful enough that maybe it alone can pull the album into 3-star-land. Oh, and track 7 is actually thrashing some cool guitar solo stuff around in the middle of quiet music as if they're the Pumpkins. 3 stars for sure.

2 songs in, bored. (This may be a problem with this project....) I mean, I guess if you're someone who liked 80s hard rock and occasionally dips into country, you'd like track 2's nods to both. But you know. Ok, after the whole thing I'm realizing that mid-tempo, same-dynamics rock has very little to offer, especially from this period. When the songs got quiet, they got interesting--maybe because I like quiet, or maybe because SOMETHING HAPPENED. So yes, I occasionally liked it. But was often bored.

Just reading about how much sampling is on here (as I teach a class inspired by remix), I'm shocked I haven't actually listened to this before. Pumped. I find I'm LOVING the variety, and artistry, the coolness of it. Am I MOVED, like in a 5-stars way? Perhaps not so much. So probably a 4.

I was bummed to see another white-guy band from the 90s singing alternative rock, but this was surprisingly pleasant: pop-punk that I could see myself putting on again to clean the house too, and often with a 60s vibe to the undercurrent. Nice surprise. (A 3.5, if I could.)

I'm afraid of over-doing 5-star ratings, and maybe it's just because I listened to this in headphones while doing yard work, but dang this is cool. Such wild instruments, unique production, and an all-American update of the blues. And what really puts it over the top is that he also does actual ballads that actually work in the midst of the wildness.

One of those 3.5s that is hard to figure out which way it rolls. It's funkier and more interesting than I expected--certainly not your typical 1987 R&B, more like Prince instead--which makes me lean high, even though I'm not like singing along. And his voice is gold. Oh yeah, as it goes on, it's so obviously a 4.

I'm probably not listening as carefully as I should be, but I'm enjoying this a lot. It's of course largely his voice--so clear and unique. But it's also the mellow peace of the production, like a lot of calm, likeable people sitting in a room together. And it just gets more eclectic, which is why it obviously deserves the 4: the accordion, the acapella, the shift to ROCK (done well). Want to relisten again.

3 songs in, lots of thoughts: I like the busy, full mix, the Pearl-Jammy guitar solo, the American feel, the "this is clearly what bands I like were listening to" feel, and the certainty that Counting Crows could cover this album and make it sound even better. But sheesh, these vocals are kind of annoying. But yeah, it really is the variety of type of song that really makes this album go from good to great. Wild Horses, I Got the Blues, etc. (How is this not "southern rock"?) And I love me some keyboard (Sister Morphine).

Right away, track 1 says, "this is an album that would grab anyone." And then track 2 switches gears so perfectly, with such interesting percussion/production. Love it. Strings! How awesome! I love these "expected chord progressions," too. Expected but powerful. It's a 4.5.

So there *are* women on this list. This album strikes me as a great example of 70s singer-songwriter albums...I just don't get really into that genre. Ho hum. 30 seconds in, I already like the bluesy final song "Tall in the Saddle" more than anything else on this album. Well, that might be pushing it, but it's contrast that's so important, you know?

Sure, this sounds way advanced for 1969. Never heard of them before and glad I did. But I'm here in my office reading emails and it's just a wall of noise; perhaps driving down the road (and 18 years old?) I'd be catching more, interested in more. As it is, ok, sure, glad I heard it, move along. As this never-ending final track meanders on, I'm actively waiting for it to be over. That slip into annoyance puts this in the 2.5 range for me, which will probably weigh down to a 2.

No idea if I'll be able to separate memory from new experience (or if I want to). I remember thinking it was so shallow, taping it from a friend anyway, and listening to it outside while trying to get better at basketball. Very middle school. 1 song in, the drums are better than I expected. Highish hopes? (But really, a grammy??) Definitely enjoying this more than I ever would have expected.

I guess I'm trying to listen to this as RHCP FANS must listen to it. To me, it's like, "Oh yeah, this is that nice/ok song I used to hear on the radio all the time!" Like, Otherside is especially nice. But for whatever reason, it never really got me very excited. Ok, the fast funk of Get on Top has got me dancing in my chair more than I expected. Feels kind of old-school/classic Peppers? I guess I don't really know. (This is their 7TH album??)

Oh look, a ho-hum 90s British band??! On THIS list?? "But there's a teensy bit of electronic production, which was really something in 1990!" Ok whatever.

Ok, Muscle Shoals story on Wikipedia is cool, though I don't see how that affects the album itself yet. 2 songs in, I'm feeling critical of this over-produced sound. Hoping to get past myself. I mean, it's fine. It's doing what it's trying to do: bluesy rock done so perfectly that it almost sounds computerized--and thus not bluesy at all. How could this possibly be higher than 3 stars?

I just love learning--had no idea that she was in a collective with Questlove, Q-Tip, Common, D'Angelo, etc. Embarrassed how little I know her work. Plus, she co-wrote AND co-produced this thing. First song musically is perfect, ups and downs, danceable, groovy--but I admit her voice took me back a bit. Let's see how it seems after . . . 71 minutes. It's just so fun and groovy, so clearly proto-Monae. I love the feel of a band in a room. Still not in love with her voice, though it grows on me; it's the music I love most. 4.5.

Song 1: meh, ok. 2: ooh, I'm starting to see why people like this. 3: Oh right THIS is the reason I didn't like them in high school--but the nostalgia still makes it fun. Oh, I remember this 2:1 song and like it more than I expected. Maybe the first time I've really smiled. And it's track 12.

Getting an instrumental album is like a breath of fresh air; I find I'm always a little afraid I'll get some brash, annoying, loud album--so this is perfect. 11 minutes in (with headphones), it's great--but especially when it's weirder and more surprising and less . . . ambient. Second half of first track is so great, bassy and fun and perfect. Great choral bits on second track, and ends so fun--just an all-around great album. Would love to buy a record.

Immediately grabs you with that instant singing and bass. Intrigued. Yeah. This is something else. It feeds the Nirvana part of my brain (and, you know, it's from 1992). Gotta return to this one day.

Reading Wikipedia, I'm intrigued by their recording strategy of going simple, playing live and using few tracks. Yet 2 tracks in, that also makes it sound (to me, 20 years later) boring. As it goes on, it's indeed fun, as reviewers said. I don't dislike it, and at a party or a show it might be good listening. But yeah, I'm just not really grabbed.

I guess I get why people like this live, but listening on a recording, in an office, while working--it's just awful. Ok, as it goes on, I can see that there are occasionally moments of guitar solos and drum fills that are better than awful. It's when he shuts up that it can be better. Right now thinking it's a 1.5 that leans toward 2.

The hard thing is that I keep trying to imagine this is Pat Benatar, which makes it seem like kind of a watered-down Pat. But it's a great album in its own right!! I'm enjoying it a lot. Am I enjoying it 4-stars, though? So far, not sure. Leaning toward 3.5, but don't know which way to go.

So this is the question: You Give Love and Livin' On a Prayer are such epically great songs, how bad would other songs have to be to pull the whole album's rating down? Interesting! As it goes on, it definitely tends to continue in 4-star vein, often with really catchy tunes. But never into 5-star realm except in those 2 early tracks.

Oh man this cover of Can't Get No Satisfaction--so off-putting in the best possible way. This is tons of fun, of course, but one comment on Wikipedia jumps out at me: that it lacks emotion. Felt that a little when Space Junk (#4) began, since something about the chords DID seem emotional, in a way hard to explain. So yeah, I think I get how this could feel detached, distant--yet still awesome!

Read Wikipedia, was excited, but on listening to the first track I'm so much happier than I even expected to. If you told me it was Saxon Shore, I wouldn't be surprised. How completely happy and delightful. 3 songs in, it continues to be just right: melodic, hummable, moving. And here I thought I'd like the second set of 3 (weirder) more. Oh. When he starts singing on track 4, it all goes downhill. Whiny and weird. If there were no singing, this would be on its way to 5 stars. When he shuts up, it goes back to awesome.

Why did I think this was an electro-pop band? Oh well, the strings are nice, if I'm a bit bummed. The Pitchfork review is what's in my mind: just so much mid-tempo whatever-ness. I know that's unfair; there's some interesting stuff going on here, but even with headphones on I don't find my attention grabbed. Sorry.

This is fun . . . but perhaps, I don't know, less fun than I expected? I was like, ooh, Brazil, yeah, but instead it's more just fun. Probably still 4 stars because of its variety. But that's hard to defend, since I really only gave it 3 stars of attention--it didn't reach out to grab me.

Wikipedia has got me VERY interested: post-progressive, a "suite" of 7 songs on side B with a mystical, Tennyson-like vibe, blends of synths with classical and tribla things--YUP. It's so clearly pre-Tori Amos that I can't believe I didn't know about her / this album. So dramatic! So unexpected! Yet . . . is it 5 stars? Probably, just for being so ITSELF. Though I'll go back to it less often than other 5 stars, I suspect. So part of me wants 4. Ok, the Irish fiddling on Jig of Life just answered that question.

First impression: typical 90s post-alt-rock (worst of Counting Crows, Gin Blossoms) with a very Southern, slightly drunk singer telling interesting stories over it. By the end: that's still a lot of it, but I get it more, and there are moments of better-ness: an accordion that pops in here and there, and some some slower/more straight-up country songs that succeed more than the crossover stuff. And while her voice is, whew, an acquired taste, she's also got the lungs. I really get how someone could love her, especially when compared to more corporate/slick stuff like Sheryl Crow.

Not something for every day / context, but still really fun and varied and weird. Best when the electronics come in. Cool and progressive enough to be 4 stars, I think.

So fun and varied--but it's track 8 "The Seed (2.0)" that got me dancing in my chair. Yeah, it's the EXTRA stuff that's so wild and unexpected and cool, like the extended guitar soloing on the 10-minute "Water." It's a 4.5 album for sure.

It's just great, high-quality, fun music. Surprised I've never listened to these before! Will return. (Still, and maybe this is because I'm working and listening in the background, I don't feel . . . shocked or moved or surprised.)

It's just as innovative and important as always, but I just don't have the stomach for a lot of this kind of stuff any more. Not sure how to rate that. In the end, Hurt was amazing, but a lot of the rest feels like a wall of noise (though not all). Too much.

Wikipedia made this sound more interesting. It's just plain old 90s whatever rock. Not bad, but so what?

FUN! I didn't even know there was an African blues scene. This is the kind of thing I want to hear when I start a project like this. It's just so great to listen to while working--chill, friendly, repetitive in the background but ever-changing in the foreground. I like it a lot.

Listened with headphones on, focusing on the 1977ness of it, and . . . I think I mostly get it. It's better than I expected, worthy of 4 stars. But the next day I'm like, "Really? 4 stars? Maybe to others, but not to me. I'm not rushing out to listen again." 3.5, rounds down.

Didn't realize how much this would sound like New Jack Swing--glad the Wikipedia page helped explain its crossover appeal on the R&B charts. Fun either way, but even more fun knowing that.

This first track is just awful. The second track, though, makes me think maybe it's 2 stars instead of 1, since it's yet another weirdo update of 50s Jerry Lee Lewis-style rock. Same on track 3: they're interesting when they're updating surf rock, etc. But whew takes warming up to. OMG there's a Fever cover, I don't know if this is a good idea or not.

Fun, but less . . . groundbreaking than I expected. In that sense a disappointment, though I'd be happy to have it on again one day.

If I were 30-something in the early 80s, I think I would have listened to this. I was "too cool" in high school, but it's fun and varied in a way that helps me get him a bit more. It's his not-great voice that hurts it. Yeah, finishing the album the next day I find myself really pleased at all the instruments and variety (kind of next-gen Beatles, right?) but . . . not wanting to listen to it every day. Like Beirut.

It's just so gentle and nice and lovely. Wikipedia says the takes with more bass are here because the bassist died soon after--wow. Just love the piano tone.

After the awful album name and title and Wikipedia description, I was expecting to really hate this. But as it goes on (and on), I find it's actually not so bad, and has some variety. Doubt I'll go above 3, but even that is nice after expecting to give it a 1.

I love learning the history on Wikipedia: this is their 2nd album, 1st with Neil Young, and it's darker than the previous one because of 2 SO breakups and 1 death. And Jerry Garcia playing steel guitar on 1 track! 2 songs in, it's gentle and just right. Really enjoying it. Man, the guitar solos elevate it. So good. And then some scatting on another track?! It's so pre-Phish I can't believe it.

Am I weird for not realizing that this album is part of a punk legacy? Oh well. There's a lot to love here, but for me it's those extras: the unusual sounds you hear in the background (like the ray guns on track 4). I like the QUALITY of his voice, but when it's flat and not a steady volume . . . whew, that's hard.

After a promising instrumental intro to the 1st song, we get a promise of domestic violence. So there's that. As the album goes on, I can see why people like it. There's an energy (and some keyboards) I could get behind. Maybe I like this kind of 70s punk more than harder later-punk? But still: it's fundamentally pretty unlikeable. Ok, the Disneyland keyboards in track 7 are nice. First time I've actually actually enjoyed it.

Me: This must be her 1st album. Wikipedia: HER 10TH. First song is much nicer than expected--mellow, cool rock, not the roilin' country I expected. As it goes on, it's like, "Oh, yeah, this is fine." No bad feelings--but no excited feelings either. It's like the definition of a 3 star. Track 9 "I Will Not Be Denied" is perhaps the 1st time I thought, "ooh, yeah." Track 10 is nice too.

This is so weird and perfect. Exactly the kind of thing I'd love to have on vinyl and put on all the time. Wikipedia has some great quotes from reviewers, including one begging us not to dismiss it as kitsch, even though it's right on the line. Yup.

I'm probably not giving this the attention it deserves. But 3 tracks in, I'm having without being bowled over (first really noticing things in the fun slow-down/speed-up moment in track 3 that kind of explodes in a way that makes you stop and listen). The piano of track 5 similarly breaks things up in an important way. Liking it more and more as it goes on--"Black Diamond" is a legit awesome track. Wow, "Seen Your Video" is also really, really good.

Track 3, The Click Song, is better than the previous 2 songs, but it's all pretty good. As it goes on, and when I think about it in 1950, I start to get it: some of these rhythms and genres (many of which are surely Caribbean) weren't nearly as ubiquitous as they are now, making this more of a ground-breaker than it sounds like now. As it is, sure, I'll listen to it here and there again, but I wouldn't spend much on the record.

I mean, I think I get this album. (I think?) I see how it could be important and powerful, and I can imagine them in concert, and it's recorded well and sounds good. But...I think I like melody more, and nuance, and variety more. Honestly I'd go 2.5 if I could.

This is much, much better than I expected, and I'm barely listening while I work.

After the stupidity of "Smack My Bitch Up" (had to skip it), I found myself liking this more than I expected. (Yes, younger Kyle would be surprised at my surprise, but whatever.)

Well, this is the best album title of all time, we can all agree on that. 3 songs in, I'm SO enjoying this. Why wasn't I listening to this in high school? Who kept it from me?

I like the flute! It goes between "Ooh, this groovy beat is really grabbing me!" and "Oh, forgot to pay attention." Pretty good, better than I hoped, though. In the end, it's a 3.5 that I'd like to pay more attention to another day. But I'll probably round down to 3?

I definitely like this more after all the Phoebe I've been listening to. It's just what I expected, but also really nice; wish I got around to listening to him more.

I love how it's like Tribe for the 21st century. Maybe not quite as invigorating and fresh as them, but still exactly the hip-hop I want to be listening to. Really great.

The afro-centric stuff in the final track is especially fun, but besides that it strikes me as a fine, nice jazz album, 3 stars easily.

If this guy wasn't doing his own singing, it could be great.

Pretty boring. Maybe in 1972 it was better, but it's kinda like "we want to be Beatles 2.0 but with worse songs and worse singing." 2.5 stars.

Well, I've never listened to this album, so now's the time, even if it's 73 MINUTES LONG. Short answer: yes, it's really good. No, it doesn't seem "dangerous" like it used to in 1991. But it's also too long and too similar, with not enough of those slow-down moments that make the quieter songs really stand out. Overall, super impressed but I'm not like going to relisten tomorrow.

What makes this awesome are those funky instrumental tracks, and wow Sabotage really does kick as much as I guessed. But too many sound the same, and too many effects are repeated, putting this at a 3.5 that rounds down.

Jaw DROPPED when I looked to see what track I was on, since it was surely just about over and sounded like the final song, and Spotify laughed and was like NOPE it's track 7 of 12, on a 64-minute album with 4 6-minute+ songs and 5 more in the 5 range, which normally I would love but sheesh it's pretty boring stuff (well, this track 7 quiet song that grabbed my attention is much better than everything else beforehand). In this final track, they think they're the Smashing Pumpkins playing Drown. Ok, it's not bad, but not enough to save them.

Meh.

It's a crime that I've never listened through this album before. 3 tracks in, it's so perfect--but especially because 1 and 2 gave me what I expected from what I know of Portishead and Massive Attack, but then track 3 turns into this danceable pre-Grimes action track, and I love it. The song "Pumpkin" has a Smashing Pumpkins sample. . . . How did I not know this again? Track 9 is where he's talking/rapping over a beat, and it's interesting that this is the track I've liked least so far, and it's most like that Tricky album I got in high school and never loved.

I find myself enjoying this as much as I enjoy any 80s synthy new wave stuff, like a fine Duran Duran album or something, with the added interest that it's from 1979. But I guess my life isn't being changed, either. I'd call it a 3.5 that rounds down.

Hard to judge 40+ years later. Like, the first 2 songs are really fun, danceable disco. But . . . that's it? It's played well, recorded well, and I love the bass. Still.

There are high points, including some of the great synths and of course Tainted Love, which is for sure the best song here. But he's off-key more than he ought to be, with a "quick production" feeling that sometimes detracts. 3.5? 3.3?

Maybe I'm listening too quietly without enough attention, but this strikes me as perfectly good early-80s indie rock, like something that Smiths fans would go ga-ga over. Still, even if it's good enough to warrant a 3.5, and it's too good to call "forgettable," I expect I'll probably . . . forget about it. Nothing offensive, nothing changing my life.

That was not enjoyable, but I guess it wasn't offensive, either. So one-note, almost never sounding different.

Wait, Janis Joplin was in a BAND?? I'm enjoying the bluesy feel, the jumpy bass, and the guitar solos. Not sure if that elevates it to 4 stars or not (since I've never been the biggest fan of Janis's voice), but it's close. Oh! This is where Piece of My Heart comes from! I know this one! Love these solos.... Ball and Chain OMG. This album is great.

Jon Stone once said he loves how 70s albums sound, and this is a good example: those distant thick harmonies, clear bass lines, and acoustic plucking make it sound nice. And really, I'm enjoying this more than I expected as it goes on, especially the different speeds and feels, which reminds me of Fleetwood. It's nice.

First track, I was like, Ooh wow, this is new and fun. But as it goes on, I'm a lot more bored than I expected. It's just . . . background music. The concept of all the microsamples is special and I want to study it more, yet I don't plan to seek this out again.

Some parts were way better than I expected. Probably a 3.5 or 3.6, really. Worth another relisten one day.

So THIS is where Eruption came from! Quote from Wikipedia: "With the music world split between punk, disco and prog rock, Van Halen combined a dazzling live show with a party-hearty motto and, in Eddie Van Halen, a guitarist who redefined what was possible on six strings." Those 1st 3 songs are ordered really well: the slower but still rocking Devil song, then the instrumental Eruption, and then You Got me. The guitar really DOES sound special. I'm still not the biggest hard rock fan, but this is clearly more interesting and varied than other stuff from that time.

I like this more than I thought I would. I thought it would be gentle and whatever, but instead it's generally gentle and beguiling. On "The Stranger Song," he's even too close to the mic, picking up plosives and stuff, and it makes him seem more personal and real. One to return to.

I guses I'm working and not listening THAT closely, but this strikes me as perfectly really good music that isn't changing my life. I'm not listening to the lyrics, but it has that sheen of a 3.5?

I had a bad attitude about this one, but it actually ended up better than I expected--like, even if not my cup of tea, I could see why it's praised. At least until he started singing.

Ok, I've never actually listened to this whole thing...and I didn't know Lou Reed was in this band, oops? I mean, it's pretty good! The weirder stuff is better. But it would still be a lot to call it a 4, for me.

Just reading the intro paragraphs on Wikipedia--wow, glad I'm listening to this weird thing. Honestly, I never realized until today how post-Beatles this is. It makes so much sense, that in 1975 all British rock musicians would have them over their shoulders, but it's so clear here--but in the best of ways, with so much variety and verve. I'm really impressed. Bohemian Rhapsody really doesn't steal the show; it's the natural culmination of everything that's come before it. So good.

It's really just fine. Maybe I should have been listening more carefully to the words (sorry, Bob), but in the background it's completely unoffensive but not changing my life.

First half: "Ok, this is better than I expected. Glad it's not actively annoying as I thought." Second half: "OMG this needs to end soon."

Excellent as always--even especially those songs in the second half that I remember less but which still add so much to the overall experience. I still can't figure out why I wasn't listening to this more in high school (though the answer is probably economic?).

I mean, this is just fine. There's nothing wrong with it. In many ways, it's natural that this would come out so soon after the first 3ish Beatles albums--though of course the Beatles were long gone in new directions by now (St. Pepper came out the next week). 3 stars, obvs.

3 or 4 songs in, just sounds like some dude singing at the bar, with a fine voice but boring songs, and you kind of wish he'd turn it down so you could talk. So boring that it's ultimately offensive. Also intriguing to see a Wikipedia entry so clearly edited by him or his team or a super-fan. Surely he's a friend of the book author.

Lots of variety and fun, worthy of more careful listening another day. Pretty wild to imagine that this is 1971--feels so much newer than that.

As always, I love a 9-minute song, and I love an acoustic instrumental solo set. This is a great album. But yikes, when it's clearly a 4.5, which way do you go????

With Indian/electronic influences, this should be better than it is. Some high points, including the clever redo of Norwegian Wood by actual Indians, but overall not worth listening to.

So Wikipedia points out that people REALLY LIKE this album. Look at those reviews! Excited to dig in! Ultimately, it was great, but perhaps not LIFE-ALTERING in the way I had hoped. Worth another listen, but not in a huge rush.

Didn't know this was the Pixies guy. I mean, I guess a few songs in it's fine, generally not annoying, but I'm also not very moved. We'll see. Yeah, as it goes on, this is the definition of 3 stars. Occasionally nice on the ears, rarely exciting.

I mean, the moves away from stereotypical hard rock are nice: the Beethoven-inspired song, the softer stuff here and there, the strings. But I mean, how nice is it really? Just a little. So 3 starsy it hurts.

Can't believe Spin said this album was best of 1991, over Nevermind and Out of Time. But actually, as it goes on (5 songs in), it's much better than I expected--not annoying power punk as I expected, but actually melodic and varied indie rock. But still, is it 4 stars? 3.5 at least, sure, but I don't think it rises quite to 4.

His voice is nicer than I remembered. Songs 2 and 3 don't really sound familiar, but I know I had this record in high school. It's another one of those 3.5 dilemmas. 3 songs left for him to push me up or down. WHOA this last track: folksy version of Renaissance choral piece "Babylon."

This is what this project is all about. Didn't know what to expect, but certainly not a 6-track, mostly instrumental, pre-Phish jazzy weirdo album. 1 song in, loving it. It holds up. So energetic and interesting and varied. Love it.

So calming and . . . soft. I mean, yes, it's a white woman singing music clearly inspired by Black women, but despite that weirdness it's still a really great record.

4 songs in, SUPER intrigued. I mean, the first 3 were interesting in an Arcade Fire / Cinematic Underground sort of way, but now track 4 "Stillness is the Move" is really remarkable. Ultimately a 4-star album I want to hear a lot more.

Whew. Most of this does not actually make very good listening. But how could I go down to 2 stars on an album with so much fun/unusual instrumentation? Hm. Whew. As it goes on, it's just too often actively annoying for a 3.

It just SOUNDS GOOD, you know? Bright, jaunty, varied, intriguing. I guess if I were listening in headphones while focusing I might even go up to 5, but as it is it's one of those 4s that I really hope I'll come back to later.

Is it weird that this album doesn't even have its own Wikipedia entry, and that it's hard to find on Spotify? Why this album, specifically? Maybe I need to shell out for the book.... Ultimately, it's fine, but without the verve of "OOH, SPECIAL" that shines over many in this project.

This just strikes me as the same kind of "yeah whatever" stuff that there was so much of in the 2000s. Not bad or offensive....

So delightful I just restarted it when I got to the end. Maybe a BIT more sax than I'd love, but still great.

Weird and sergeant-pepper-y but generally likeable. Maybe if I were paying more attention I'd more LOVE it, but as it is it's like, ok, yeah, 3 stars, nice, whatever.

Loving these beats so much, and kind of shocked that I haven't been listening to this more. In some ways, it's like listening to a modern Mariah Carey album, but with better beats, more variety, and more memorable hooks. Every song is a surprise. And oh, this final build in the final track--it's got me really feeling something.

Best when it's soul-y, dance-y, which it usually is. Less impressed with the rapping than the music/production.

Excellent, interesting, perfectly weird, and better than I expected . . . yet perhaps without the unified excellence that would make me give it a 5. Really, a 4.3 or something.

Ultimately, this is a really nice album that's done well and consistently communicates an intriguing mood. Maybe I'm not listening hard enough, though, but I don't think I quite get the GUSHING that Wikipedia says happened when it came out. It's probably for me something like a 3.8 that I'll happily round up to 4, but I'm certainly not gushing.

It's best when it's surprising, like when the song structure breaks down completely for a solo or something. Yet sheesh, his voice; I keep wondering if I would like this more with a different singer. As it is, I'm impressed more than I expected but not out of my mind. Could go 3 or 4 depending on how Side B goes.

Kind of generally nice, not annoying. I like the sound of the room, the keys, the drums. His voice is not great, but oh well whatever. Still, it's not like I ever plan to return to it again.

Loving it. Well, loving tracks 1 and 2, and the track 3 ballad is a little cheesy so far. Oh well. Some songs are just good, but there are more than a couple that are really great. 4.5.

Is this their best album? No. Is it still an undeniably 5-star feat? Yes. (Especially enjoying listening in headphones for the first time.)

I mean, it's great. Fun to listen and read along to Wikipedia's detailed notes on each song. Great in the car. But . . . to me, it's not a life-changer. 4 stars easy.

I was actively annoyed at the 1st two songs, took a breather, and then in the afternoon I'm . . . not ENJOYING the album, but disliking it less. Still wavering between 2 and 3, but 1 is off the table.

Hard to hear it in its original context, right? It strikes me as a great record, but not like one of the best of all time. If we were doing half-stars I'd give it a 3.5, but I'll round up to recognize its big-deal-ness.

5 songs in, I'm enjoying this far more than I ever did in the 90s. Glad I'm giving it this re-listen. It's the variety that does it for me.

SO COOL to see how they've sampled a lot--read that Wikipedia article again, future-self! In the end, this is definitely one to pick up if I see it at a record store, so I'll give it 4 stars for that. Not sure if it's really ground-breaking or anything, but I still had a good time.

I'll feel like it's a 3 for a bit and then something like the howling on track 6 happens and I'm shocked into realizing it's gotta be higher than that. Same thing on track 9, which just kicks.

I guess it's fine. Surprised at the glowing praise on Wikipedia, but I know I'm listening in my own time.

Came in with a bad attitude, but 2 tracks in (and a lot of Googling) have got me a lot more excited. Yeah, as it goes on it's really the unexpectedness of it all that keeps it interesting and fun. Like, I'm loving this 10-minute intstrumental, even though I dreaded it at first, on this long album.

Yes, I'm listening to the clean version. Honestly, I'm not very impressed--maybe it's the attitude and the content, but actually the music/production grabbed me less than I expected, too.

I mean, that was nice and all.

Super fun, perfect for a party

In the first song or 2, I thought, "ok, this is better than I feared, probably even a 3 star." But as it went on, it became a slot. Perfect example of a 2 star piece.

Am I awful if this strikes me as just ok? I mean, it's nice, and I like the long weird song to break things up, but to look at the universally amazing reviews on Wikipedia, I thought it might be. . . more?

It's probably not fair that I'm listening to this before 9 a.m., but it just feels like an assault. Maybe some days it would be a 2, but right now it's a 1 (my first). I'd better pause it and figure this out later. . . . Nope, even then it's awful.

What an absolute delight to see this album pop up today. Ah. And really, it's so clearly a 5-star album, which makes it all the more wonderful that her later better albums are like off-the-charts, supercharged 5-star albums.

Even with 57 tracks before the alternate takes begin, this just doesn't get old. So varied, so lovely, such a moment in time. If I see this on vinyl, too bad, I'm picking it up.

I do miss the groovy instrumentals of other albums, but it's still wild and disparate and totally impossible to classify. Good stuff.

I'm enjoying this! I knew there were people who were in the collective with De La Soul and Tribe, but I didn't realize it was these guys, making me feel like it's important historical research to listen. Still, some tracks are more insistenly interesting than others, 5 tracks in--like track 5 got me dancing, while the previous ones were more, "Yeah, cool, that's fine."

I mean, I think I see the appeal--the vocals-forward production and his fun/weird/engaging style. Like, when you're a kid you think Elvis is a joke, but when you get older you start to realize his eccentricity is part of the appeal.

I mean, 5 songs in it's just fine, but it's SO EASY for it to just fade into the background. Little is really captivating, nothing is annoying. Ok, track 6 is better, "Why Don't You Find Out For Yourself"

I know this one so well that I was sure it would be a shoo-in for a 4, but as it went on there were so many more 5-star moments than expected. Really loved it.

I know this one so well that I was sure it would be a shoo-in for a 4, but as it went on there were so many more 5-star moments than expected. Really loved it. Loud and wild and powerful and perfect for the car, plus those noise sections and tracks that take it to the next level.

A couple of moments rise above the rest (e.g. the guitar solo on track 8, or maybe any time when the singer isn't singing), but generally it's kind of a not-awful bore. So very 3 stars (or 2.8).

Pretty bored. Perked up a bit at the original Dancing in the Moonlight, since I've only heard the cover, and then the quieter track 7 actually got my attention ("Still in Love with You"). But sheesh, people listen to this whole thing? Okay, enjoying the guitar solos and overall feel of track 9, Cowboy Song.

I thought, "This awful album has been going for forever, but since the songs are all like 1-something, I bet I'm half done! Turns out I'm on track . . . 8 of 43. . . . Made it to 18. Do I have to finish?

Seriously, Mike Watt's bass a second day in a row? This had better be better..... I mean, it's not AWFUL, but it's certainly not good. It's the kind of thing that someone might try to convince you is good without any evidence. I think if his voice wasn't awful, I'd give this a 3 stars under "just plain boring early alternative." But this kind of thing can't be ignored.

3 in, perhaps I like the songs more than her voice? Definitely true for "Strong Enough," track 3. Ok, track 5 sounds inspired by . . . Coolio? And then track 6 is like . . . fake punk, at least in the vocal delivery? This is not a good idea. Nice to get a slow song in track 10. But it's too little too late for this 3-star album.

I love the 2016 Pitchfork review of this, helping me see some of the darkness and weirdness of the album--but 6 songs in, not really listening too closely, I'm not sure I see it. The minor-key track 6 "Money, Money, Money" has been my favorite by far, but I still don't see how this could be better than 3 stars. And as the review points out, the final 2 tracks--Tiger and the instrumental Arrival--are interesting and worth thinking about. But they're not enough to pull this to a 4.

Didn't expect to like this, but gotta say that the first 2 minutes of the album, with this slow soul burn, are better than I expected. Wikipedia says that Pink Floyd was heavily influenced by them, and I can hear that in the organ, the mood, the guitars. Bummer to read about Manuel committing suicide in Winter Park.

After 3 songs that are just a bit too enthusiastic and early-90s for my taste, track 4 was more what I was hoping for. And then 5 is a little cheesy sound-wise, but I love the lyrics. A couple later songs are definitely more what I was hoping for, with that PSB attitude/vibe more present (rather than a C+C Music Factory vibe), e.g. track 10 with its darkish/positive joltiness.

Obvs, when I see a double album come up, I get worried. But 1 album in, I'm enjoying myself. It's creative, varied, and worth spending time in. Perhaps not as amazing as some say, but probably 4 stars. (Yep, definitely 4 stars.)

Really intrigued by Wikipedia, talk of how bare-bones the music is, which is really notable--not sure if I like it or not. But Rock Box (track 2) is clearly interesting and ahead of its time. Otherwise, I like it but don't love it.

Had no idea they were doing this in 1970. Huh! 2 songs in, I'm digging it--you really can hear how Billy Corgan was listening to this stuff. Especially interesting to hear track 3 mellow out and sound more psychedelic, something I can't imagine many 80s and later metal bands doing in this way.

It's hard to hear this in context, of course, but it strikes me now as just a really well down vesion of this kind of thing. It's like French food: the standard moves done to excellence.

I love this whole album, but listening today fresh, track 2 really is a masterpiece. Also funny to hear his earlier recording/singing style (more frantic). Sheesh, track 4 is also a masterpiece. Really, this is one of the best album-opening tracklists ever. As it goes on, every song is delightful. I know I'm not a neutral observer, but I just love this album so much.

Was afraid this would be cheesy / low-quality Asian electronica, but 3 tracks in it's just right: beautiful and mellow and perfect background work music. Absolutely want to return to this again. (In fact, I'm starting it over again immediately in headphones this time.)

I mean, it's weird to hear this white guy appropriating all these sounds. But it's also more interesting and delightful to listen to than I expected. Mellow and interesting.

It's just so nice and gentle but also smart. 4.5, but which way does it lean? Really hard to say.

As it goes on, I'm really enjoying it and noticing its varied, interesting styles--but I'm also working while it's on, not giving it the due it deserves. Lots of fun, pleasantly surprised, with my real lack of Who knowledge. (But yikes, a weird ableist sort of premise for an album?)

Remarkably bland and unoffensive at the same time. Nicest when he sings higher and sounds like the guy from the Byrds. The most 3-star album ever.

Already learning stuff: didn't know SD was so jazzy. Really enjoying this first Rikki song. And some fun surprises, like this track 5 instrumental toodle-oo about E. St. Louis. And the title track really rocks.

It's intriguing and weird in all the right ways, and it deserves more attention than I gave it (even with headphones). But still, is it really that life-changing to ME?

I mean, this is really so much better than I expected. Fun stories, pleasant voice, strong production, etc.

It's hard to imagine that this is 1982; it feels so much newer and fresher. So much variety, such clear production. And don't forget that Beat It starts side B, which is a KILLER opener.

Organ-based jazz! I'll take it. Enjoying it a lot as it goes on: bluesy, boppy, but always organny. Probably a 3.5 so far in my book, but definitely something to put on while working in the future.

Immediately grabs you. Exciting, interesting, perfect to listen carefully to or as background.

It's . . . just fine. Noticeable how much this is what people stereotypically think of as "elvis" than his rocking early album I heard earlier.

Just as creative and interesting as the Wikipedia page says. Nice listen, wish I had it in the car where I could give it more focus, though.

Ok, some of this is better than I expected, and I'm actually interested in listening to the instrumental version that was apparently released. But I'm too old to be intrigued by the bizarre-o lyrics (while I'm glad they're outside the box).

There's nothing else that sounds like this.

3 songs in, it's already so, so fun. Can really see why Mike Perry is such a fan--it's pre-new jack swing. As it goes on, just so much variety it's amazing.

The interludes and skits age poorly, but the beats, creativity, and skills are in high form.

I mean, it's fine and all. Not really for me, but I see why it's good.

I keep trying to give this a 4, but so much really is so creative and varied that it's hard to defend that (though I did switch to the clean version eventually). 4.5 for sure.

I guess it's fine?

Not super my thing, but not bad. Didn't dislike listening, didn't feel excited.

I like that the big lead single is the final track. Otherwise, I don't really have anything to say.

Ok, I didn't really expect to like this, but it's a pretty rocking album. Not sure if it's just because I'm listening in headphones or what, but it's really great.

I'm only on the first acoustic half so far, but it's nice. Not amazing, but 3.5 stars at least. Really, the first and last track are the best, especially the rock version on the final track.

2 songs in, it's just so groovy and fun to listen to. Smooth, creative. EASILY 4 stars, and might even hit 5 if I listened more carefully or with just a smidge more variety.

I admit I'm enjoying this more than I expected to, remembering quite a few tunes from the couple of times I tried to get into it in the past. The headphones help, emphasizing the rhodes, etc. Still, it's pretty clearly a 3.5 in my mind, especially with his lousy singing--or maybe it's just a lack of energy/interest.

So interesting to hear how much she must have influenced later artists I know: Tori Amos, Fiona Apple, Regina Spektor. This album is really nice, but I don't think I'd give it a 5 unless I read Wikipedia and saw how everyone in the world loves it. Definitely a 4, probably a 4.4 or something, for me.

It's fun listening to this along with the original track listening, seeing where the double album began and eneded (e.g. Kashmir as the album 1 closer). But generally, I just . . . don't get Zeppelin. It's generally ok but rarely better than ok. Ok, In the Light is nice, and really disc 2 is just overall more mellow and musical. Liking Black Country Woman a lot too . . . so fine, I'll go up to 4 stars simply because of the variety of styles.

Groovy and excellent. Really enjoying it. Yet as it went on, it was groovy in the same way, for the whole album. Clearly a 3.5, but I think I need to round down to 3 for variety's sake?

A blend of Revolver and Off the Wall? Intrigued.... PLUS THAT COVER IMAGE. As it goes on, it's enjoyable but ultimately not very memorable. I've never not-enjoyed it, but whatever.

So I've gone this long without ever listening to a White Stripes album.... Ok, 5 songs in I can't believe this has only been going 5 songs. I'm just . . . not impressed. Oh, the Napoleon Dynamite song! That's nice! Proves that they're better when quieter.

It's fun, but I guess the early 2000s thing should have warned me that the electronic additions are . . . less excellent and surprising than they could be in other hands. Is that fair? I'm enjoying it but won't rush to put it on again.

This is a . . . weird album. So much of it sounds like a Halloween album. And Cohen's voice is just weird (and not really very good, mostly that half-talky stuff). But it's interesting enough that it's surely more than 3 stars...?

So I had no idea that that well-known intro to Smoke on the Water was actually a song called Smoke on the Water by Deep Purple. Otherwise, that was . . . just ok. Sure, some nice guitar and drum solos and stuff, but it's just not really my thing.

I guess in the 90s this wouldn't sound so derivative? 2.6, barely squeaks up to 3.

You know, I expected to love this more than I did. I mean, the horns were nice, so maybe I was too synth-hopeful? Certainly higher than 3, but not quite a 4.

Ugh, that cover and title.....Otherwise, it's very energetic and unusual, especially for 1974--very post-Beatles. But I don't know, it's not grabbing me. Maybe if I gave it more attention, but ....

It's funny how in some ways it's not like THAT GREAT--it's the kind of repetitive, not-as-much-happening electronic stuff that I remember listening to a lot in college and loving. Maybe that's why I find myself half-inclined to go up to 4, to mark it as an important early step in that genre I remember so well.

This whole album is TOP NOTCH, but "Enjoy the Silence" is really a masterpiece, a "top 50 of all time" for me.

I've gotta admit, I'm enjoying this more than I expected. It's really varied, with a lot of fun, interesting sounds mixed in (and we're only 6 songs in). I don't love his voice, and I haven't listened enough to really know or love the songs themselves yet, but overall I'm impressed.

One of those great albums that is on the in the background while I work, which I bet I'd like better if I paid more attention to. My gut says 3.5, but I'd better round up....

It's fine, I guess in the way that I like Pep Squad--light, whatever music, but sadly without the rough edges I associate with 90s versions of this stuff.

I can't tell if this is really 5 stars or if I just already loved it. Such great songs but also such great SOUND, like real people in a room.

This isn't as awful as I expected, probably because it's so much more 70s than I expected. But I mean, whatever.

In general, I'm not too excited--it's just 60s Monkees-style rock, nice and fine. But the time changes on All I Really Need Is You grabbed me more. Still, when the Doors are out there, why go for this cleaned-up version?

This is nice. It's 3.5 nice, but maybe I'll round up because . . . I don't know, his voice is so nice, and it's such a pleasant album. I like how the Wikipedia entry points out how different this was from other dance-heavy music on the radio in 1990, so he gets points for that, too.

After 3 songs of whatever, "Unforgiven" was better than I expected, and now "Anywhere I Roam" is really landing. Remembering more than I expected. (Am I actually going to give a 4 to a metal album? Who am I?) Yeah, and "Nothing Else Matters" is actually really good....

After enjoying the Black album so much yesterday (yesterday!!), this is . . . dragging. I enjoyed parts of "One" as expected, but the rest is just an annoying blur. Sure, it's impressive, but there's no way I can even give this 3 stars. Just . . . stop. . .

Probably a 3.5, since it's a mix of "sounds the same" and "breaks past their mold." I'll go up, though, because of the fun Rhapsody in Blue sample on "Birmingham Blues."

It's just too close: I'm entirely unable to tell if it's a 5-star album or not. I THINK it is, though I prefer the next two albums even more, since there's some variety, excellent performances all around, etc. Part of me suspects it might be 4-point-something, but that might just be in comparison to Versus.

One quote from Wikipedia: "a noise like nothing you've ever heard, but everything you've ever felt." That's it: it's just so very, very good. Why don't I listen to them more often, again?

It's not quite ANNOYING, but I guess I just can't get into his voice. Hard to imagine anyone giving this higher than 3 stars.

Don't forget to read Wikipedia on this one--it's a chronicle of a divorce. Musically, I'm really digging it--so mellow and slow in the background. Worth remembering.

I mean, this is varied and fun. Not changing my life, but it's better than I expected.

So after reading the personnel (Zawinul! Jaco!) I was really pumped and eager--but it instantly has a lot more cheeseball feeling than I expected. It's not too far from the worst songs from the Flecktones, so maybe there's just something about soprano sax that I instantly turn away from. Ultimately, not bad, but not my style. Sadly, I'm starting to realize that when something says "jazz fusion" I'm not as likely to like it as I thought....

Some really nice moments blended with some less-impressive moments (at least as I listened while working). A 3.5 that I'll probably round up.

Really groovy and danceable and nice. Track 2 better than 1. 3 is just as good or better. It's great.

Interesting that the first track that really made me sit up and listen carefully was #6, which turns out to be the big single with the most Spotify plays, "Streets of Your Town." Besides that, it's just . . . a nice album. A 3.3 or something. Would be nice to have on while driving up the CA coast in a convertible, but otherwise I don't have much to say.

So I had no idea this was so good. As Wikipedia points out, it's more like Springsteen than heavy metal, but also with some theatrical Queen mixed in, like you could really imagine it on stage. It's that variety that makes it so fun.

This is better than I thought it would be from Wikipedia. Clearly a 3.5, but I'm not quite sure which way to go. Like, there was a time in my life when I'd put this on while cleaning . . . but now? How do you score things you would have liked more in the past than you like now?

For some reason, I didn't know this is what the Cocteau Twins sounded like (dreamy? female vocalist?) but I'm here for it.

Meh. Pretty surprised this is on this list.

I remember there was a long period where I really thought this kind of music was my thing. After all, it's 90s, electronic, and requires some patience--sounds perfect. Yet as I get older, I see through it more, I think, perhaps because I know how great electronic music is going to get after this. When it ended, I said, "Oh finally" out loud.

That was fun! Can't wait to listen again or buy on vinyl one day.

I mean, I really do see why people who love this kind of music love this album. It's especially wild to imagine this in 1980, and it's really energetic and listenable (without the annoying vocals of some bands in this genre). Still, it's just not really for me. So I'll give it a 3, realizing that if I were strictly grading MERIT without any personal feeling, it would be higher.

Surprisingly powerful and engaging. I could really see myself turning this on when I need something instrumental to push me through a hard time.

I guess it's fine, but I felt bored, even though it was noisy and intense. Maybe I was just tired. Don't trust me.

First 7 songs, I'm feeling, "Ok, this is fine, but THE BEST EVER??" I never quite get punk and it's relatives. But then Lost in the Supermarket at 8 and Clampdown at 9 have got me bobbing my head more . . . am I learning how to listen, or are these songs more my style? (They seem more "80s" and less punk.)

I like it! It's probably a 3.5 that I'm rounding up because Wikipedia makes it sound like it should be higher and I'm not listening like REALLY carefully? Like, anything that adds album-mentality, more instruments, complexity, etc. is great.

I remember loving this album when I had it on tape in my old college car, so I expected to like it . . . but this much? It's just so excellent.... Sun Only Shines on TV is really a top favorite.

Ok, that 12-minute song is pretty awesome. And even though they didn't like singing it, I love that there's a white flight song on here from 1972....

This is a weird and delightful album, and I'm so, so glad I heard it. It's like a weirder Pink Floyd, I guess? But still mellow and keyboard-focused instead of guitar-focused? I don't know how to describe it, which is what makes it a 5-star album.

I listened to this twice, trying to decide if it's a 4 or 5. Ultimately it's probably right in the middle at a 4.5, but some songs are SO GOOD and there's SO MUCH variety that I might as well give them the benefit of the doubt.

It's fine, but the only song that really stands out at all is Groovin'. No reason for this ok album to be on this list.

I mean, it's nice for what it is. Good record to have around when you need it. Kinda eye-rolly but that's ok.

I'm enjoying this: he sounds kinda like a Jim Morrison wannabe, but that's not a bad thing, and there really is some legit jazzy stuff happening here.

I mean, that was fine. The jazzy elements were generally interesting. I never really connect with her voice, but I know I ought to. Oh well.

I just don't like his voice, and I'm not impressed by the hard rock. But wow, the acoustic stuff, and here on track 4 "Since I've Been Loving You," I find myself much more interested.

Some of this strikes me as really nice. But a lot of it as perhaps too easy to drown out as I worked. 3.something, but rounding this one down.

Wow. These quiet, under-produced songs are just really, really sweet. They're all good, but it's stuff like "Just As I Am" and "Can I Sleep in Your Arms" that's getting me. It's worth picking up if I see it out.

Really fun and energetic, better than I feared by far. Hints of early New Jack Swing, kick-butt attitude, and more. Big fan.

Intriguing. Listened twice, still know there's a lot I'm missing. Not my language, but surely unusual enough to earn a 4 from me?

So 70s it's not "scary" at all. I can see why people would like it a lot. But you know--I'm not very moved.

That was fun! I'm glad it's in the mix. That said, as I worked, not a lot JUMPED OUT AT ME . . . oh well? Fun times.

That was fun! Smart, light, more 80s than 90s. Worth giving another listen.

I mean, I heard some good songs, but nothing along the lines of the awesomeness that this Wikipedia entry suggests is coming....

Wouldn't say I love his voice, but I like the album a lot more than I expected. It really is as varied and sweetly old-fashioned as Wikipedia says.

I'm just really struggling to think this is better than ok.

Impossible to judge impartially. But amazing for all the reasons, especially the unexpectedness of it all.

4 songs in, it's both: typical Kravitz-style rock that doesn't do much for me, but with some cool unexpected extra instruments on track 2 and a cool slow bluesy piano jam on track 4. Unfortunately there's a lot of fairly boring rock after this. (I know in context it must have sounded better, and HE'S certainly impressive, but....)

This is a lot nicer than I expected--so soft and inviting. And then I read Wikipedia after I started listening and saw these were originally just demos, and it's like, yep, that's the way to go. I'm also thinking of these as being in 1982, with 50s and 60s rock and folk not really having happened that long ago, and these being kind of responses / next steps to that.

Almost the very definition of a 3.5. Heard with the Wikipedia entry in mind (its influence on R.E.M. and tie-backs to The Byrds and Syd Barrett), it's nice and good and I bet in the car with more attention, I'd really like it. But I mean, it's not like . . . surprising?

I mean, this is really great. Do I like salsa enough to give it a 5? But isn't it better than a 4?

Right away, track 1 Blowin' in the Wind is nicer than most other Dylan I've heard, helping my bad attitude. And I love that this kind of political song was new at this point and he helped get it along. 2 songs in, thinking I could get into this.

What a find! I love her voice most of all, but especially her beats/melodies/etc.

This strikes me as a very well-done version of this particular kind of blues album. 4 stars for sure.

I've never been less interested in listening to Nick Cave.

It's just wildly good and weird, the end, bye.

I've heard this CD so many times but am enjoying it more than ever today. Maybe if I were listening to the words more carefully it would even round up to a 5, but it's feeling more 4ish this time around.

Wikipedia points out that the title song has new meaning since the singer is going to die soon from all the lifestyle choices he's celebrating here.... And yes, I guess I like his voice better than the later guy, more than I expected. Still, it's just so, so not for me. Kinda boring.

This album is 9 tracks, 22 minutes, and after 5 I was like, "SURELY THIS IS OVER BY NOW" but no, there are 4 more tracks.

With this on in the background, I find I'm enjoying some of the music just fine, and I like its variety, and I like what Wikipedia says about how it's a concept/story album. Ultimately, though, I don't love his talky style of singing and am not blown away. Probably a 3.3.

Enjoying this first track more than I expected, with its Huey Lewis vibe. Here's a quote on Wikipedia: "ZZ Top is a joke [...] but they're in on it. ZZ Top is like metal, but its blues roots are truer, and there's no bullshit. ZZ Top is not into the devil, leather, chains, or angel dust. They're into fun." Hey I can get into that. It's 3.5, so . . . I guess I'll round up, though I could just as easily round down.

Hard to judge. I get why people liked it so much, I think, especially for discerning listeners in the age of Weezer. But I mean, his voice isn't exactly for me, and I just don't have the context of listening to these guys. I'll put down a 4, I guess, though it could easily round down, too.

"Is this serious?" I just said out loud. It just got worse and worse....

I'm certainly not enjoying this--but I don't think I'm 1-star not-enjoying it. I can imagine someone enjoying it, in other words, even though I think that's ridiculous.

Apparently I knew like nothing about M.I.A.: didn't know she's British from South Asian descent, didn't know how much that global perspective makes it into her music, didn't know how good it is to have on in the background for its repetitive energy. I like it a lot (but perhaps don't LOVE it).

It strikes me as pretty good but not world-changing...

This strikes me as a fun, very Jack Antonoff album that I imagine I could like the same way I like Taylor Swift's Lover, but without the immediate interest of Taylor's voice. Still, probably a 4-star, right?

This certainly isn't changing my life, but 3 songs in, I kind of see how it could hit people in 1968. It IS really loud and wild for that time--rough and bare bones, but that's an aesthetic. Still, it's clearly 3 stars for me, but less annoying than I expected when I read "proto-metal."

Ok, for an alternative rock band with an album title and cover designed to annoy and shock, this is better than I expected. Yes, it's 90s, but not awful 90s. Could it even be a 4-star album for me? Not sure.

This is really great. Why have I not been listening to it?

The songs where the woman sings are so much nicer than the ones where she doesn't. Quiet ones nice too. It's really the variety that pulls this up to a 4. (Wikipedia is good reading too: Woody Guthrie lyrics to new music.)

There are things I don't love: his voice, most of the time, and the "this was a bit too carefully produced" feeling that comes through at times. Yet I could see myself really listening carefully to this (if I liked his voice better), especially when younger, and getting into the rambunctious intensity of it. 3.5, don't know which way to go.

It's fine? I didn't listen to the entire mega version so I'm not positive I heard every song from the original LP, but I heard plenty.

No matter how great it sounds on Wikipedia, 90s dance music is never as good as you think it will be.

Better first impression than I expected, 3 songs in. Digging the mellow first song, and the horns on song 3. Through disc 1, continuing to enjoy it. Is it my attitude that I like this more than the Yankee Foxtrot one? Or is it really better? He's singing better, right?

Really digging this fun, very Beatles-esque album (read the Wikipedia entry!), and kind of shocked I've never heard of him before. Plus: a "Without You" cover! And wait, THIS is where the "lime in the coconut" thing comes from?

The guitar solo on this first track, omg--life-changing.

It's hard since I know this genre so little--but yeah, it's fun and nice. Track 5 is perhaps the first to grab me. Worth coming back to.

I mean, yeah, it's catchy. As a "cleaning my office at the end of the semester" soundtrack, it's groovy and interesting. But it's also childish and mean, which is hard to just . . . ignore. 3.5 stars, really, but I'll round down.

This is why reading Wikipedia is so great: didn't know this was her 3rd album, is one of the best-selling of all time, and she was 21! But I mean...I still don't like her voice. I'm not quite disliking it enough to go down to 2 stars, since it's recorded well and some of it was unique enough in the moment. But whew.

Better than I expected, and I even own the record.

So I honestly wasn't listening as closely as I should have, and I definitely didn't know they went back to 1972. As seems to happen so often, though, this strikes me as an interesting post-Beatles album with a willingness to be weird--but none of the songs actually struck me enough to honestly go to 4 now, though it probably is a 4.

I'm glad this was on here, and I like her voice, but it seemed rather . . . unremarkable otherwise?

That was fun! Very eager to dig deeper into these post-rock pioneers (with such a cool instrumental lineup). Still, this album itself didn't quite rise to 5 stars for me, though it often got close.

Liked this a lot more than I expected to--definitely should have been listening in 1993, when it would have hit home even harder. I like it in the way I like the Pixies, I think.

This is really delightful--the kind of thing that I want to come back to and get to know better. It's creative, weird, mellow, and groovy.

Pretty awesome in the ways I expected: great guitar sounds, raw emotions, and so on. The low point is Courtney's really definitively off-key singing on track 2, but generally that stuff isn't so bad.

Love the colorful cover. Love that it's a woman from NYC and DJs from Ukraine and Japan. Track 2 almost sounds like a videogame remix. As it goes on, it's just what you'd expect: positive, fun 1990 house music. That means it's fine to have on, but perhaps a bit surprising to find it in this list.

Some highlights, and fun to have on in the car, but ultimately not sure it's quite as great as the surrounding albums. 3.5 for sure.

I'm honestly really surprised at how much I'm enjoying this. It's varied and not just stupid background music--really creative and moving at times.

So surprisingly good. Not sure if it's 4 or 5 but going high to ensure I come back again later.

Disc 1 is big and loud. Too big and loud? I don't think always; there are days when I could see myself getting a lot out of this. Still don't love his voice but liking it more than I used to. Disc 2 quieter but also fairly nice. Not going to buy it, but wouldn't be opposed to trying again. 3.8 stars.

There are more and less interesting/creative songs, at least coming from someone listening 19 years later while working. Like, I like the mallets on P.I.M.P., etc. But overall, sure, whatever.

Really deserves another listen. Didn't remember that he died 2 days after it came out--wow.

When they're quiet it's ok. And in theory I like their lofi aesthetic. But I don't like the tunes or his screamy voice. At all. 2.7.

I get her more now than I used to get her. That's about all I've got.

Not always annoying, but usually annoying. Can literally not understand the gushing that's happening on Wikipedia.

I guess it's fine if you're into it, and I respect it as fine work, but I can't see myself even giving it a 2 if I didn't really enjoy it.

Most are pleasantly fine, but so far 2 and 6 have been especially/actually engaging. Ok, 7 and 8 hit pretty hard too. Ooh, and 12. Ok, this is definitely a 4-star album.

Hard to judge. Clearly a 70s homage in a way that I don't really appreciate, not having been there. Very danceable lots of times; I often enjoyed myself. I'm a little weirded out by the "white guy singing funk and wearing Indian feathers" thing, if I'm getting it right. Hm.

I think I thought Jethro Tull was a person, not a band? And by 1971, they had been around long enough for this to be the 4th album? I keep learning. 5 songs in, though, it's just . . . fine? The funky, flutey track 5 is fun, but nothing pushes me past 3 stars yet. Ok, the weirdness of the middle of track 7 is something special. Go, flute!

I've been listening to this for 30 years, yet driving around yesterday, with the CD turned up loud, still had me hearing instruments and background vocals I hadn't consciously processed before. A moody masterpiece.

The hard rock samples on Body Count are interesting. And I read an engaging review of the album from someone who LOVE-loves it in all its bloated excess, and who argues wisely that it's smarter and more interesting than what NWA folks were doing. I can see all of that. Still: it's so mean at times. I can respect it without wanting to listen.

I might have liked this album better in a different mood--it definitely has a bit of that proto-Pink Floyd vibe, which I like. But I also was rarely MOVED, you know? So it's a 3.5 that I'll probably round up.

Started out loving it, but then it got a little more old as it went on. Great for sometimes, but not an everyday food.

I've been wanting to listen to more Elliott Smith (inspired by Phoebe), but this one . . . just didn't seem to have much going on. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention?

It was okay. Nice sound. Familiar voice I couldn't place, since none of the songs sounded actually familiar. 3.2 or something.

It sounds so much newer than 1988! Really digging the energy and groove. And creative sound stuff here and there. It's a 4.5 for sure.

Halfway through, really enjoying that this is mellow and enjoyable but also varied and rich, not just some boring old singer-songwriter album. Like a 3.6 for me, probably. Sure, let's round it up.

This was really fun, a great discovery. It's SO post-Beatles and SO David Bowie-ish, at least to my ears, but those are both good things. Much more chill and weird than I expected after all the "glam rock" talk on Wikipedia. 4.4.

I don't really see how this could be framed as any better than "just fine."

So I had no idea that that Hooverphonic song relies SO MUCH on this first track--which is a good thing. And dang, as that track continues, with the organ and guitar solos, it KICKS. Whole album really kicks.

I feel like I've been listening to Metallica all day, and it's just 6 songs into the 21 on this 2:13 overlong double album. How in the world can I get through it all. . . . Ok I was being a downer and some parts were kind of nice, but I wish I could get a no-guitar, no-singing mix?

That was so nice and sweet and interesting that I can't decide if it's 4 or 5 stars.

SO MUCH better when there are keyboards than when there's sax. Pretty much evens itself out. Ok no, as it goes on there are enough sax moments that I'm actively disliking that this has to go down to a 2, I don't make the rules.

Overall, a bit more pleased than I expected to: nice keyboards in the first song's intro, a couple other moments of "oh, that's nice," and Dancing in the Dark really is a tremendous song. Still very firmly a 3-star album for me, though.

Really glad I heard this. First side is "just pretty good" rock, solidly 4 stars, and then the second side is this weird, excellent, instrumental stuff.

Some delightful little moments that elevate it (like the guitar solo in For No One), even if a lot of it is just . . . fine.

Only 1 song in: reading Wikipedia, I'm glad there's going to be Brazilian influences (which I barely heard with a little bit of percussion in track 1) . . . but omg it's just so ridiculously loud and screamy and melody-less. How will I get through SEVENTY-TWO MINUTES?? 6 tracks in, I've heard precious little Brazilian influence, which is the only thing making me waffle between 1 and 2 stars.

I never really knew his bio before, though of course I recognize his voice from movie soundtracks, etc. But man, these tracks with strings really elevate it. It's a pretty incredible album.

5 tracks or so in, it's clear that this is a fine example of late-90s alternative rock but really oughtn't to have been in this list.

How fun! I don't really know how awesome it is in comparison to others of its kind, but it seems impressive to me.

Just as with the other album of his I listened to for this project: I'm blown away by the variety, instrumentation, and storytelling, making it hard to imagine not giving this 5 stars--even though his voice is still just too weird for me, oh well.

It's okay and all.

Felt pretty good, 3ish+ stars, for a while--but dang, when he gets into Got My Mojo Working on tracks 7 and 8, its awesomeness starts shining even more.

Clearly something like a 2.5, but sheesh I'll round up since I wasn't listening that closely.

Not my speed, but not actively annoying. 2.8?

Had no idea Juliana Hatfield played bass for this band! And the first track is really fun and upbeat--and I was bummed when I saw it come up. And this is their 5th album?? In the end, it's not like an album I'm going to return to, but dang if I had bought this in the 90s I would love it today.

Even though I already owned this one, it's hard to say how to rate it. It's fun and lively, and I love the celeste on that one track, but it's also not super hummable or easy to grasp. That leaves me in the 3.5 region.

Just as when I listened to their first album for the 1988 thing and was surprised at its quality, I'm really surprised at how good this is. Long, meandering, prog songs on side 2, but also plain-old good alternative rock on side 1. Why wasn't I listening to this in the 90s, again? Because of the somewhat dumb 2 lead singles?

3 songs in, I'm intrigued by the sounds but not emotionally moved yet. Hard to decide what I think. By the time it's over, exact same feeling: intrigued by not moved. 3 stars.

Really digging the Starflyer-ish vibes. Track 3 "Happy When It Rains" is awesome. Yeah, the whole thing gives me that "cool, dark vibe that I should have been listening to before now" feeling.

Loving the variety of sounds--so rich and variable in song style and instruments. "Summer Breeze" especially excellent. Dang, this is good.

I think I really had to be older to get these guys--the fun, the quirk, the complexity of what they're mocking and celebrating. Really like it a lot.

I didn't perk up at all until the long solo section on track 6, Australia. Then I didn't perk up again at all.

Nice background music with a couple of really memorable moments. Almost the definition of a 3 album, or maybe 3.2.

It's probably the most I've ever enjoyed Costello, who usually is pretty underwhelming . . . but just 3.5, still.

Ok, yes, the long songs occasionally hit home, with some solo moments elevating them. But dang if this isn't generally mid-tempo yawn fest. Considered 2 stars for a while until I realized I was just in a bad mood.

I've never really known if I like this album so much because of how good it is or because I got it when they were giving it away back in the day and thus listened to it a lot more than any other album that I didn't happen to have on my hard drive. Listening this time around, I'm pleased to say that I'm pretty sure (but not totally sure) that it actually is, yes, an amazing, innovative, complex album.

Really good--definitely elevated above all the other late-60s rock bands on this list. How do I forget Grace Slick is in this band, and that Somebody to Love and White Rabbit are both on here?

Trippy and interesting in all the right ways. Rounds up to a 4.

Hey, that was fun! Didn't listen closely enough to really listen to lyrics, but I get it, especially as a pre-Pat band.

Really hard to rate. Like, I was PUMPED when I saw this come up; I've been wanting to listen to the whole LP for years and never got around to it. And it's as creative and innovative and ground-breaking as I expected. And yet . . . I wasn't always as interested as I expected to be. I think it's probably the perfect example of a 4.5, but I need to go down just because of that little bit of interest that isn't there.

That was fine and all.

Why haven't I bought this yet?

I guess I wasn't listening very hard but this is a weird very 80s collection of weird, but that's not as good as it sounds.

Look, I like long experimental stuff. I do. But even the long, experimental song here isn't very engaging. And whenever Iggy "sings" it's awful. I'm only rounding this up to a 3 because it does occasionally kick, with some cool guitar solos that sound newer than 1969.

Someone on Wikipedia says essentially, "It's silly, of course, but that doesn't mean it's not good," and that's certainly my first impression.

I think if I had grown up with this album it would be 5 stars to me. As it is, I'm loving it, but not with the awe and surprise (or personal history) I associate with a 5. But dang, I need to listen to it more.

I still wouldn't call myself a Cash fan, but this is the most I've ever enjoyed him. Personally, it's still a 3.5 that rounds down, even though I know that it's me, not him.

Maybe my 4th or 5th favorite Björk album, and yet still so obviously 5 stars (especially with headphones!!) that it's ridiculous.

This is not nearly as interesting as Wikipedia makes it sound. More random, plus a healthy dose of white guys trying to sound Black. 2.7.

That was so awful. Only 2 stars because of one interesting song and some rocking instrumental moments. 1.5.

This whole project has made me leery of 90s house/electronica, which I thought I loved but which often has disappointed. So I was pleased that this overlong album was more what I was hoping for, with plenty of pleasant surprises and few annoyances. 3.7.

Sigh...yet another album that sounded SO GOOD on Wikipedia but was a bore-fest when I actually listened. Not really any better than that old Commuter Grooves album Margo bought so long ago. Am I just getting old? Did electronic music really have so much more growing up to do?

I really enjoyed this sweet background music, especially the title track. Hard to say if that makes it a 4; compared to its genre, sure, but compared to everything else?

Oh WOW that was boring. 2.6?

Love it, as a weird pre-Tori experiment, and it deserves to be heard again. But it definitely didn't grab me QUITE as hard as the one I heard on here a while back. 4.2.

I've got this quiet enough as I work that I'm not really listening to the lyrics, but man, the beats and music are so much better than I expected--more fun, lively, energetic, and relatable than I expected (or what you would have heard around then from west coast folks around then). You can really hear the pre-Nas sound, etc.

Better than I expected for sure--would be even better as an instrumental album, you know? I'll say 3.5 and go up or down based on how I feel tomorrow.

The story is interesting, and occasionally there were almost Pink Floydy moments, and I didn't listen all that carefully, yet still: ho him?

Meh.

That was not really very good. It's a 2.5 that I think I'm going to round down, because it was actively annoying more than once--the kind of thing for people who like the White Stripes, whoever they are.

I'm really not a Carole King fan, it turns out. Less than 3, rounding up.

Dang, this is a collection of good songs. Pretty much every one hits in one way or another. And yes, if you read Wikipedia (or had just bought Help! recently and this was your next album), you can see how groundbreaking it was in other ways... yet to my ear, so much of that groundbreakingness just isn't there yet, making this a 4.4 in my book.

Wish I had listened more closely, but I intend to go back one day for that. Interesting and evocative, and I have no memory of ever hearing this in the 90s. Good stuff.

That was lovely and calming. 3.6. Should listen more closely again one day.

DANG. It's time to start buying PSB albums when I see them, pronto. It's so catchy I'm falling apart.

I admit that I've never heard of this artist or album, but I'm really glad I did. When I listened on Friday I thought it was 4 stars for its throw-back vibe and smooth listenability, but today on Monday I want to go up to 5 for its unexpected variety, and that feeling of, "If I listened to this once a week the rest of the year, I'd love it more, rather than ever getting tired of it."

Really a lot smoother and groovier and nicer than I expected, almost like an early Tracy Chapman, Sade, that "I don't wanna fall in love" guy. Want to revisit.

Let's admit that this is pretty boring stuff. Occasionally his voice is so bad that it made me want to drop to a 2, but on average this is low-3, high-2 content without a doubt.

This all sounds the same and is fairly annoying. It's a 2.5 that probably should round up, but if I'm in a bad mood forget that.

I just don't like punk, I'm learning. Sure, occasional moments sound really good at first, instrumentally (track 7, track 10), but when he starts singing and it just grates on and on . . whew, I'd be happy to never hear this again.

Sure, it's interesting that there was ska in 1979; I had no idea. However, this is the only interesting thing about this album.

Some "ok but fairly good" tracks punctuated with moments of awesomeness, especially that 13-minute track.

On Wikipedia, people are gushing and gushing about this album. But I'm here to tell you that it's really, really annoying, in that "all the worst things about 80s smooth jazz" sort of way.

It was fine. Her voice got annoying at times, but that cool final long song made up for it.

Liked it more than expected, perhaps because it was on headphones as I worked outside. But still not QUITE enough to round up.

Eye-roll. Sure, a couple of rocking moments that reminded me of my youth (and "Would?" is still their best song). But as an adult, it's just a little . . . silly? And really, why would a bunch of guys give their band a name about a woman in bondage? And with a cover that shows one of their ex-girlfriends being buried alive? Red flags....

A classic that sounds so good, with some nice variety, too. Worth more listens in the future.

Okay I guess, but it's hard to get past the story: that he knew he was appropriating Black music and voodoo culture and wanted a Black leading man but didn't get one so just stepped in and embraced the character himself? Is that off-topic or not?

Some surprises (some 70s sounds, some Stevie Wonder-inspired stuff, the really cool electro-voiced "Scorpio"), but ultimately not changing my life (though I see how it could change lives).