not gonna give one second of streaming credit to this moron. 0 stars - eat shit you nazi pig

Another great surprise that expelled any/all preconceived notions I had upon seeing today's entry. Apparently (obviously) I know/knew absolutely nothing about The Flaming Lips, but this was/is immediately right in my wheelhouse. Maybe a concept album....sign me up. Dreamy - melodic - mysterious - gorgeous - electronic loops mixed with organic elements - just great music which is simultaneously accessible yet not predictable. How have I missed this album all these years? I'm looking forward to repeat listens of this in headphones. I wonder if at some point I end up viewing this as a five.....this is awesome. ...screw it. 5 stars for an album I'd never heard of 24 hrs ago 9/10 5 stars.

Finally, we get a glimpse of Lily Von Schtupp's ill-conceived career after she left the backwater town of Rock Ridge. 3/10 2 stars

I somehow was completely unfamiliar with this band so another blank slate to begin on... My initial impressions run from *this is fun aggressive rock album with somewhat typical (in a good way) 90s alt-rock progressions* to *...wow this gets a little boring...* And as I'm into my second listen through, I lean heavily towards the second sentiment. It's decent enough but a cynical commenter (me?) might question why this is one of the 1001 albums you must listen to. Not that it isn't fine, it actually is, but it's also...maybe just not that memorable? I gave this yet another spin today to see if something grabbed hold but you could have told me this was _______ [fill in with any of ~25 early-mid 90s bands from Boston or London or Seattle] and I wouldn't have blinked. Loud stereo guitars with a generally non-aggressive melodic vocal track over the top. Again: decent enough. For the most part. Inoffensive but I don't really remember anything about it. 4/10 2 stars for a fine of-the-period rock album but suffers from a sameness and lack of depth.

After literally 2 minutes my first (second, third, and...) thoughts are the same as some other oddly critically-praised albums on this list... I've always considered that so-called good music has to have one critical ingredient: *the music has to be good* - crazy concept. This first track is flat out unlistenable. Unimaginatively simple beat topped with a monotoned vocal throughout. Wait, did I say "first track?" - scratch that...apply to all tracks... It goes well beyond "I don't get this" for me - normally if I don't like something it's fine; there are more than a few I don't "get" or like but still can see how they might be influential but this... what I don't get here is why this is even on the 1001 list - it sounds like an undisciplined 8 year old from Birmingham got some primitive 808 machine and a microphone and was allowed to put this out. Not a particularly pleasing rapper - I'm not hearing anything interesting in the rhythm, it's toneless and bland, and altogether was a slog just trying to finish the album. Unlistenable. 1/10 1 star.

Definitely not a style of music I generally enjoy but gave it a full chance; one positive is that I did enjoy the production ... (I feel like I've cheated this for others who enjoy the genre)

I'd only heard a few of the classics but never this album in its entirety. Absolutely fantastic and even hearing a song you feel like you've heard 1000 times ("Respect") and paying it closer attention (maybe just not hearing it in a commercial, sporting event, etc) shows how perfect a song it really is. Made in 1967 and I love the mix and clarity. I often marvel at how good some old records sound - so many times better than mixes 40-50 years later - and so much is due to careful arrangement and pre-production; knowing what *not* to put in just as much as knowing what to put in. Similarly, this is obviously a vocal artist so Aretha is the feature but on a personal mixing note I *so vastly prefer* what is apparently an older style of mixing the vocals much lower than what has become standard over the last few decades. The vocals mesh with the music far better in mixes like these as opposed to the modern-ish method of sitting way up front and "over" the music.

Love is one of those "deep dive" groups I completely missed growing up but would occasionally read about - having a supposed "huge influence" on groups in the 60s/70s. Then when Rush did a cover of '7 and 7 Is' in 2004 I figured I had to delve in and did briefly... There's absolutely some advanced musical knowledge here - changing time signatures, varied textures and moods which on the surface should be something I usually like. Overall the album seems very "of the time" which occasionally works for me but in the end unfortunately I just don't really like any of the songs at all - nothing was remotely memorable to me. Hate to boil this down to a lazy simple word but.... boring. (additionally...it's the voice - I can't get by it.)

I'm not the best reviewer of reggae as I've never been much of a fan of the genre; I find a lot of it too repetitive for my taste. Having said that, this album i've found to be at a minimum excellent background/work environment music (which probably sounds insulting to Marley fans) - there's a hypnotic aspect to many of the songs ("Exodus" for one example) that has almost an inherent internal build. I went into this one not too excited about listening to it but honestly have enjoyed it more than I expected to. The minimalism of many of the arrangements is a big plus factor for me, but I've found this to have more of a sneaky variety than I'd mistakenly assumed; there are some great instrumental passages that catch the ear, and simply - there are really good *songs* here (as opposed to something else highly-revered but to me lacking in songwriting, the album I've most recently-listened to by "Love") I usually give 2 to something that I can acknowledge has artistic value but isn't something I'd listen to again, but clearly this exercise is doing its job in exposing me to my previously-unexplored genres/subgenres - the fact that I'm replaying the album definitely boosts this to a strong 3 for me - really enjoying it.

Have always needed a proper entry-point for The Jam as I've never explicitly listened to them, only here and there in passing. My first listen didn't really click with me but I'm currently on a 3rd pass and I'm finding it yields a lot more than I'd initially thought. There are noticeable nods to The Who's early years combined with that 70s/early 80s uniquely British/aggressive sound that I didn't like as a kid but has really grown on me. Pretty Green, That's Entertainment, and Boy About Town are standouts. Not sure this will ever be an all-time favourite but I will definitely be coming back to this one in the future.

Based on the description in Apple Music ("...this eponymous debut from psychedelic Wirral peninsula sextet...") I expected something much different. This was more up-front and brash than I'd expected, and of course nothing at all wrong about that. There's a strong musical ability throughout each of these songs, demonstrated by excellent arrangement among the instrumentation and layered vocals. Unfortunately the end-result to me is that it sort of bashes me over the head without much in the way of memorable songs, or anything I can sink my teeth into. Rhythms end up as a wash of UK-white-raga that doesn't stick out as unique or catchy. I'd not heard of this band and can see they have quite a decent discography so perhaps they've developed songwriting past the first impressive attempt, but in the end this isn't for me.

This was definitely an album in heavy heavy rotation in my house during my middle school days - 4 or 5 of these songs were so prominent on radio through the 80s that even if you didn't have the record, you knew most of it. Not much to analyze here - it's prototypical "Classic Rock" with very little wiggle room into anything else, and whether that's a pro or con is (as everything) up to personal taste, but for that quality (limitation?) this is almost as good as it gets. Paul Rodgers is or was *the* classic rock voice of the 70s/early 80s. There's nothing overly creative or experimental in terms of production and that's likely what makes it still work today - guitar/bass/drums and occasional piano/keys. It's also hard not to think of the movie "Almost Famous" when listening to this and also looking at the band (see the cover for "Burnin' Sky" and it seems pretty obvious where the movie writers got inspiration for the controversial t-shirts!) Deserving of an isolated comment is the bass playing of Boz Burrell on this album - to my ears he was the secret weapon on many of these songs, most of which have a simple and potentially dull chord progression but Burrell's fluid lines tied them together brilliantly. In particular check out the work on "Movin' On" Funny that when this came up I smiled but wasn't too excited to revisit it...if I'd written this before playing it again i would have said something like: "...even though I'm unlikely to go out of my way to listen to this again, that's just as much due to my having heard it hundreds of times as changing tastes..." but damn if it hasn't been fun listening to this album again. In the end, for what it is...it really is great from start to finish, and sometimes you just need uncomplicated straight up 70s guitar rock.

So many classics within - I've never been a Tull "fan" per se, but it's hard to argue with this album. Ranging from straight rock to progressive with dashes of english folk in-between, enough interesting variety to make this a true classic album. Highlights include the epic title track of course, the heavy metal of "Cross Eyed Mary" (Iron Maiden did a cool cover of this in the 80s), and the bitter "Hymn 43" - even as one who doesn't always pay attention to the lyrics, I do love the cynicism and iconoclastic imagery throughout the album. Statement: we need more flute in modern music, dammit.

Embarrassingly I'd only been familiar with the band's "hits" so was happy to give a deeper dive here. Didn't know this was their debut album and *wow* - elements of 70s Stevie Wonder and Herbie Hancock combined with 90s production... Perfect instrumentation - the horns, Rhodes piano, percussion... My initial favourite is "Whatever It Is, I Just Can't Stop" holymoly. That growly bass is the bomb. This is the first strong 4 i'm giving to something I'd never heard before - this will get many many listens.

Public Enemy were one of the first music acts that I finally listened to the lyrics seriously (kind of hard to ignore them in this genre). Chuck D made all other rappers look subpar :P and virtually all of his tracks are fantastic. "By The Time I Get To Arizona" is probably my favourite rap song of all-time (I'm old enough to remember it being banned on MTV. :) ) so that's the starting point for me. Other highlights include "Move" "...Radio Consultant" and "Shut 'Em Down" - the samples/beats are perfect. Flavor Flav is a fine sideman for Chuck D but I've never much liked Flav's featured tracks, so I tend to skip most of his lead cuts on any PE album (and a few on here are indeed immediate skips...) - his goofy takes and abrasive voice get old quickly and don't really carry a song for me. Having said that, the strong points on this album are great and the themes are still so timely that even though it's nowhere near perfect (lyrics are mostly great, but some that have not aged well....) it's one I come back to often. "these days you can't see who's in cahoots cuz now the KKK is wearing three piece suits..."

As a teen in the 80s it was impossible to avoid Zed Zed Top in their highly successful if not overly commercial era (MTV videos in heavy rotation). Wasn't bad, wasn't my taste. Just there. I was aware of a handful of their older tunes through radio but never thought about them. At the time I remember working a restaurant job late one night on cleanup and one of the older guys blasted this album while we worked and I was pretty surprised "Jesus Just Left Chicago" was the same band that did "Legs" - almost a 180degree turn in production as this album is super dry, simple guitars/bass/drums and barely a hint of reverb anywhere. While southern-tinged bluesy rock isn't something I really reach for, this is a fun album and definitely has a sound and place.

I realize Pixies were a huge influence on the 1990s so-called "alternative" scene - the quiet/LOUD/quiet music that among others Nirvana capitalized on. So there are a lot of people that like it obviously :) - confession: I really hated this genre of music and especially when I lived in Boston around the time the Pixies were active; almost the opposite of the kind of music I was into and grew up on. I always find it good to revisit music I rejected years ago to see how I might hear it differently... I'm definitely way more open-minded about music than i was in my early 20s. I can appreciate a few of the songs as having a decent melody and I definitely tip my cap to them for being pioneers of this sound. Hearing "Here Comes Your Man" and "Monkey Gone to Heaven" throws me right back to being 22 again and walking around Harvard Square, heading into Newbury Comics... that was a nice memory :) All said, beyond those songs I don't enjoy it and won't listen again - would have reflexively given it a 1 star 20 years ago :D just out of spite haha and honestly still feel that way for most of it (would be 2 or 3/10) but I'll give it a 2 on influence -> still not for me (and Black Francis' voice is just a straight up 'no').

I like it - alternating between dreamy "70s future" music and nice pop tunes. I'm not sure how memorable it is tho ... ? --> I wrote that before giving it a few more listens today and even though background listening might be what it is best for (that's not a bad thing!) I really started hearing more that I loved upon second listen. That guitar (Robert Fripp!) in both St Elmo's Fire and Golden Hours really stands out. Another plus having Phil Collins guesting on a few cuts (but of course Phil guested on ~43% of other artists' from 1975-1985. Facts.). Speaking of Phil, I definitely hear some crossover between this album and Genesis' "Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" which was released less than a year before this and on which Eno contributed some "Enossification" Strong 3 stars - I'll be coming back to this one.

Doctor Who enters our solar system and clones Carole King and together they bring a home 8 track recorder to Todd Rundgren's house, feed him LSD, and tell him to record an album with no commercial prospects yet must have a steady diet of major 7th chords, catchy melodies, and soaring harmonies. At least 9 of the songs must be under 2 minutes long, but cannot rely on "traditional" rock instrumentation or progressions. Todd responds with A Wizard, A True Star. I'm familiar with Rundgren's "hits" and much of the album "Something/Anything" but had never heard this one. This album is definitely out there but not caustically-weird, just.... more like a weird/interesting aural scrapbook. If you can call it a "flaw" it is apparently preferential and intentional - I know the album was constructed without respect to creating singles (specifically created without regard to complete songs - quote by TR himself - with *notable exception* of the last tune "Just One Victory" which definitely could have been) but that's also making it difficult to sink into so will require multiple listens. These types of albums are really hard to rate if you've (I've) never heard them before so it's likely unfair but I give this a 2; there's a lot of interesting work in here but it's too scattered for me.

Listening to Paul Simon makes me feel like I'm 7 years old again and riding in the back of my parents' station wagon, just watching out the window. To be clear, this is a very good thing. Even though for me the highs of Simon & Garfunkel may be higher than any of their solo works, solo Simon (and especially this album) is consistently excellent; and for an album that is nearly 50 (!) years old now this still holds up so well sonically and musically; the arrangements are perfect in that each song may seem simple (accessible) but underneath lies a sneaky complexity. Some classic singles in here that most people will know and yet the deep cuts are all quality - not a bad song in the entire batch - 4 stars. (aside: I love the old-school short length of records back then - perfectly digestible lengths)

I like to read about an album and its history especially if I'm hearing it for the first time; for this one specifically I wanted to understand *why* it's considered a top 1001 album because to me ... it's dull. I love a good Marvin Gaye song and definitely am a fan of a lot of 70s soul music, but this seems an hour-long compilation of ...meh. Mid-tempo songs that sort of blend with one another - lukewarm vocals without a ton of passion (oddly, considering the topic)... there's absolutely nothing terrible here but it feels more like something I'd hear playing in the background of a slow-moving old street drama starring a young Gene Hackman. Additionally, the "reason" this is now a highly-regarded album is in fact largely *because of* the awkwardness of the lyrics and subject matter. Essentially the album is a document about MG's divorce, starting from the weird and not-convincing opening track of "Here My Dear" where he is almost literally giving us the verbal version of a final "I'm sorry this happened to us" letter. Even as someone who often ignores lyrics, I can't help but notice these and not in a good way. One highlight I will note is "Anger" which would probably stand out more on a more varied album. "Is That Enough" shows great promise with a slow funky groove but unfortunately just drags on a bit too long. Hard pass on this one, I'll give it a disappointed 2 and move to other/better Marvin.

I like instrumental jazz quite a bit although nothing near an expert; just enjoy it for its own sake. Although this is good and I could play it in any setting, in general I prefer a bit less of the overt blues influence like this - doing a little research on this album, it seems that this was one of (if not the?) first to really emphasize the Hammond B3 organ and it's of course the pre-eminent sound here. Having said that, it is a nice album that I would put on as a good "entry level listening" for others. 3 for influence.

No review of this is going to break any ground obviously :D but this is a 4/5 for me. Seems more relevant to mention the (few) negatives rather than why this always rates among the "best albums of all-time" - first off, it's obviously a bit long, and many (most?) of the filler songs are bad or pointless (Wild Honey Pie, Why Don't We Do It In The Road good god man haha). I do love experimental weirdness but I think The Who did this kind of thing better (Sell Out; Tommy). Maybe not a popular opinion but some of John's songs are often mediocre to me, and that holds here as well (Yer Blues and I'm So Tired for example) - I'll take Paul's "corny" and melodic songs every day (e.g. "Mother Nature's Son" and "Martha My Dear"). Also this album made it clear we needed more George Harrison songs overall. While My Guitar Gently Weeps is for me a top 5 Beatles song. No more negatives - the 20 (!!!!) or so best songs on this are legendary for a reason. Hard for me to give a 5 since I'd end up skipping/cutting maybe 20% of this but if we had a 10 scale this would be 9/10.

One of my favourite hard rock albums ever - the musicianship, relatively raw production, and punctuated with two of the biggest hits of the genre: "Number of the Beast" and "Run to the Hills" - have made this a frequent listen for me for decades (although as a little kid I was a little scared of Number of the Beast :D....). This was the first Maiden album that put them into the stratosphere, introducing new vocalist Bruce Dickinson. Iron Maiden is probably not everyone's cup of tea so to speak, so if this early metal platter seems a turnoff, please start with "Run to the Hills" to appreciate the songwriting and musicianship. What initially attracted me to Maiden wasn't necessarily the volume and power but the strong sense of melody atop it all, something they'd perfect throughout the next 3 albums. "Hallowed Be Thy Name" and "The Prisoner" are the other standouts here. 9/10, only thing keeping this from perfection is a slightly weaker first half (side 1) but overall this is an all-time classic.

Anyone above a certain age knows the beginning theme from the first two or three notes and for some it immediately sends a chill down the back of their necks. So I'm one of those and I love that beginning part.... yet amazingly had never heard the entirety of either the album or even the full song (although to be fair it is 26 minutes long). There's so much more to it than the blood-curdling proggy-intro: ventures into heavy rock, Chuck Mangione-type light jazz, Yes-like progressions, fusion, new age major chords via synthesizer... I definitely don't know how to review this, nor how to recommend it, but I will say it's a really really interesting listen - the two lengthy tracks at least (the final two short ones are weird throwaways). I give it 3 stars for the genius mind that put this all together - it's not exactly catchy due to the fact that it kind of sounds like a very long rock opera prelude, but I could see putting this on again.

I've definitely grown to appreciate and like electronic music much more over the last decade or so - this was a totally unknown artist for me so I had zero preconceived notions about it and was excited to hear it... In the end though....it's nice-ish enough but hasn't stood out to me; not yet sure why this is groundbreaking or impactful? It may be unfair to have to rate an album after just one listen (or one day) and there's nothing i actively dislike about this (although some of the deep vocals are a little distracting) but thus far i don't hear it as much more than decent-enough background/ambient music. 2 for "it's fine" - just not hearing much magic.

Not my favourite Elliott Smith album - I tend to prefer his other albums (this a little too far on the mellow/low-fi spectrum) - but it's still Elliott Smith, which means good melodic songs which is in my wheelhouse. Very listenable but by the end there's a sameness that leads to diminishing returns. Take the top ~7 songs and it would have made a great EP - 3 stars (6/10).

jesus this is annoying. sorry :D - i've heard tons of snippets of some of these songs for years, and as it turns out that's as much as i can take. Most of these "songs" start out fine for 10-20 seconds and stay the same throughout, only adding more horribly unimaginative editing or absolutely terrible vocal loops/drones throughout. I do like electronic music but not annoying/repetitive noise that reminds me of old records that were skipping. In my insistence of listening to the entirety of every one of these 1001 albums I kept it on but it was borderline torture. hard hard pass.

Driving me crazy trying to figure out how/where I know this title track from. I'm a very passive jazz listener - while it's not my favourite music I still do especially enjoy this particular brand/style (instrumental, jazz-trio type). After two full run-throughs I can see why this is on a top list both because it's eminently listenable, interesting, and I've absolutely heard no less than three of these tracks before. Since I'm basic :P if you like Miles Davis Kind of Blue (nearly everyone has heard at least bits of that) you'll probably like this, although it seems a little more bebop/uptempo. It's quite good, I had this as a solid 3 but I think I'd put this as a 4 as I'll keep this one as something to come back to.

Have always steered away from country music but was willing to give this a fair listen, being familiar with Emmylou Harris... And I'm thankful I did, this is a great album. Calling it Country almost shortchanges it; I would also label it folk, Americana, Heartland. Although Emmylou is clearly the focus, it was really the music here that was the surprise. Highlight is "I Don't Wanna Talk About It Now" 7/10

Pantera must be one of the pioneers of the cookie monster vocals and for that alone they should be excoriated if not tarred and feathered. I'll throw a slight amount of credit their way due to technical dexterity and a few listenable solos. Again it should be obvious this isn't my bag and as such take into account as I find the vocals comical at best and generally horrific and the so-called songwriting non-existent outside the poor man's Maiden lifting of the intro to Hollow. A generous 2 from me since this doesn't seem to be a genre to easily grow into, even for one who grew up on hard rock. Where are the songs?

I can't put my finger on why this doesn't connect with me at all but there it is - it just doesn't. The description would ideally sound good to me: British guitar rock revival with an edge. But if you tend towards getting chills and sucked in by a killer hook or melody...this album doesn't have that for me at all. Not terrible but personally not memorable nor enjoyable. 2.

Not sure I'd ever really heard Ryan Adams, only heard "of" him so I was ready to dive in. Instead of a succinct review, here is the timeline of my thoughts as i listened to this album...: "hmm. this seems affected, I'm gonna be annoyed by this..." [1 or 2 songs in] "....you know, this might be pretty good. There are some great melodies in here. I may want to admit it but if we keep going like this I might end up liking it, let's see how the album progresses..." [5 songs in] "....." [after ~7 songs] "...I thought I was listening to Damien Rice for a bit, and I prefer Damien Rice. This is getting a lot more laid-back, slow-paced, and frankly boring..." [after 10 songs] "....sigh...." [a few more] "....." [the album ends depressingly] "yeah, now i want to kill myself. Better yet, I think I'll put on some old Van Halen" 4/10

I really hated this back when it came out, but it's always good to give something a fresh try with hopefully more mature ears :) .... ...but less than a minute into "Miss World" and I want to take some of those kill-me pills C Love is screaming about. Vocals rarely "make" an album/song for me but they do often destroy it and this is a great example of the latter. If you like this style of punk vocals or it simply doesn't bother you, you might really like this album - some of the music is aggressive in a quintessential early 90s fashion and there is some room for quality melodies. Obvious similarities to ~Smashing Pumpkins, Juliana Hatfield. I almost feel like there's little middle-ground here, and for me mostly because of vocals I can guarantee I'll wait at least 20 years to voluntarily listen to this again. 2/10

Two monstrous/timeless songs on this one I am/was very familiar with but didn't think I knew the rest of it. I wasn't too excited about getting through it as I thought it might lose my interest but I'm glad I stuck with it - the excellent blend of vocal harmonies and clearly talented musicianship make this a success. It is however definitely a product of its time; there are a few pace-interrupters (Comin Back To Me, How Do You Feel) which might have worked better [for me] without the very typical-of-the-age huge reverb. Then again, I suppose it's hard to *not* be "of the time" and the high points here make this more enjoyable than many of the era. White Rabbit used to scare the shit out of me as a kid, and is still suitably creepy. Even after hearing it a million times, it's still worthy. 6/10

There are a lot of bigger Zeppelin fans than me - I would say I definitely like their highs but there's a lot of "miss" in their collection as well... Nothing more to say here than Zeppelin II is a *direct hit* - from top to bottom I believe their most consistent and best album (however, i'll definitely reconsider that statement when Zep IV is reviewed). Whole Lotta Love is a statement kickoff, a classic, and to me the worst song on the record which says a lot. Everyone in the band is peaking here and aside from their early-period standard of ripping off old blues legends (not quite as bad as on their first album but close :P....) their songwriting got a lot better here; excellent mix of riff rock, acoustic/mellow, dynamics, and melody. Page/Plant always had the aura but the rhythm section of Jones/Bonham was the heartbeat of this band, nowhere more evident than on this album. Almost perfect. 9/10 (5 stars)

Definitely not in my wheelhouse, and for that very reason I was happy to listen to this again - I remember 20 years ago playing video games with a friend and we'd loop this album. Perfect for racing games btw. At any rate as one who grew up definitely more of a "traditionalist" this ordinarily wouldn't be something i liked but oddly enough I do; on the tracks where there are vocals it's a little off-putting but not enough to distract from the head-bobbing electronic loops and catchy as hell beats - . (contrasting with the Fatboy Slim album I listened to a week ago which was unlistenable to me) Absolutely not an album for all settings :) but as I'm working while listening to this, it's really kind of the perfect soundtrack. Now I wish I still had my Playstation NASCAR game to veg out to... 6/10 3 stars

[wrote really long review, lost it...] boiled down...: i enjoy jazz/fusion and this is interesting in terms of it being influential and a launching pad for musicians/genre (and better albums of this type in the 70s), I don't think its all that listenable. Mostly because there's zero structure - length of a song/track doesn't preclude some recurring motif/theme/pattern etc (see Hancock, Cobham, Pastorius, etc for much more enjoyable works, IMO). 2 stars for "interesting" but not sure I'd come back to this.

This is some really good Brit-pop -> in an alternate universe most of these tracks would replace the same timeless status as Oasis' big hits. This is a better band with better songwriting (melodies, dynamics, whocaresaboutlyrics :).....) - the single "One To Another" was immediately recognizable and got some radio play way back in the day - deservedly so. Even though this may not be anything super-complex or groundbreaking, this is a great melodic guitar album that is easy-entry and eminently catchy with fantastic songs. And I was going to give it a solid 3 but as I've found myself listening to it on repeat and am already on my 4th listen - this is a 4 star keeper for me. 7/10 4 stars (One small nitpick is that I'd love to hear a remix; this sounds a little ... cloudy... for my liking.)

This album-a-day is great for many reasons but one of the best reasons I do this is to get albums like this one - a genre I would never in a million years select on my own. Tito Puente was a bit before my time and probably is more known by people my age from him being a suspect in the shooting of Montgomery Burns in the Simpsons (NOT GUILTY ha) so it's good to get the real education here. I'm not a dance fan nor will I ever be a big listener of this genre but it is/was far more interesting than I'd have given it credit for - complex as hell rhythms that are still accessible and catchy. I definitely vastly prefer the instrumental passages as I don't often focus much on vocal/lyrics. This is definitely both a fun record and a good one for background (working as I listen now). A surprise 3 stars for this rock fan (although I'm sure deserving of much higher for those more attuned to big band / swing). 7/10 3 stars.

hmm. After suffering through a number of tracks, I did a little recon on this band as to ... well, why they're in this 1001 list at all. "Major influence" on garage and punk bands...simple chord progressions...tonal aggression." ... vocals: "wwWOWWWWWWWW!!!!!" <lather/rinse/repeat ad nauseum> Just because you're among the first to create a subgenre of not enjoyable noisy music doesn't really make you a legend IMO. Then again, to each their own :P It's not my bag. (the covers were not terrible, admittedly. If I were being particularly snarky I'd accuse them of sprinkling them perfectly throughout the album to prevent some ppl from turning it off...) 2/10 1 star

Another great surprise that expelled any/all preconceived notions I had upon seeing today's entry. Apparently (obviously) I know/knew absolutely nothing about The Flaming Lips, but this was/is immediately right in my wheelhouse. Maybe a concept album....sign me up. Dreamy - melodic - mysterious - gorgeous - electronic loops mixed with organic elements - just great music which is simultaneously accessible yet not predictable. How have I missed this album all these years? I'm looking forward to repeat listens of this in headphones. I wonder if at some point I end up viewing this as a five.....this is awesome. ...screw it. 5 stars for an album I'd never heard of 24 hrs ago 9/10 5 stars.

Seems wrong to not give Ray Charles a larger rating, especially as the album starts with Let The Good Times Roll which is great but after that it's just not my style. A bit too mellow and the string arrangements are for me distracting. Would probably enjoy a simpler remix of this more with emphasis on the jazz trio components. Wouldn't mind if this came on at a restaurant or party but probably would look elsewhere for different Ray.

Was such a big album, this album IS 1994. The constant comparison or association was always with Nirvana and Pearl Jam but there's a significant difference. Time signature changes, more variety in mood, power and melody. I was always in the minority in not getting or enjoying Nirvana at all, but this was different and far more enjoyable for me. I'd had trouble enjoying Soundgarden's previous albums as they were either too sludgy or screamy :) Chris Cornell reeled it in for this album and fit the songs perfectly, and most of the songs became more diverse and interesting. Highlights are definitely the big hits. One of the best rock albums of the era. 8/10. 4 stars.

Oddly I was only familiar with the Doves' first album Lost Souls which I love. This one on first pass didn't do as much for me. But. Almost immediately upon second play i am hearing the differences...in a good way. The strong sense of melody I was waiting for is everywhere but I think more varied this time around. I almost wish I had multiple days per album to properly digest some of them, this is a good example. I'm thinking I'm going to like this more and more as I get to know it. If you like melodic dreamy melodies, this is for you. 7/10 4 stars.

The aural equivalent of 8mm black and white endless sweaty torture nightmare fuel. The horror... 1/10

(what a great melodic salve after the eardrilling of the Velvet Underground) A handful of classics from my childhood sound as good as I remember and the title track alone almost gives this a 4 on its own. To me the best of this matches well with Paul's better Beatles tunes, and although it falters just a bit near the end I love the weird sci-fi-ish "1985" as a closer. 8/10 4 stars

This is and has everything I love about so-called rock music: power.. melody.. mystery...great musicianship... catchy riffs... majestic yet accessible. Don't let the 4 rather long songs put you off if you've not experienced this before, and it may take some time to sink in but it's best listened either in headphones or fully immersed stereo - and loud! Starship Troopers is my personal favourite here but each track stands out for different reasons. Chris Squire's growly bass and band vocal harmonies are specifically individual standouts throughout. 9/10. 5 stars.

Glad to have a few decades pass - I definitely didn't appreciate this album in its time. The Clash we're often mislabeled as merely punk, which does them a disservice - this album in particular is incredibly diverse - credit to the songwriting and in particular musically. A bit of everything from rock to raga to rockabilly - all while pleasantly not autotuned 😊 8/10 4 stars

As a "rock" kid in the 80s I really hated this band - totally ignorant and stubborn, admittedly, but Robert Smith's voice was an immediate and huge turn off for me. Having said that, I was excited to get this album today to have a clean revisit to the band and see what I may have missed. ...and I'm not sure what to think. I'm passingly familiar with some of their bigger hits, and this sounds very little like anything I'd heard from them before. The music often sounds little more than a well-produced 4-track demo in parts, and I can't decide whether I'm scoffing at it or really enjoying it :D. I'm more-easily able to bypass the vocals (either because it's early-Cure or i've "matured" i'm not yet sure) and in parts I don't mind them at all; they are buried quite low in the mix which balances them out against the music. What interested me right away was the very dry and up-front guitar that is deceptively clever in chord structure in parts. My favourite song by far is "At Night" - haunting/powerful/dissonant. Almost like they hit a/the wrong chord on guitar in the main riff and decided "screw it, we're keeping that." Overall the album wasn't what I expected in a good way and even after 2 passes I will listen to this again. I think in the end my criticism - and it may grow on me a little more - it really does sound to me like a well-crafted demo that I'd have liked to hear developed a little more. Of course that minimalism was perhaps the point... 5/10 3 stars

I love this album - and I think it's notable and hopefully accurate to mention this doesn't sound much at all like what Coldplay became, for better or worse. I suppose in my case for the better, as this is a relatively raw moody rock band utilizing dynamics and haunting open chords (Coldplay's work after their 2nd album is - for me - far too dense/overproduced). I recall a friend recommending this album to me soon after its release, calling it "early-Radiohead-lite" which isn't a terrible comparison. The 4 piece organic band construction works so well on every song on this album - the fantastic guitar lines with heavy emphasis on delays/reverb are a great contrast with the relatively dry vocals. "Shiver" was and is still my favourite track from this collection - aggressive and delicate at different points, just a tremendous song. "High Speed" and "Spies" are other huge standouts. "Yellow" is of course the big single from the album and i'm not as crazy about it, but it's still damn catchy - everything on the album is a great example of the best of ~early 2000s era melodic guitar rock. It's not *quite* perfect (but few are) - the last two songs for me drag just a little bit - but in the end it's the rare album that you can play top to bottom without a thought to skipping or wishing a song was over. 9/10 5 stars.

This is weirdly a difficult album to review - do I mark it 4/5 stars because at this point it has become almost a stereotypical "classic" ... or because I know each of the songs altogether too well ... or is it really this great? For the millions of people who are of a similar viewpoint, it's probably the same (or else you've heard the songs so much by now you ever want to hear them again!). Not much point in commenting on the style - excellent songwriting and musicianship, each member definitely contributing their own unique flair (and apparently almost all at different times - there was much conflict among the members while recording, so the stories go...). If nothing else, it's a great and important document of the biggest and/or most important music of the time. It does falter just a little for me at the end (it frustrates me when albums do that - save me a golden nugget for the album closer plz (...eagerly awaiting Who's Next...)) but the first 7-8 tracks are all too great to knock this down a star. 9/10 5 stars

I'd never heard of this band - missed them first time around apparently - which is kind of fun to have zero preconceived notions... Upon first (and only, to be fair) play it has sort of an immediate lo-fi reggae type beat which is definitely not my cup of tea.  "Brimful of Asha" was apparently the big hit and it is boring me to tears with its standard I-IV-V progression over and over and over and... etc etc.  It sounds like they wrote it in literal real-time. ...hmm...after careful analysis, i think what the singer is trying to tell us is that the funky days are back again and that everybody needs a bosom for a pillow.... /s ok I don't love to criticize acts that I either don't know much about or don't like the sub-genre but I gotta be honest with myself I was really really annoyed by this entire album; either with the mis-timed loops ("Butter the Soul") or in general - it sounds like guys got high and just giggled their way through assembling this album with loops, simple chord progressions, and repetitive lyrics. Just throwing in random samples of voices and scratches/beats isn't clever or remotely interesting for me, and it only sounds like pandering...like "aren't we cool? We're so modern and hip!" I'm not (necessarily) looking for a freaking Yes tune or even complexity. Technology is vital and co-opting it is important. But. You still have to write a damn song. At best boring boring boring and at worst annoying as shit. Hated it. 1/10 1 star

I remember this being released and a huge buzz around it but not much else - it just wasn't the right time for me to appreciate it... ...as opposed to now: wow - this just hits all the right notes (sure, pun intended). Smooth in the best ways but for me it is rarely boring - tremendous production and musicianship. It took everything I liked about the best Marvin Gaye but this is better - just the right doses of edge that Marvin rarely ever had (e.g. angular guitar lines on "Dancewitme"). Also point of note: while Maxwell the "singer" is clearly the feature here, the music is the big standout for me - the album starts with a great instrumental which sets the tone that this will be not just a vocal album. A great album for its genre, which while not ever going to be my favourite/daily listen it is so well-crafted that it's a keeper. 8/10  4 stars

I like this old-school hip-hop; emphasis on aggressive and rhythmic vocals, with some great samples (e.g. Sly and the Family Stone right off the bat) before copyright law caught up with the new artform :) Some of it sounds a little dated at this point ("Princess of the Possee" [but *huge* props for the "Barney Miller" bassline in the remix on the extended version!] or "Come Into My House" where the drums sound like wet paper and are distracting) but a. i'll still prefer it over the dull/uncreative "modern" trap beats and b. for every sound that's meh she comes back with tracks like "Latifah's Law" and "Ladies First" which are too great to ignore. It's a great document of the golden age of hip-hop when women especially were seen as more of a novelty instead of a force like Queen Latifah is here. 8/10 4 stars

This album cover is hilarious. Just needed to state that right off the bat. The familiarity of Crosby's voice is nice/pleasing to those of us old enough to have heard CSN so often on the radio, but I'm finding this a bit aimless. "Cowboy Song" as the second track...an 8-minute jam over two chords...seems a poor choice here, if not just a poor song. Once "Tamalpais High" kicks in though, those *harmonies* start right away - that's what we came for. But ... that's all that song delivers - almost literally - David just thought "yeah that's enough here" :D "Laughing" is a little more constructed but unimaginative, and the rest of the album sort of peters out. I know each of the CSNY members released solo albums in the aftermath of their classic "Deja Vu" and probably wanted to establish their own voice, no pun intended. But listening to this even while acknowledging DC's best asset (his gorgeous harmony construction) is still strong here it's hard not to think that Crosby needed the rest of his sometime-bandmates to help him put together anything resembling memorable songs. This ends up just being a half-hour of often nice sounding notes. If I could only remember any of them. mostly because it should have been better but it's just trash.... 2/10 1 star.

Was mildly interested in listening to this - I think the only song I'd ever heard from Bauhaus was "Bela Legosi's Dead" which is 9 minutes that should be 2, but I'll give them a pass since I think they were each like 7 years old when they recorded it. Quick research shows this is their second album and being Goth "pioneers" this was apparently where they expanded their sound. It's ... weird. Which was expected. It's also very 1981 which is neither good nor bad but the sound/production alone makes it very much of its time for what that's worth. "Of Lilies and Remains" reminds me a little of some old Gang of Four with the aggressive guitar parts. Overall it's definitely appropriate that I'm listening to this in my darkened basement :) - it's not bad at all, although I can see how some people might loathe this. I prefer [vocalist] Peter Murphy's later highly melodic and darkly catchy solo hit "Cut You Up" much more as this album is more experimental and aggressive/noisy. In the end it definitely does what it set out to do and invoke a very cold/dark mood - i.e. they're good at what they do but aside from a knowing nod if I hear it anywhere I doubt I'd go out of my way for this outside of Halloween :P 5/10 2 stars

For a long time when this first song ("Our Lips Are Sealed") was released I thought they were singing "Honest I See You..." (I was 10. but still.) Aside from the obvious all-female angle which was kind of a big "novelty" at the time (before ppl realized the music was just...good) it's not really groundbreaking musically and not super-repeatable but it's still just *fun* and catchy. Very melodic sing-along light up-tempo rock. A near guarantee for my generation (80s kids) to get an "oh my god!" if you put this album on with like-aged company. 6/10 3 stars.

...the one where a hugely popular experimental band finally free of their record deal releases their first independent album by letting fans pay what they want then leads it off with a song in 5/4 time... Big thumbs-up here. :) In Rainbows is probably not the easiest intro to Radiohead (probably the best way to try to ease into the band is to go chronologically (but skip their debut Pablo Honey)) but if you want an accessible-ish great start, go with "All I Need" which is as normal as it gets here, and is still a great song. But Radiohead is not a singles band, meaning it's impossible to "get" or (for me) truly enjoy the band by listening to one song - in many ways they harken back to earlier days by truly being an "album band" - you need to digest this in its entirety to get the full breadth and scope. A song like "House Of Cards" is gorgeous in its layered melodies but it alone doesn't touch upon the organized chaos that the band brings so well in another track like "Bodysnatchers." All in all though, one of my favourite collections from the band and nearly as good as it gets - unlike some of their bigger albums (looking at you OK Computer) this one doesn't peter off at the end and stays strong through the final song "Videotape." Like most of their albums, this one also truly gets better upon repeated listens. Also a perfectly-digestible 43 minutes long (just because CDs ushered in an era where you could jam 72 minutes into an album didn't mean you should...). 8/10 4 stars

Definitely a mood album - what mood might depend on the person :P - this could either be one of the more depressing albums or one of the more joyous, I honestly can't ever decide. Either way, it's gorgeous in total - the full band arrangements, horns, strings, and Nick Drake's odd/dry/intimate vocal style all work for me. Hardly a party album :D (I'd love to get Van Halen 1 after this one for contrast) nor one that I think can be fully appreciated on first or second listens but for fascinating acoustic tunings/chords/arrangements and non-traditional "pop" singer-songwriter albums this is tremendous. 8/10 4 stars

As a pre-teen big Who fan I never "got" this album - where were the big arena / bombastic classic windmilling tunes akin to "Who Are You" and "Won't Get Fooled Again?" A few decades later I can more fully appreciate it; both Pete's snarky sarcasm and the creative faux-pirate-radio aspect of it as well as the lesser-known 60s pop music styles within. Definitely still feels like a different band than what they developed into just a few years later - the first cut "Armenia City In The Sky" is a backwards-guitar psychedelic trip, but you can hear a few elements of the upcoming "Tommy" in the first few songs, especially with the vocals/harmonies. Yet although I do enjoy it more than I did as a kid and it's definitely still "The Who" ...to be a little blunt: the songs just aren't that strong. Sure "I Can See For Miles" is an all-time classic but songs like "Odorono" and "Tattoo" are frustrating because there are such great turns in the melodies but they never rise above kitschy novelty demos for me. ... I give it a lot of credit for being creative and different with the songwriting also being far more advanced than many other pop-rock tunes of the era... I know Pete wasn't pleased with how "Tommy" eventually ended up because they weren't properly finished with it, and I feel the same about this album. At least Tommy had/has some fully-formed songs even if they're just above demo form. I'd love to have heard the band take these tapes back to the studio in 1970, be given 3 months, then refine the tracks and just crush this album. 5/10 3 stars - credit for impressive vision and innovation, but can't rise into "repeat play" status.

I somehow was completely unfamiliar with this band so another blank slate to begin on... My initial impressions run from *this is fun aggressive rock album with somewhat typical (in a good way) 90s alt-rock progressions* to *...wow this gets a little boring...* And as I'm into my second listen through, I lean heavily towards the second sentiment. It's decent enough but a cynical commenter (me?) might question why this is one of the 1001 albums you must listen to. Not that it isn't fine, it actually is, but it's also...maybe just not that memorable? I gave this yet another spin today to see if something grabbed hold but you could have told me this was _______ [fill in with any of ~25 early-mid 90s bands from Boston or London or Seattle] and I wouldn't have blinked. Loud stereo guitars with a generally non-aggressive melodic vocal track over the top. Again: decent enough. For the most part. Inoffensive but I don't really remember anything about it. 4/10 2 stars for a fine of-the-period rock album but suffers from a sameness and lack of depth.

This is definitely outside of my usual listening sphere and so provided a nice diversion from my usual fare. I did have to steer my expectations in a way since I generally don't focus much on vocals and seeing that Miriam Makeba is very clearly a vocal artist...:D but this was very much worth the trip. One standout song is "The Click Song" because of how obviously different and very non-Western it is. I'm not sure how to properly describe it but you have to listen - she sings with a "click-consonant" that is part of some African languages - very cool! "Olilili" also features a deep background chorus that sounds funereal yet uplifting in a way. As with many well-produced older (analog) albums, I really enjoyed the clarity of the mix. Since I'm much more a rock fan I don't feel really qualified to rate this in a proper way and wouldn't "measure" it against other collections more to my knowledge - but the vocals are truly unique (from my POV) and this was fascinating to listen to. 7/10 3 stars

Just within the first minute+ of their first song "Southern Point" you start to get an idea that this isn't going to be easily-categorized. Acoustically-driven "pop" music but with unresolving and unpredictable chord structures punctuated with smooth yet mysterious vocals with lush harmonies... If it sounds like this could be a review of some late-60s folk act, we need to add in just the right dose of synths and looping technology to bring this into the 21st century. Could Grizzly Bear be the CSN for a modern age? (Veckatimest 2009 = Deja Vu 1971?) I was given a copy of this album when it was first released and I don't think gave it the proper settling-in period. To me I needed a return and even then a few successive listens to really get hold of what the band is doing - these are much more complex tunes than you might assume if you have this album on as merely background music. The creative twists and turns in what starts out as a simple piano melody in "Two Weeks" are unexpected and distinguish this band from others. I enjoy the first half more than the second, which still retains that lovely-yet-mysterious sound but many of the songs seem to lumber a bit and ironically may seem to work better as background music (notable exception: "While You Wait For The Others") - TL;DR: would have liked some more up-tempo songs on "Side 2" but overall, more details are revealed upon each listen - recommended and (but?) especially for repeat plays. 7/10 4 stars

This record exhausted me. I remember the buzz after its release, hearing about how "revolutionary" it was. Was it? Is it? After all this time and a re-listen the remaster actually does give it a little more sheen (I'm very much not a low-fi fan)... the music is sometimes just "ok" (actually "Shatter" could or should be a great song) but sweet fancy moses there's no getting by her voice which is absolutely unmanageable and the up-front and dry mix (lo-fi!) does absolutely zero favours to. Was this album cool because of her "bold language?" Maybe. Ordinarily I'm all for it but not in and of itself - for the most part it's used in such a stupid high school back row of the class teenage-giggly way and as a result most of these songs just are a sloppy pile of absolutely nothing. If you get off on "pushing boundaries" in the sense that being edgy with sex and language in music is super important - or maybe all that's important - then go for it here. If you're of the theory that even if your lyrics have the effort of repeating a kindergarten nursery rhyme but you still need to put some effort and thought and creativity into actually freaking making art then you'll probably feel as I do after enduring this. This revolution should not have been televised and instead should have been exiled to the "do not release" pile. 2/10 1 star.

For its time, this album kind of re-defines what "rock music" really meant. Or rather stretched the definition of rock music. I didn't (choose to) understand this as a kid but it's worth the trip -> a weird cold yet somehow joyful experimental collection of loops, non-western-rhythms, and layered vocals. All put together well enough to create actual songs that supersede the experimentation - which for me is always the correct order. "Once In A Lifetime" is the one most people might know but overall this album is chock full of creativity and punctuated with excellent musicianship - in particular I love that guitar solo on "The Great Curve" [courtesy of Adrian Belew]. Remain In Light is not exactly your 80s backyard party album :D but rather a soundtrack for your indoor gathering while the VCR is playing "Weird Science" in the background. Even though this may not fit snugly within any of my favourite subgenres this is a really unique sound and is interesting from start to finish. Even at 40+ (!) years old it somehow sounds fresh. 8/10 4 stars

This to me is like a perfect slice of stereotypical easy-to-listen-to late 60s vocal pop/rock music. It's never going to end up as a personal favourite ... it's not mysterious nor edgy nor aggressive nor moody - rather "just" a collection of quite short and easily-accessible pop tunes. Yet by the same token there's literally nothing to *not* like, either. Lovely melodies and a all-time classic single "Groovin'" make this a worthy choice. Also I never had any idea that "You Better Run" was not a Pat Benatar original!? Can't ever go wrong putting this on for a spin on a Sunday afternoon. 7/10 3 stars

...apparently I had no idea about what New Order actually were. I was most definitely not expecting this to start off with a accessible *upbeat as hell* simple 80s pop rock song - what!? As an 80s rocker kid I avoided New Order because I thought "ick - no guitars or "real" drums but all moody electronic synths??" (n.b. which I would likely love now) but "Love Vigilantes" seems like it could have been something from Big Country or The Alarm. And to be sure the album soon covers moody-synth territory, with heavily layered sequencers moving right in on the second cut but I definitely have a new-found appreciation for the music - it's far more complex and deep than I would have imagined. Yet there's a peculiar mix of styles on this album - just when it seems to be settling into this sequenced new wave we get something like "Sunrise" which is just a killer rock track. I do find some of the instrumentation or mix ... weird (e.g. on "This Time of Night" the overdubbed drum fills practically coat the song) on some of the colder songs but that's a retroactive-80s style thing I'm still not used to :D Overall though this was highly unexpected and is a pleasantly odd mix of synthy dark 80s dance tunes and up-tempo pop-rock songs. I'm glad to have listened to this - a keeper and not just as a timepiece for the era. 7/10 4 stars

Another album that for me at first was difficult to rate on merit vs nostalgia. My parents had this album from the time I was born so putting it on was a bit of a personal time machine :) - but also the songs at first play (in decades) have such an overly sweet and dated sound to them that I found myself a little bored. However I did play it again last night through headphones and more-fully appreciated how awesome those vocal harmonies are. Since the mix was probably done on an old 4 track for most songs the 3 or 4 part harmonies are exclusively in the left-channel which makes them blend so perfectly I often can't even figure out how they create those parts. Also when you start listening to the lyrics they're nowhere near as "sweet" as maybe they wanted you to think :D - these guys may have had as much interpersonal drama as Fleetwood Mac did nearly a decade later. The two all-time music classics of "Monday Monday" and "California Dreamin" are so ubiquitous (commercials, tv shows, etc) and justifiably so but "Go Where You Wanna Go" and "Straight Shooter" are every bit as catchy. Gotta give this its proper due even if it's not something I'd ordinarily listen to - these are perfectly constructed pop songs absolutely "of the time" but with melodies (and harmonies) this good it's a keeper. 8/10 4 stars

Public Enemy does not sound dated at all - so many (too many) of the lyrics and topics are 100% as relevant today (30+ years later holy hell). Yet what makes this album (and PE's other early (pre~1994) albums) especially fantastic isn't just the lyrics/topics but the kickass music - judicious samples and hard beats; if the music isn't any good, the message isn't going to be heard - and the music is great. Chuck D was never better than on this collection - "Welcome to the Terrordome" and of course the huge hit "Fight the Power" are standouts. "Burn Hollywood Burn" might be the best of them all - the beat is intense and high-paced, and guest verses from Big Daddy Kane and Ice Cube make this catchy as hell. I'm unlikely to ever give a perfect score for a PE album because of Flavor Flav's songs (I like him well enough as a sidekick but as a sidekick alone) - him taking lead on a song mostly kills the vibe for me but on this album he is thankfully more limited and he hits a little differently - "911 Is a Joke" had a huge impact and actually had something to say. Fear Of A Black Planet also works so well because it is truly a complete *album* rather than a smattering of tracks here and there - in some ways (it's a reach, I'll admit) it's not unlike The Who's Sell Out in terms of there being "connecting tracks" ("Incident at 66.6FM" "Reggie Jax" "Leave This Off Your Fn Charts") that work as a path from one "proper" song to the next. In other words - you lose a ton if you listen to some of these songs on a mix... listen to this from tip to tail for the full effect. And admittedly even though it is a dense album you do have to listen to it as a complete collection and worth any effort - it also gets better upon multiple spins. If it's not the best hip-hop album ever made it has to be in the conversation.... 9/10 5 stars.

I like the idea of this record...but I don't like this record. Trying to objectively figure out why... I think it's two-fold: the mix is too low-fi/"indie" for me (at times it sounds like it was recorded in a bedroom which...hey, personal taste, but it sounds cheap especially with the drums). But mainly it's that the main singer (the one singing in the higher register) is abrasive as hell and just gets worse within each song and as the album goes on. There are a handful of songs where I found myself starting to bop my head (e.g. "Turn It On") and then the vocals just move more and more towards the same damn timbre and limited frantic-at-the-edge-of-a-shriek and it kills the vibe. It's like she works herself to this frenzy and gets to the peak note and just stays there the rest of the song. That being said, I can see why people would like this and I imagine Sleater-Kinney being a fun live band; pretty sure I would enjoy a solid hour long set in a club. Big points for the aggression fueled melodic content - and there's enough musical variety and talent to make it quite interesting - but the vocals and that 90s DIY sound make this album a miss for me. 4/10 2 stars.

Very surprising. Was not excited to give this a listen as I've grown up with (and every elementary school final day singing) "School's Out" and knowing some more of AC's hits, I did not expect the pleasantly *weird* variety herein. The track "School's Out" needs no review other than everybody knows it, it's silly fun, but honestly nothing like what's to come and the least-interesting song on the album.... ...horn-infested and more than a little creepy "Blue Turk" ...the West Side Story-ish "Gutter Cat vs The Jets" ..."Alma Mater" sounds like it was stolen from a Paul McCartney and Wings session. ..."My Stars" could (or should) have been a deep-cut on Goodbye Yellow Brick Road (and frankly better than some of its throwaway tracks). Alice(the singer - as this was also the name of the band at the time)'s vocals are almost instantly recognizable - for better or worse - but aside from that I would not have been able to identify any of these as an Alice Cooper recording. Preconceived notions shattered. As a collection, the relatively short (37 minutes) length is perfect as it ends before it might get tiring. I almost can't believe I'm saying this but after 3 listens today I would listen to this again. 7/10 4 stars

I never know how to feel about this band. I'm old enough to remember nearly all of their releases...I tried hard for Unforgettable Fire (1984), then again with Rattle n Hum/Achtung Baby (1989-1991)...and one last gasp for All That You Can't Leave Behind (2002)... Is it possible to both acknowledge that an album is probably excellent but that you just don't like it? I remember buying this upon release and maybe just *believing* I liked it based on so many hits... to be fair, the music is definitely a "new" sound for U2 compared to much of their previous work...those clean delayed guitars, space/reverb which were all so prevalent. I guess I do appreciate if not like that aspect of change. On this disc right away we hear elements of techno, distorted guitars, loops... and as a result many of these songs are quickly catchy...but at the same time boring. Notably I'll point out "One" which can probably safely be called a classic song, if not their best then in the conversation and builds to an inspiring climax. Why is this never among my favourite albums or bands? I don't fully know - on Achtung Baby the drums sound like hitting wet paper, that's definitely a turn-off. I'm not enveloped in the sound of this album, despite it having a richness of content. If there's one thing alone though - it's the vocals. I think I'm not a fan of vocalist Bono, and more specifically from roughly this album forward. Allowing for the obvious that albums are recorded as multitrack and layered over and over.... it still always sounds too obvious with U2 and Bono, like the music is a distant accompaniment and Bono is in a small room crooning way way too close to the microphone. He never feels a part of the action - there's nothing inherently bad about it...it's just distracting to me on almost every song. This is a terrible review, I just don't know how to put it - U2: a band I want to like, I like some songs, bits of a few albums, but I've never said "hey i'm in the mood for U2". Listen to this album to get a very accurate slice of the early 90s in the rock world. I'll give big points for creativity especially in the guitar category but it's not my thing. 6/10 3 stars.

Ahhh another "critics' favourite" - likely a longer debate but why are these so often terrible? So this exhibits a "punk attitude" which means what exactly? It's a little bit funny (or annoying if any of it mattered at all) that it's likely the same critics at the time who loved this labeled prog-rock as "pretentious" - but what could be more pretentious than this sonic shit sandwich? Bad meandering poetry loudly (so dreadfully loudly) mixed over mind-numblingly boring boring boring basic 3 chord blues-ish music and songs that go on so fffffffffffking long.... As a whole the album was 43 minutes too long. 1/10 1 very dim star

Who did I wrong in this or another life to deserve this week...Patti Smith and now this back to back. Uninspiring-at-best so-called songs about drugs and the streets, many of which were "sung" by Lou Reed. oooo edgy! Oh but at least it closes with *pure genius* [suffers through untold minutes of no-composition feedback-drenched dissonant sounds of a band openly mocking the idea of music and/or anyone in the future voluntarily listening to this] in "European Son" ..... what the absolute hell - was there nobody around to put the brakes on this?? -10/10 0 stars to everyone responsible in 1967 for foisting this mess upon the public.

Categorizing this as "alternative" is a bit puzzling - this is a straight-up fantastic rock album that felt very fresh for the mid-90s. Incorporating modern elements/sounds into a layered guitar approach it was a great step above their meh debut album, and would only be a temporary stepping stone to their next string of albums which went off in then-unpredictable and amazing directions. I'm not entirely sure it's as revolutionary or amazing or alt-rock as was (is?) made out to be and if there's any negativity from me it's that at some point the songs do tend to blend in with one another somehow, despite the decent variety. If you've heard and disliked later-period Radiohead give this a try as it is a far more traditional rock format in terms of the instrumentation and song structure. Highlights are "The Bends" "Fake Plastic Trees" and "Street Spirit (Fade Out)" 8/10 4 stars

I was surprised to see this pop up on the list - I of course remember the 2 big singles in the mid-80s and then nothing else about them so I'm essentially going in blind. It's a well-produced (slick) very 80s-representative album produced by Trevor Horn (who had his hand in a lot of big music of the era) and as such it plays more like a nice resume point for him rather than featuring the music or band itself. Even their two big hits in retrospect have excellent hooks but are not developed much further than that; they thankfully each wrap up in under 4 minutes. For a lot of these tracks, they *sound* good but if anything they show the shortcomings as songwriters the band had, peppered with some weird/unexpected covers ("Born To Run" "San Jose" "War" - ??). In fact the first true song on the album is about 14 minutes of decent enough music but it's not really a song, per se - it sounds more like a poorly constructed overture. Summing up - nothing at all unpleasant to listen to with some very cool instrumental passages but with a slew of those odd covers and decent-enough sounding poppy dance tunes I don't really see why it's on the "1001 list" - to me it's not much more than background music. 4/10 2 stars

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha <wheezes...deep breath....> hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ....no. You can write about injustice and/or name check all the great activists in history you want but if you pair it with unlistenable audio poop - it doesn't matter. Awful. 0/10 1 star.

This is a great and easy-entry selection of classic 70s soul+rock+r&b. Starting right out with "That Lady" - a high-energy uptempo song which can sit alongside any rock song of the era. I'm not often a fan of albums consisting of many covers (and this has no less than 4 that are/were already well-known) so it docks it a bit for me...but these are done in such an *Isley Brothers style* that it's hard to believe they're not originals. 7/10 4 stars

Hard to criticize anything by The Beatles, even if this particular platter is not something I'd put on too often. This is definitely "early Beatles" with their late 50s influences prominent - vocal harmony laden clean-guitar-driven pop songs. That's no insult and there's really no criticism here - nobody did it like this before and almost nobody has done it this well since. "All My Loving" is probably the biggest / most famous one here amidst roughly half originals/half cover tunes. Even though I vastly prefer their later style it's still great art of the time (1963) - it just doesn't give me chills. It's a nice easy-listening experience with great vocal harmonies. i.e. the only reason I'm putting it at 3 stars is personal preference. 7/10 3 stars

14 songs - 29 minutes. :D I tend to lean towards big/anthemic/complex rock and pop music so the idea of a slab of short punk songs with a few power chords wouldn't necessarily be in my A-list collection. But this is what it is and it's fun which is the point. No tracks longer than 2:39 which was absolutely the right call - no need for solos or belaboring the (minimal?) points - this is a quick half-hour of smiling and banging your head with good simple melodies and just when you're about to be sick of it...it's done. Even for someone (me) whose first choices would be music with advanced musicianship, lengthy passages and new reveals upon each listen, this actually does have an important place. Don't think - just rock. 7/10 3 stars

I might be able to chalk this up to my own ignorance but I just couldn't get too into this. Not being much of a samba fan at all, I can still give credit to the decent musicianship but I don't love the singing ("Simba" in particular is especially annoying). Maybe would be more up my alley if this were all instrumental - e.g. "Rhapsodia Del Maravilloso" is a highly enjoyable uptempo song highlighted by fantastic guitar playing. 2 stars for feeling like I can't rate it properly - just not my bag. 3/10 2 stars

Very listenable jazz, although a touch too "old-timey" jazz for me; I do feel like I should put on a suit and be smoking at a table in a black and white movie while this band plays in the background. I very much enjoy some (not that much) later period Miles Davis and can hear where he's heading with this collection, so it's interesting on that level in knowing the path he'd travel from here to something like Kind of Blue in just 8 or 9 years. 5/10 2 stars for excellent music history and I'd be good with putting this as background music but I prefer less boppy and more mysterious jazz.

I'm never sure how to feel about this album. I recall when it was released (aside from the "controversial" Money For Nothing track and state of the art video) frankly being terribly bored by it all. And listening to it again...part of me doesn't feel that much different. It's just so damned laid back and smooth, even on more uptempo songs like "Walk of Life." But then again, that's sort of what Dire Straits is (was). Can I really enjoy Making Movies that much more than this album, and if I really do was it only because this was hugely "popular" - so much so that 3 or 4 songs were absolutely unavoidable on radio for a year. Is this album that much different? It sort of feels that way to me - there's nothing inherently wrong with being commercial or poppy, and this album has that in abundance, especially in the first half (Side 1!). The positives though - "Money For Nothing" is an undeniably fantastic song; that main guitar riff is legendary and the extended haunting intro is perfect. And Sting you arrogant and talented bastard: you completely nailed it with the background vocals here (and of *course* got co-writing credit). "The Man's Too Strong" is my personal favourite; the powerful contrast between the acoustic backing and the heavy power chords in the chorus set a commanding mood. Dire Straits is a band that takes some time to sink in - in the end I do like this more than I used to, and perhaps the lesser-known second half a bit more than the poppier first. Overall the album *sounds* good - especially the guitar tones - although I do waver on that a bit as there is a very mid-80s sound to it. Again - not inherently bad at all (plenty of albums I like are very dated-sounding), but there's not anything like a timelessness about it that makes it rise up for me either. 6/10 3 stars - very listenable overall with a few big highlights but suffers from a sameness of sound that may either be 80s syndrome or simply über-Dire Straits.

Important in that it was the first major release featuring Janis Joplin - it is interesting to hear other songs aside from the big hit and eternal classic radio staple "Piece Of My Heart" It's not necessarily ground-breaking or mind-blowing though, which isn't necessarily a criticism, but after a while the blues-based songs take on a sameness - perhaps one that they've had all along. Good musicianship by the band though, that definitely comes through especially on tracks like "Oh, Sweet Mary." Enjoyable enough listen I suppose in some ways (as I waver between giving this 2 or 3 stars) but would this get a look/listen if it weren't featuring "Janis Joplin™" on vocals? Too many times I'm hearing this as "generic late 60s capable psychedelic blues hard rocking band" and throughout this album that's what you get i.e. it's not really one I'd ever think to immediately repeat once it's done. 5/10 3 stars.

I was in high school when this album came out and so heavily into hard rock and heavy metal that the idea of a fully synth-laden pop band was anathema to me at the time :) Having said that, this lead single (and as it turns out the only song I can even remember from the band) was not dismissed by me... because of *the video* - which everyone knows. And the reason that it was/is important is that the video was so damn compelling at the time that it got me to look past my stubborn narrow-minded music tastes at the time and just enjoy it for what it was and is - a truly great pop song - that's not a light statement: "Take On Me" is so perfectly constructed as to stay interesting and high-paced throughout its perfectly short-enough length. ...oh wait, there's more to this album? Unsurprisingly the album is very very 80s - the pulsing 16th note synth bass, layered keyboards, rigid electronic percussion, heavy reverbs. So yeah - it's dated. But it sounds good - it may not be my favourite genre but it's a highly melodic throwback with decent songs that is a fun 37 minute retro-ride. 7/10 3 stars.

Yes yes, as if this album hasn't been reviewed 3 million times already...ok ok ok top 10 album of all-time, highly influential, etc etc. So ... do I actually like it? No Beatles albums are anything less than interesting, even their (to me) very dated earliest material - this is where they started to get experimental, which is probably why as a little kid listening to some of these songs scared me a bit (musically the sitar freaked me out a bit; lyrically "Eleanor Rigby" especially was a trip - 'keeps her face in a jar' - the metaphor was way over my head). But...scary music sticks with you. Honestly, a fair number of the songs kind of bore me ("I'm Only Sleeping" and "Love You To") - but the best here are among the best songs....ever? "Good Day Sunshine" and "Got to Get You Into My Life" in particular are worthy of their fame. For me they got better after this, but this is the genesis of them steering away from their 50s influences (perhaps excepting "Here, There and Everywhere") and becoming the "weird Beatles" - which is my preference. 7/10 4 stars

Another band I wanted no part of during the late-80s; "don't even show me any moody synth-pop!" So... as has been the case in this exercise, I was actually excited to get it today and give it a re-listen. Right off the bat it's both a lot of what I expected and I ... kind of like it? My teen-filter never let me like Dave Gahan's voice at all but it's perfect for this music and the more I listen the more I like it. To be critical, the songwriting as a whole is fairly limited - there is a sameness to the songs once I start listening. But keeping positive, to me the band's strength is more in invoking a gloomy and dark mood instead which in an odd way is not necessarily a bad thing; almost like all these minor-key synth songs begin to wash over you and create more like a 45 minute experience rather than crafting quality "songs". I'm not sure I'd ever have strong cravings for this specifically, mostly because of the lack of great (or good?) songs... but if someone (including me) says "i'm feeling emo/sad and need to be alone for a while" I know the right album to put on. 5/10 3 stars

After literally 2 minutes my first (second, third, and...) thoughts are the same as some other oddly critically-praised albums on this list... I've always considered that so-called good music has to have one critical ingredient: *the music has to be good* - crazy concept. This first track is flat out unlistenable. Unimaginatively simple beat topped with a monotoned vocal throughout. Wait, did I say "first track?" - scratch that...apply to all tracks... It goes well beyond "I don't get this" for me - normally if I don't like something it's fine; there are more than a few I don't "get" or like but still can see how they might be influential but this... what I don't get here is why this is even on the 1001 list - it sounds like an undisciplined 8 year old from Birmingham got some primitive 808 machine and a microphone and was allowed to put this out. Not a particularly pleasing rapper - I'm not hearing anything interesting in the rhythm, it's toneless and bland, and altogether was a slog just trying to finish the album. Unlistenable. 1/10 1 star.

I like virtually everything about this album - complex jazz-rock songs that could end up boring but due to intriguing rhythmic breaks, sneaky time signature changes, unconventional chord progressions, and of course the added unpredictable melodies of Joni Mitchell's voice the songs keep moving in new directions at all times. What makes this work so well for me is that it's not even remotely all about Joni's voice - this is a collection of A+ level musicians, musicianship, and songwriting. The electric guitar playing (mostly Larry Carlton) is compelling, with elements of slide, country, and rock. But the technical stuff doesn't matter if it's not good, obviously. I don't think you have to be a musician to be intrigued by and in love with this album. Such a short duration (~37 minutes) actually works in its favour as well - you're done before you're ready which is always better than the alternative. I was mildly surprised to find that this was her highest-selling album [as a little kid in the back of the car I do recall hearing "Help Me" on the radio a lot!]; I would have expected "Blue" to be tops - this album was only 3 years removed from Blue and is so very different. I love Blue as well and yet I think I like this even a little more (and perfected in 2 yrs on her "Hejira") - the move into more of a jazzy territory and accompanied by more instrumentation really showcases the unique songwriting talent Joni had. While I don't know if I could say it's an album I'd always consider in my top 25 or whatever, for what it is it is fantastic: a well-produced smooth musical gem that shows off the best of talented early 70s elite of the music business and I'm never not fully taken in by it when I'm listening. 8/10 4 stars

Throwback to the 90s "Britpop rivalries" - I was originally more in the Oasis camp but as time has gone on even though Oasis may have a few singles that have higher peaks I think Blur is more listenable over the long haul (i.e. for an entire album). Tons of cool/odd melody on this album with a lot of British influences. "Tracy Jacks" could very well have been a deep-cut old-school Who song. There are some annoyingly-overly-British songs here (e.g. "Bank Holiday") but that's more my lack of preference for punky fast-paced chanting. Fortunately for any irritating moments they are either short or countered quickly; for example "Badhead" is a very mellow tune with some simple and nice guitar lines weaving throughout the song. Then they go from "Far Out" through "To The End" and "London Loves" - that trio typifies this surprisingly diverse and melodic slice of the 90s that for me was a welcome diversion from the angsty-Nirvana trend. 7/10 4 stars.

Dave Mustaine is a complete moron and giant asshole. Doesn't matter to the music but it needed to be said. onward... I wasn't too excited for this - I was very into hard rock in the 80s but the heaviest never appealed to me - I was a big Iron Maiden fan but their appeal was due to their melody and anthemic songs. Knowing Megadeth was an offshoot of Metallica (a band I've never liked) and in the thrash metal vein I'm not sure I ever explicitly listened to them, outside of the random video or someone else playing them. After the first song honestly the music is kind of cool in parts, but I'm definitely turned off by the growly vocals. And especially where Dave Mustaine sounds like James Hetfield is a big turn-off. "Peace Sells" is a fun throwback as that opening bass riff was the theme for MTV news back in the early 90s :) and "My Last Words" is frenetic in an early-Maiden kind of way, that's one I don't mind at all. But this is definitely not for everyone, and not really for me - "The Conjuring" is a good example of what I had expected: incredibly fast and precise thrashing, double kick-drums on display, quick tempo pivoting - really talented playing and musicianship. Overall not much constructive to say from my standpoint - I like it better than Metallica (low bar) and I can see why people would like this but I can't get into it. 3/10 2 stars

One of the few albums I'll ever increase a rating *because* of the vocals, because Björk is one of the most unique vocalists I've ever heard. This would simply be a completely different - and likely boring - album if any other person in the world was the vocalist. Hard to describe - it's not just her voice, it's in the way she sings the songs in a manner that's at times arrhythmic or disjointed, as if it were layered on top of the music as a separate entity. Which sounds like it wouldn't work, but it completely does. The music itself is mildly interesting and might not be on its own but after many listens (and to be fair I did have this album when it was released, so there have been many listens!) the music seems to become part of Björk. Meaning I can't imagine it not being joined at the hip with her vocals - it all just fits. I'm neither much of a dance nor electronic music aficionado but again - the voice jumps right out and grabs your ears and never lets go which for me makes this album transcend boundaries. It's unique and for that it's a keeper and worthy of classic status. 8/10 4 stars

Stevie Wonder rapidly approaching peak status here - the heavy use and layering of synthesizers and played in large part only by Stevie himself give it a looseness that crosses between soul, funk, and rock. Virtually everyone on earth knows who Stevie Wonder is and is at least passably familiar with at least a few tracks so there's not much intro to the artist needed here - "Superstition" is one of the all-time classic songs and is the clear gateway-drug for this record. "Tuesday Heartbreak" makes me think of summer vacation driving with the top down. "I Believe" is a great album closer - end credits vibe on this one - just a simple and perfectly catchy chorus. Although it does suffer from what a number of the other songs have... ...if there's a knock - and there is - I do find a fair few of these songs to ... just not quite be *there* yet. As if they could have spent 3 more months in the writing room before release - "Maybe Your Baby" sounds fantastic and starts well with a great groove but it stagnates and is just far too long. Many of the others are slow and hard to latch onto - slow in and of itself connotes neither negative nor positive but slow and at times meandering gets dangerously close to boring. So the classic Stevie sound has been established here and rating aside...this is an excellent listen - nearly keeper status. But to me this is just his launching pad for Hall of Fame status which would come literally months later with Innervisions. 7/10 4 stars.

First/second/third impressions are that this would be a blast to hear live in a smallish pub in Ireland - fun foot-stomping, get the crowd going a bit. On disc though? Doesn't hold much for me - the music is good but tends to get repetitive in sound/pattern and Shane McGowan on vocals gets....old. Recusing myself a bit as this likely has more of a cultural bent to it and they do sound talented but as a collection of songs to listen to I think I could do 2 or 3 at a time but as a full album it's not something I'm likely to return to. 4/10 2 stars.

Perhaps the right music if I were in a forest visiting Tom Bombadil for a weekend pipe-weed smoking getaway while hiding the One Ring. As I'm listening it's impossible to not imagine a number of hilariously-dressed flautists prancing around a stage while singers are skipping in different directions while gently tossing flower petals into the audience. Very much of the era (late 60s) and I had to try to dial in a wider acceptance rather than judge this in a standard pop/rock vein. Points for usage of many non-traditional (in a pop sense) instruments which is what I ended up trying to focus on. I really tried. But wow - this one is tough to get through. Very tough. Completely unfamiliar with the band before today, I had no expectations. After a few minutes I was hoping and wanted it to go off in a truly weird/fun/trippy direction (ala Gong) but instead just stayed odd in a tiresome way for me and went south from there. The vocals carry a nearly extreme cringe factor for me which makes this unrecoverable overall. I can't definitively say that "Three Is A Green Crown" is the worst song I've ever heard but I'm not going to argue with anyone who claims it. holy hell..... somebody put the wounded animal singing it out of its misery already. ...which only leads into "Swift As The Wind" ... oh. oh my. I've just come across their previously-hidden pre-production notes: "how can we make a song worse than having one wailing vocalist?" "......TWO wailing vocalists??" "genius." I'm resisting a reflexive "I really don't like this" because I was hoping upon a second listen I get it a little more but .... there's no way I can get through it again as it just kept getting worse and worse and yes: *I really don't like this.* 2/10 1 star.

Uncomplicated fun. James Brown is great to listen to, although this particular selection of songs isn't necessarily my favourite - being recorded in 1962 it has a huge 50s flair/sound to it and I'm not a big fan of that era (e.g. doowop) but nevertheless it's a highly enjoyable collection especially (mostly?) because it's live. And that intro is fantastic :) 6/10 3 stars - will never be a keeper for me but would reach for this again in the right setting.

As a kid I grew up listening to current rock which now happens to be "classic rock" - and sometime in the early 90s like a lot of my generation I got tired of nearly all of it (turn on any of 7-8 local FM stations anywhere and it's (still) the same 50-60 songs) and just never played a lot of it for a long time. Combine that with a move to Boston and living there for many years ... with the extra amount of Aerosmith played there in the late 80s/90s I grew to have a "holygodihatethisbandpleaseneverletmehearthemagain" attitude about them. ..... But holy crap I had forgotten - this is a goddamn great rock and roll album. Greasy, nasty, tight yet at the same time loosely played, ballsy riffs with unexpected chords and melodic vocals - it really jumped beyond blues-based rock into something far more interesting with surprising variety: the aggression of the title track, the Alice Cooper-like creepiness of "Uncle Salty" and the gorgeous melodies of songs like "No More No More" and "You See Me Crying" ... and I haven't even had to mention the two eternally monstrous hits of "Walk This Way" and "Sweet Emotion" - turns out when you voluntarily listen to them, and especially in context of the album, it helps you realize how good they actually are. :) Only thing keeping this album from a 5 star rating for me is the weirdly out-of-place drudgery of "Round and Round" - it's as if Spinal Tap went back in time and copped the worst of Black Sabbath. 5 lost minutes in an otherwise kick-ass collection. So the key is to just not listen to something for 20+ years - if it's good, it'll come back to you. 9/10 4 big stars

Two Depeche Mode records in two weeks?? My 20-yr old guitar-hero-worshiping self would be apoplectic. I really like it though; it's a great *sounding* album - great stereo spread - even if most of it is so painfully synthy. If there's any criticism, none of it *swings* at all; it's so on-the-grid and I'm sure at one point I would have hated that but that's the point. The songs are nothing overly complex, but they all sound so coldly clean that it makes them easy to digest and I've found it gets better upon repeated listens. Great moody and sorrowfully melodic album - I'll come back to this one. I love the obvious nod to Pink Floyd on the intro to "Clean" too! 7/10 4 stars

Not sure if I've ever voluntarily listened to Madonna before, other than Ray Of Light (which was really good). The big singles here are probably known by most everyone and in retrospect the title cut "Like A Prayer" is a pretty excellent song; I love the minor-key bridge - builds so well and finally resolves into the big final chorus. Just great. And "Love Song" was one I'd not heard before - Prince definitely makes a great collaborator on this and it's fun (if not a shade too long). "Till Death Do Us Part" is a nice-enough upbeat song.... "Dear Jessie" is an unexpected light melodic treat as well. But there is a pattern here - none of the tracks are even close to bad or objectionable, and the album *sounds* fantastic - you can really tell that a ton of time (i.e. money) was spent getting this to sound sonically great. They're all "nice" or easy enough to spend 4-5 minutes listening to but I can't ever envision being in the car or in the living room and suddenly think "yeah I have to listen to 'Cherish' or 'Express Yourself'" After that first track to me most of the album has a good melodic or dance mood but individually the songs don't grab me much overall. 5/10 3 stars

When I was 9 our local library had records available to borrow. Since The Who's "Tommy" was rudely already checked-out, I knew of The Kinks and saw "Sleepwalker" so grabbed it. I remember trying so hard to like it but didn't get them at all so sort of forgot about the band. Looking back, their hard rock phase was mostly pretty lame. Also around that time my older cousin for some reason had some serious hate for the band - "worst band ever!" so at that age you take that stuff seriously. Anyways I've never heard this album before so what the hell, let's give it a go... "Victoria" is just a great single - funny that I thought it was released much later than 1969; I must be familiar with the later live version. This has a very British sound to it (shocking, that, being that they're...you know.....). Being a huge fan of The Who I started hearing some similarities to the early Who period and ... um, this is better? Like...much better?? "Shangri-La" would sit comfortably as one of the best cuts on "Tommy" - easily. As hard as I've tried over the years to really like "Sell Out" by The Who (and if I'm honest most of their pre-Tommy albums), even just upon first listen of this album it's far superior in songwriting and recording. Concise, excellent variety not only between songs but often times within a song - the instrumentation is also endlessly interesting...e.g. harpsichord on "She's Bought a Hat..." and "Young and Innocent Days" ... the heavy "Brainwashed" which rocks with horns ... another song that sounds like The Who but better than The Who (if only the Kinks had sold this song to the Who it would have killed with those musicians) Upon second listen I'm understanding why Pete Townshend always praised this band. This is great. ...reeling, I am currently re-evaluating all my priorities and potential misconceptions in life. 8/10 4 stars

I have a fading but still distinct memory of being a little kid and for some reason up LATE on a Saturday night in the 70s - the tv was on in the living room (shag carpet + fireplace - obviously) and the much-whispered-about in 1st grade [but only ever actually seen by "Dennis" who was clearly at that time the class rebel (i.e. degenerate-in-training)] Saturday Night Live was on. I recall a very aggressive and odd looking guy singing emphatically and getting RIGHTUPTHISCLOSE to the camera. Of course this was Elvis Costello and his (in)famous appearance before being banned from SNL for years. This was not the Elton John or Queen I was used to listening to. And certainly not the Muppet Show. Fast forward a few decades when I re-arrived very very late to the Costello game - only within the last 15 or so years? And this was one I'd never heard before; I don't even know if I'd heard any of these in passing back in the early 80s - if any were in the MTV mix between Def Leppard and Rainbow I clearly don't remember. I wouldn't have been ripe for it. Right off the bat "Beyond Belief" brings a great haunting melody and I love the bass riffs into and through the fade out. Another quick standout is "Shabby Doll" which combines EC's crooner feel over a funky beat. My two personal faves. There's a fullness to the sound on this entire album - much bigger than his earlier raw material but defining it on its own merit it does sound fantastic. It's funny though, after liking it a lot over the first few songs I'm not sure my interest stayed at the same level. Historically I love big sounding huge mixes on albums. But I don't know if I love it for Elvis Costello? "...And In Every Home" is unquestionably well-crafted - with horns and strings, it sounds like something 3 levels above something off of Sgt. Pepper - but do I actually like it? It's ... fine. This song could have been better served by another band (early Kinks?) perhaps. I will say that the album closes really well - "Pidgin English" and "You Little Fool" especially really brought it back for me - some "familiar unexpected" EC musical choices within each of these songs. I feel like my rating is possibly premature - even though it didn't hit me overall, this is an ambitious album and absolutely showcases what a talent Costello is. I feel like this is one that might grow on a listener over time. Overall the album sounds really great, but I initially find that I really prefer the early rawness of EC's first few albums. For now it's in the "intriguing enough to give a few more spins" bin with other 3 star ratings... 7/10 3 stars.

Things I was doing in 1995: - playing a lot of NHL '94. - touring with a band in the back of a van around the northeastern US. - eating poorly. - holding down a tech support job during the day which funded the rest of said list. Things I was not doing in 1995: listening to pop/punk. So I missed this one although kind of surprising considering how embedded I (thought I) was into the current music scene, almost by necessity. I do like the songs "Alright" and "Time To Go" - nice melodies - the keys on Alright are a nice instrumental change-up and Time To Go is a great pace slowdown from the rest of the album but on the whole it is not in my wheelhouse, being fast-paced shouty punk-ish music. I'll give a nod to the fact that it's much more melodic than I might have expected but its never-ending frenetic pace is just too much for me. This one I can see how others would like but not my cup of tea (tea very much a pointed analogy. they're British? get it? of course you do.). 4/10 2 stars.

I've been appreciating Britpop a lot more of late - no doubt due to this fantastic 1001 exercise. In general - and Pulp here absolutely follows suit - there is such an emphasis on melodic progressions which I am a sucker for. For this Pulp album, songs like "Mis-shapes" and "Disco 2000" just ring out with irresistible sing-song melodies - so much that I like and appreciate about song structure is wrapped up in these. Yet...I find that my problem with Pulp is not necessarily Jarvis Cocker's voice, it's perhaps his manner of singing on many of the songs ("I Spy") that can prove ...difficult? - actually it's the combination of style and lyrics, and as a listener who finds that lyrics should serve as a "get in & get out of the way" piece rather than sitting right up top as the main focus, they're FAR too often a distraction. The verses in "F.E.E.L.I.N.G.C.A.L.L.E.D.L.O.V.E" annoyed me so much - dry right-up-in-your-head vocals but once the song kicks in I like it - so what the hell am I supposed to think about this? The weird lyrics to "Underwear" kinda wreck what I love about the music in this song. I'm going to have to give this another few spins - as of now 3 stars but almost disappointing; I feel like this album wasthisclose to being great for me. Freaking lyrics, man... 6/10 3 stars

Wherein Bruce's dad gets a new camera for the holidays and says "Kid! Stand over there by the damn closet so I can try this out" and Bruce uses it as the album cover. ??? I heard so much of this as a kid, then got into a phase where I didn't want to hear his voice at all, but even if I still felt that way there is so much more to these songs - Springsteen had a way of putting a song together musically that sounded simple (read: accessible) but had enough twists and turns and use of dynamics to keep a music dork (mea culpa) hearing something new upon each listen. There's little point trying to argue that (most of) these aren't great songs. The combination of the joyous melodies ("Badlands" - those triumphant keys, soaring sax, and galloping drums) and - ok i'll admit it - the lyrics make for classic American music. The only miss for me is "Adam Raised A Cain" - droning and repetitive. There was a time I didn't give 2 shits about anything he did and even though I do enjoy it far more now, it's not music that gives me chills. That's not a knock that he'll never be a favourite but he sure could write a tune and sometimes that alone is the right play and hits just right. 7/10 4 stars

Because I was a kid in the 70s, I watched Hee Haw every time I was at my grandma's house because, well, it was the law. I pretty much digested anything I heard in those days which in retrospect is a pretty great way to start your life don't you think? No preconceived notions, no prejudices, no concept of modern vs old vs popular vs obscure. Oh - Buck Owens was one of the stars of Hee Haw, hence my 12 second autobiography. I'd say soon after - sometime in the late 70s - my personal tastes locked heavily in to rock music and I probably didn't hear a country song outside of a K-Tel commercial for...decades. Honestly I can't properly rate this - as much as it's nostalgic to think of being ~6 and watching terrible shows like HeeHaw...I just can't really appreciate this - I play guitar; I know I can't play slide or pedal remotely like they can on this album, and so give huge credit to the musicianship - but there's a laconic sameness to all of it that I doubt I can ever get into. I'll give it 2 stars for name recognition and apologies to country lovers... 5/10 2 stars.

Confession: first time I'd ever heard "Bang A Gong" it was the Power Station cover, c1985. Since then I've heard the original a few thousand times - it's fine. It's fine. Just like the rest of the album. It's all fine. I suspect if I had been a teenager in 1971 when this came out I'd have loved it - the simple driving beats, 4 chords, accessible and simple melodies. It's just that I've heard it all so many times, and frankly ... I've heard better. I will say that I'd bet these songs would be really good live - ample room for good musicians to jam and expand the sound. It's tough to gauge something that may have been rather ground-breaking for the time which I know a lot of people hold this as, so I allow a little deference there. But.... is/was it so groundbreaking? Are these anything that early Kinks or Stones wouldn't trounce into the ground musically? I read that this is the "beginning of glam rock" but is that actually a genre or because Marc Bolan started wearing glitter? Absolutely nothing bad in here, and might get a knowing nod from me if I heard it out somewhere, but it's like a Ritz cracker with no topping. Oh, if you desperately need something to eat it'll do, but I'd really like some good cheese on top. Or frankly - a better cracker. 4/10 2 stars.

I'm not really a modern-pop fan. It's not necessarily terrible, it just too often bores me. But I want to know everything :) so this was more than welcomed. It doesn't take long to really ... figure it out. More clichés than a Bon Jovi album, no adventurous or even unexpected musical turns, and is TSwift really a great - or good - singer? She *might* be - she does have a very nice/pleasant voice, but something that I notice at least in this collection is that she's not an *adventurous* singer at all (not necessarily in range, but in rhythm and taking many chances) but boy is she - and this album - produced within an inch of its life. It really is the equivalent of pixy sticks - remember those? A paper straw literally filled with flavoured sugar. You never get full, as you're sucking it down it's admittedly enjoyable, but like when you're getting the last of the sugar... almost immediately after the next song starts...I can't really remember much about the previous one. I will note two standouts: "Shake It Off" is one that's known even by me and dammit, it's good. TS gives something extra in this one - something about the rhythm of the lyrics and the way she delivers the lines, and just the absolute catchiness of it - it's a great pop song - period. "This Love" immediately stuck out to me as the best song on the album because it's really the only one that doesn't sound like many of the others - a really nice mellow feel based around a simple guitar pattern. I'd like more of these - I feel like 3 songs in this vein would have boosted my overall enjoyment of the album. With zero evidence :D I feel like this album people will either love it or slam it because it's the *most simple* of pop. I feel like both can be true at the same time. Maybe that's a good thing. As a music producer myself, I've found myself listening to each song a few times trying to figure out how some of the uber-smooth vocal techniques are done, it's quite enjoyable on that level and for me just edges it into 3 star territory. But the simplicity of the 4 chords songs just runs a little thin after a while - I could do a few songs - say, an EP - of this just gets a little long to go through the full album. One positive is that even though I know she's the biggest star on the planet I'm actually unfamiliar with most of her music and I'm curious to hear where she's gone after this. 5/10 3 stars

Weirdly difficult for me to rate. I have this possibly overly-unrealistic dislike of Eric Clapton - I feel like his solo work was and is absolute trash and the worst of lazy-middle-of-the-road so-called "rock." Also seems like a right dingus. But. I admit Cream were different - I'll give Jack Bruce all the credit to make myself feel better. "Sunshine of Your Love" is a classic that everyone knows (although the lyrics are just dumb dumb dumb but who cares) and overall there is a unique and probably for the time groundbreaking sound they had. "Tales of Brave Ulysses" is hilarious/ridiculous lyrically (wtf?) and boy did Clapton like that kind of chord progression but it's a great tune - this is one of my favourites by them. In a number of songs you can hear what I assume is Ginger Baker (drums) shouting out changes which gives those tunes a cool live-in-the-studio effect. But "sound" only goes so far, and too many of these songs are just....snoozers. "Blue Condition" sounds like a bunch of guys who were up drinking for 24 hours against their will and told to record RIGHT NOW. "We're Going Wrong" is about as accurate a song title as is on the album. I realize this is considered a classic and it's fun to hear a few of these songs again after a while but it's not something I can listen as a whole any more - Cream is an excellent "Greatest Hits" kinda band for me. Most of the songs here are just dull. 5/10 2 stars

I've always thought the Pet Shop Boys' singer sounded like a gentle and kindly old British muppet heavily processed with compression and reverb. The album? It's...well, it's not so bad, really - but overall is this really one of the so-called 1001 must-hear albums? I don't know enough about synth/dance music to fully appreciate why this might be revolutionary or impactful - it's a nice album. Yes, it's nice. In a pleasant dreamscape kind of way - it's light and airy and smooth. And that might cover the positives and negatives for me. Same keys and synthetic percussion sounds throughout, which makes it in a lot of ways run like a 53 minute song in multiple movements - no singular points are so recognizable or memorable as to have me humming them later. Still....I have listened to it twice today. I think in the end it really is background music for me - great to work to! I give way too many 3 star ratings but if the synth fits... 5/10 3 stars.

I really like this album. "Time Of The Season" has almost become a standard by now, and like so many others I grew up hearing it and almost ignoring it. I may be old but 60s rock for the most part bores me, so when I was given this album probably 20 years ago and told to listen to it I didn't think I'd enjoy it much. Wrongwrongwrong. Right off the bat the melodic "Care of Cell 44" starts the album right; a comically weird song about someone writing to their partner in jail. The 90s band Jellyfish is one of my favourite bands of all-time and this song *is* Jellyfish 25 years early. Jumps right into the song after a very short intro; killer vocal harmonies in the chorus - brilliant. The rest of the album follows suit with melodic twists and turns and although its unmistakable echos of 60s arrangements (a little too reverby, prevalent strings, etc) are a little too much on a personal taste level, there's so much to like on this record that it's a keeper. A few dips (e.g. "Changes" and "Butcher's Tale" aren't favourites) but nothing immediately skip-worthy. And to finish off, the aforementioned "Time Of The Season" is a great album closer and I've found I appreciate it's slinky creepiness much more in the album context than I ever had before. 8/10 4 stars

Trippy. How do you even characterize an album like this? Smooth, airy, haunting... usage of percussion loops, acoustic guitars, mellow layered vocals, various environmental sound effects. I definitely don't like everything, e.g. - the spoken word/raps (e.g. "Pilgrim") don't connect with me and I'm probably just not used to that quarter-tone eastern melody style which is used a lot here ("Anthem Without Nation"). This isn't rock music by any stretch - I still don't know what to call it (electro-easter-jazz-rap?) but the best bits sure were/are interesting and for every turn I don't love [sadly most of the vocal parts especially later in the album] it comes back to maybe jazz piano ("Tides") or breakbeats ("Serpent") that I get into. I don't like it enough to call it a keeper but I could listen to (most of) this again. 6/10 3 stars.

My first introduction to Belle & Sebastian was when Jack Black came into my record shop in Chicago singing "Jacob's Ladder" from Rush's Permanent Waves (which would be an automatic 5 stars stop the presses if it were in this top-1001 list which it damn well should be holy hell who put this list together anyways) and in mid-Lifeson-solo he stopped and asked me, and I quote, "holy shiite - what the fuck is that?" and I told him it's the new B... crap, no, that wasn't me. But still, that really was my first exposure to this old sad-bastard music and maybe I wasn't (yet?) an old sad bastard so I didn't hear them again for years. First off, let's put out there that Stuart Murdoch's vocals are tough. I'm not saying bad, I repeat: tough. My formative years were cut on either screechy, loud, or faux-macho (or sometimes all three) LEAD SINGERS, not the introverted sort that are what B&S is almost exclusively about. Now that's exactly what took me a long time to "get" and then - yes - like this group. They are introverted. They're introspective. And the music itself is kindasorta perfect for his voice. Or it may be the other way around. I just had a funny thought of David Lee Roth being tasked with singing for this band. I suspect these songs would sound pretty much exactly the same live in your living room, if any such weird occurrence like the band showing up at your house happened. The sound is small, dry, tight, and filled with haunting major 7ths and minor chords, all with a bit of polite emo vocals over and in-between it all. I love the melodies and although it's a stretch to call any of it exciting, it really sticks with you and upon repeat listens gets better and better. This album fits and is a particular mood and setting. That setting is kinda up to you but I'm thinking Saturday morning pouring rain, drinking coffee - just staring out a window somewhere in the Scottish Highlands. I would go for that right now in a second. Keeper. 7/10 4 stars

I don't want it darker. I want it to be better. Jesus H Christmas...he sounds like I do when I mumble to my dog in the dark when she wakes me up too early in the winter.... AH wait! There's the "darker" part! I respect that a fair set of people consider Leonard Cohen to be a visionary genius and I'm in no position to refute this - perhaps he is ... in the written word. But holy hell, I'd 100% rather give a shot to reading a book of his poetry rather than listen to this gravel dump truck set to song; and even if I could get by the vocals... the music itself I find dull and unimaginative. Hard no. 2/10 1 star.

I loved the opening notes of this album - I was thinking I was going to really enjoy this.... and then the vocals started. Sigh. Getting tired of vocals ruining so many records on this list. I feel like I've written this so many times but for me vocals will almost never ever make an album but they sure as shit can wreck one. Could use a solid week of instrumental albums after this and Methuselah Leonard Cohen. No constructive review here - I am not really fond of listening to most things in the punk realm, so I couldn't say this is horrid trash (e.g. Velvet Underground, Le Tigre, FatBoy Slim - I question life itself when hearing those) and if punk is your thing, this is probably gonna be highly-rated. ... I suppose if anything positive here...the music is actually pretty good? Kinda? Maybe? Yay? no it's ok to admit it: I hate this. 3/10 1 star

My second early-Kinks album in the past few weeks ("Arthur"). Not wanting to repeat too much but it's another very-British sounding collection - I do like it, but not as much as "Arthur" which came a few years after this. I think my earlier Kinks comment applies here, making comparisons to The Who. I'm wishing the Kinks had sold a whole bunch of their tunes to The Who - who I grew up a huge fan of, but if I'm honest only had a very short peak of greatness. Imagine Moon/Entwistle/Townshend crushing these tunes - would have been something... Anyways - I can hear a lot of where they'd end up over the next few years in this one; "David Watts" is a great opener - the album does fade quite a bit in the 2nd half, with lack of energy but "Waterloo Sunset" is a lovely closer. I think that second half contributes to me feeling like overall it's not too edgy or aggressive which an extra dose of overall would have pushed this up a notch for me, but it's a solid 3 - a nice example of good early British pop-rock. 6/10 3 stars.

The so-called "first rock opera?" - I thought I'd be down for this but....ehh? So I didn't want to leave a lame review like the above but so why is, say, "Tommy" (which apparently these guys thought was at least somewhat cribbed from them...ok...) so much better? Not really fair of me to compare the two since I've heard Tommy about 400 times in my life and this exactly once, today. If I had to hazard a guess, there's no anchor - there's no obvious central musical theme, and/or no "killer single" - just a bunch of very psychedelic-sounding nice enough songs, some have some really nice harmonies (e.g. "The Journey"), but it's honestly hard to really remember any of them. i.e. where's the album's "Pinball Wizard" or "Tommy Can You Hear Me?" I might need a few more listens to fully digest the story/opera part and I suppose I could since I didn't dislike it...but I kinda don't want to. Just a touch above boring as an album. Maybe a good long 17 minute epic would have tied everything together, but to be fair that's not so easily well-done. Speaking of which, I'll head over to my copy of "Supper's Ready..." 5/10 2 stars.

Listen - MJ was a musical icon for good reason and the duo of "Off the Wall" and "Thriller" are deserving of accolades. I don't know how much percentage credit to give Quincy Jones for those, but it doesn't matter - those are great pop/soul/dance records with timeless songs (even the cheesy ones, I'd argue). But this is just.... ok honestly, if this wasn't "Michael Jackson™" would it have been so big? He probably could/would have released Metal Machine Music V2 and sold 15 million after people waited for the follow-up to Thriller. I like his voice, but despite the 1987-slick production this music is just so terribly weak overall - "Man In The Mirror" is kinda good I suppose. But call it as it is: this album is appropriately titled. Bad, indeed. 3/10 2 stars

I've of course heard *of* Jay-Z but have never heard a song by him, so this is perfect - let's go.... My initial impressions over the first two songs were - ehhh I like the music, I don't love the rapper/rap-style. Just didn't click - there's an aggressive monotony that I don't "get" but the third track "Izzo" is great. Jay-Z does a great job rhyming and it's really the rhythm of his rap here which is catchy as hell. More of this please. I don't know...this is a tough one to rank after only listening once - I feel like there's such a density here that I missed a ton, BUT - most of the time the music is the real attraction here. Great sampling and the production is top-notch. Overall though there's a lot of hit and miss for me - the aforementioned "Izzo" "Hola Hovito" and "Heart of the City" (last one really/mostly for the sampled original song) and "Blueprint" are my standouts but as an album it didn't have enough to make me mark it as a keeper. i.e. wouldn't reject it if it were on but probably wouldn't voluntarily listen again. 5/10 3 stars

ehhh... A case where the singles are unsurprisingly and not excitingly the best songs on the album ("Sunshine Superman" and "Season of the Witch" are good...although it's possible I'm having some confirmation bias since these are the songs I know) - the rest is ... well, painfully dated. I guess there's nothing wrong with that but rather than a group of good songs it sounds more like a pastiche of what the late 60s were supposed to sound like. Yay here's some psychedelia ... I could picture many of these as background music to any Austin Powers movie. Also the lack of stereo knocks it down a bit more in listenability for me. 3/10 2 stars.

After two songs I thought I was disappointed - there seemed to be nothing special or exciting or different about them, just kind of boring faceless early 80s rock that washed over me. So my mind drifted as the album went on... ...and somewhere perhaps in "The Twilight Hour" I realized something had been clicking for a while. "Soul Mining" started and immediately grabbed me - haunting, different, exactly what I wanted from this album. So let's start this album over and see what I missed... And I did miss a lot. Actually the first track "I've Been Waiting For Tomorrow" *is* different and with the heavily 80s gated aggressive drum beat starting things off it grabs you - I must have been in a peanut butter haze my first time around on this one. Another highlight is "Uncertain Smile" - I don't know how I glossed over the awesome piano in it the first time - the super long extended solo/break is fantastic. So. I'm on my third spin of this one today. And while I haven't been able to get into everything - e.g. "The Sinking Feeling" doesn't really connect with me (yet?) - and will probably only give this a 3...I wonder if this one will rise over time. 7/10 3 stars.

Forget Jeff Beck for a minute or two - this album is a good reminder for me that Rod Stewart actually had a (very) small period where he absolutely killed it. It's kinda important to bring up Rod because this is absolutely as much his album as Beck's; it's almost akin to if Led Zeppelin I had been billed as "Jimmy Page" (who plays on one song here) and in a lot of ways I like this album more. Mostly because Jimmy Page's guitar playing occasionally irritates me as Beck was (is) a more interesting player to me; I think as a guitar player I enjoy his sound/tones quite a bit and on this album he runs the gamut from wailing on "Shapes of Things" to gentle acoustic on his rendition of "Greensleeves" and generous wahwah double tracking on "I Ain't Superstitious." And back to Rod Stewart ... maybe I'm focused on him because in the 80s he was ubiquitous for his milquetoast and lame songs/singing, so to hear him as the young rock god here is not only refreshing but he actually saves a lot of otherwise boring songs ("Ol' Man River", "Blues Deluxe") Overall there is a little too much slow blues for my tastes but getting beyond the occasionally dull songwriting Beck's playing (and definitely Stewart's vocals) saves the show when needed. And even though most of the best songs are covers, this is a great album not only for its time but a keeper which features a number of legendary musicians all hitting their peak. 8/10 4 stars

Booker T (organ) was 17 when they recorded this. 17. So the title track has been so ubiquitous throughout my life that it almost feels like it's not a "real" song - just a theme that people hum from time to time. That's not to say it's not great - it is - it's just so known to me that I was curious to hear the rest of this album. It's pretty decent. Yeah it's...ok. I don't know, maybe it's just....meh? So I did some reading - the band were one of the first integrated bands which is really cool so I get that impact and is definitely important. And it's an easy listen - good playing, especially for 1962 - but for me is decent background music and not too much more. I'll give it 5/10 for cultural impact and it probably would have had a MUCH bigger impact on me had I been alive for it at the time. 5/10 3 stars

A fun throwback to my immediate post-college years, this album is nothing complicated but filled with immediately catchy pop-rock songs in the vein of early-ish Goo Goo Dolls. The album gets going right off the bat with "Rockin Stroll" and those first four songs in particular are great. My personal favourite is "Rudderless" in that it stays relatively contained until that very end double time chorus gives a great release. If there's a negative, Evan Dando's voice gets a little tiresome for me (would have liked Juliana Hatfield to sing a few tunes - would have made this album even better, mixing it up a bit) but the good thing is that it's a short album :) that closes with a banging cover of "Mrs. Robinson." Again - nothing specialized but highly recommended. 7/10 4 stars (ranked based on the original release. I'm not a fan of the "extended" album / demos - so if you're in the same boat stop playing after "Mrs. Robinson" (Apple Music))

OK here's another group i've heard so much about but I don't know if I've ever listened to - was far too much into guitar rock at the time but *wow* I missed out on this. Or maybe I wasn't ready - but this is the kind of hip-hop I love. Should I even categorize it merely as hip-hop? Because forget the rap for a minute - the first thing I'll ever notice on any album is the music and the music *KILLS* here. It's impossible to not move to the opening track "Excursions" - there's a hard jazz element with heavy drum loops (no 808s - and although these are samples they sample the real deal which IMO is always better. Always.) and the album never lets up at all. The music mostly isn't loud and in your face, but at the same time it propels and is never dull. I want to hear and see them performing this entire album with a full band - I can hear it translating brilliantly. Moving to the actual vocals I *love* the attack of multiple rappers (and as big a Public Enemy fan I am, and Chuck D is the best, Flav is a sideshow...) - it works so well on every song - including the guest spots (e.g. "Show Business"). I think my favourite aspect of the rapping is how rhythmic they are - accentuating, complimenting, and becoming *part* of the music - so much more than a ton of modern hip-hop that I just haven't been able to connect with. It's hard for me to find a favourite, but some other standouts are "Verses From The Abstract" "Check the Rhime" and "Jazz." Tribe feel like a BAND on every track here, rather than rapping over a beat - it's an integrated experience. This defines cool in every way and I'm psyched to add this to my collection - if there's any negative, it seems to tail off on the last few tracks - nothing bad, just loses a little steam. But the highs are so good that for only the second time in ~150 albums I've gone in completely blind and come out looking at 5 stars... 9/10 5 stars.

Look. There's no review on Dylan or this very very famous album that is gonna be new anywhere. Dylan...the great(est?) American songwriter, revolutionary, etc etc etc. Oooh he went electric... I just don't enjoy the songs. It's that simple. I know there are great messages and symbolism in here. I do. Just that for me music is music first and this ... eh, it really strains my ears to listen to the blues or folk with that harmonica just wailing (screeching) over and over and endlessly. It's not even so much his voice - that seems a tired critique although I get that too. Hey I like a lot of Dire Straits and Mark Knopfler sounds eerily similar to Dylan. "Rainy Day..." is funny in a novelty sense (in fact as a kid I thought it *was* a novelty song for years) but I only need to hear it once a year. Anyways - it's the music. It's laconic, repetitive, and dull and sure I'll hear you out if you tell me if i were alive and a teenager in 1966 this would have blown my mind and I believe you. I'll even be fine if I come to your house and it's playing: "oh hey! Blonde on Blonde! cool. ... got any Rush?" See also: Leonard Cohen. Not my bag. Pass. 4/10 2 stars.

Yeahhhh now this is some old-timey music that still crushes it. I've had some 60s folk/singer-songwriter albums of late which have been ... eh. For a most-recent example and in a musical vein that is sort of similar: I'm not a fan of Bob Dylan - maybe he could turn a phrase and accurately tap into the young mood of the time but his music just wasn't very good - almost like a quick basic template for him to write poetry over. Dylan's music for me pales to this - CSN's first album is different and you know it right off the bat - this isn't going to be 40 minutes of basic blues-based V-IV-I progressions. What I love most is that although CSN were all singers, and each excellent (those harmonies are worth the admission), these songs are legit and would be good even without the great vocals. Which is everything. Variety! Progressive rock - folk - straight up rock... often with unpredictable progressions and chord voicings ("Guinevere" is an example that's hard to categorize - lush and strange harmonies over unresolving guitar melodies) It's admittedly hard for me to be objective to music that I've heard for decades - some of these songs are just all-time world classics. Seems facile to say "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes" (I thought it was "Sweet Judy Blue Eyes until I was a teenager) is one of my favourites since it's so ubiquitous but it really is that great. It's essentially 3 songs in one - it's Yes before Yes were Yes. But better (and coming from a Yes fan, this). There are some points where the album slows up a bit but I think it may add to the album, giving it all an ebb and flow. "Long Time Gone" as a near-final track is as hard rock as rock could be in 1969 with soft voices and (mostly) acoustic guitars. Overall this is an indispensable album - a template of the best music of its time and holy hell this is a freaking *debut* album. Top notch. 9/10 5 stars

Leading with this to make a belaboured and petulant yet important point: Morrissey is a pitiful racist shit-for-brains asshole. now then... Morrissey was the stereotypical epitome of mopey British whiny music that I thought I loathed while I was in high school. It's likely that outside of a lousy party or three I'd never listened to more than 4 straight minutes of The Smiths. But seeing as high school was a long time ago :P maybe this means I'm now a whiny British mope? Or at least I'm able to see past the vocals because what is wrong with me...I'm now starting to enjoy The Cure and Depeche Mode and...this first song kinda kicks ass? "The Queen is Dead" and apparently so are my previously-held musical blocks because this is a great song. There's so much more variety than I'd expected on this album - the first two cuts move along nicely and then "I Know It's Over" starts in and just when you think it might be a little too slow and dull, there's just the right musical touch - the string lines, a faint clean guitar riff - that adds the perfect colour and takes the song to the next level. Other standouts for me: "Never Had No One Ever" is haunting and "Cemetry Gates" has some tremendous guitar work. I definitely overlooked this band to my detriment - the music is melodic and sad (predictable, that) and quite lovely, and for the most part the oddly-coiffed goose-stepper behind the mic doesn't sound too bad on many of these although he definitely goes off the rails or just grows tiring on a few for me. In particular the final two "There Is A Light That Never Goes Out" and "Some Girls..." would have been better without him, or maybe just different lyrics. All in all, pretty enjoyable and enlightening. Morrissey can still get stuffed with a well-done steak though. 7/10 3 stars

That's a cool album cover. Oh the music? Another one going in fully blind on as I know nothing about the Yeah Yeah Yeahs and I like the way it starts with "Zero" - but (and I'm typing as the song ends) I'm wondering if the entire album is going to be this similar up-tempo electronic dance vibe. Which would be fine but is it going to bore me over the better part of an hour....? One thing that immediately grabbed me halfway through is the actual *tone* and *sounds* of the (plentiful) synths - they're great. "Soft Shock" has that deep and full/growly bass that really sounds fantastic. I like a lot of electronic music but making electronic music *be* a rock band often loses something for me. And I feel a little of that early on here, even if each song on its own is pretty good....but - as it turns out I found myself already pre-judging the record because after 4 pretty decent studio songs the next batch starting with "Dull Life" completely changes it up and this record feels more...alive. I found there was a definite ebb and flow in my interest over the album - e.g. I wasn't not that into "Dragon Queen" which was where I'd feared the album might go and it does peter out a bit for me near the end, i.e over the last 4 songs. Will this album stand up for me over repeated listens? I'm hoping it does - there were no songs that immediately jumped at me to give me chills but it also seems a little wrong to only give this a 3 as there's more variety than I ever expected and although the song construction isn't anything revolutionary, the production does push it into more-interesting territory. Call it a 3.5. 7/10 3 stars

This is kind of hilarious. Definitely not my standard kind of music at all but I .... weirdly enjoyed it? Not just a little reminiscent of Stompin' Tom Conners. The "Ramblin'" part is what makes it for me - it's totally silly listened through a modern lens...his low-key folksy chatting to the audience before each song as he's strumming a few chords... but I think that's what draws me in. Probably wouldn't like much more of this and definitely not a repeat spin but for a quick half-hour it's worth the simple and fun look back at raw mid-20th century country-folk. 7/10 3 stars

Ages ago as a teenager I once walked out of a Judas Priest concert early - they had a concert in town that for some forgotten reason was postponed 2 or 3 times and by the time they showed up in town apparently they couldn't sell tickets. Or even give them away. A friend of a friend was "working security" and snuck two of us in the back door of the arena (hey, free concert why not) so we were 2 of maybe 4000 in a cavernous hockey arena. Stayed for maybe 7 or 8 songs and it got a bit much - eh, I was much more judgey about music back then, it was free after all - I should have stayed dammit (but I thought it sucked). Sometimes timing is everything when listening to music. Because this morning after some (fine!) folk albums and a few rainy days blasting tunes like "Breaking the Law" was absolutely perfect. Unfortunately JP was/is always like the watered-down version of a lot of their (better, IMO) peers like Maiden, Dio/Sabbath, etc. They were a little more AC/DC without the humour than their (more-talented) British peers but that is high compliment to the best songs here (including "Living After Midnight" "Metal Gods" and "You Don't Have to Be Old to be Wise") which are pretty fun. I actually don't much like Judas Priest overall - Priest were definitely more of a Greatest Hits type band but I can objectively give this a solid 3 for having some of those hits here. This album is a good representation of those times of simple heavy rock (bridging between rock and metal) - the best cuts are definitely enjoyable. 6/10 3 stars

Always wanted to delve into Rufus Wainwright (who I always call "Adam" in my head. Baseball.) and my immediate reaction here is that the first song should be the album closer :D - it's a challenging intro, leading off with "Agnus Dei" - this being my idea of Thom Yorke given the assignment of leading a cathedral congregation in a Latin dirge for 5 minutes. It's not *not* impressive - just ... well, listen to it. Once the album gets started properly with "The One You Love" the Thom Yorke comparison really holds for me; the voice and manner of laconic singing. But there's a lot going on here - a few odd chord turns that really make me sit up and take notice. "Little Sister" and "The Art Teacher" are the early standouts for me on this album - one a complex layered orchestration and the next mostly just vocals and piano (with a subtle/tasteful horn part) - the latter feels like it could have fit comfortably on Elton John's self-titled 1970 album. That said, this album is probably not gonna be for everyone and is a little tough in spots but the music for me is really intriguing - complex, lush, very very melodic. It's not easily digestible. I like that. Dammit I feel like I give everything a 3 - because of the density of this one, I think it's hard to get a real feel for the album with 1 or 2 spins. But the talent, diversity, and thought that clearly went into this recording for me make me push this to 4 - I feel like I'm anticipating eventually liking this album more than I already do right now :) 8/10 4 stars

eh. I was looking forward to this one and I like the way it starts off. Appropriately enough..."Intro" - seemed to want to set up the album in a mysterious way... ...but this album doesn't *go* anywhere. It's like a demo version of collected soft Interpol B-sides with terrifically soft (weak?) vocals. And it just kept going like that. And going. It's melodic enough for sure, but it absolutely never swings at all. And I guess there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But there was also nothing at all that ever caught me; dammit, I just wanted it to $#%!ng kick at any time. Just once! But these vocals man... "Infinity" - now there's an appropriate title - *give it up* already. Too bedroom-emo-mumbly for me to like. Frankly it sounds like a demo and to be honest this one was frustrating as hell for me because rather than outright hate it (like I do with a band like Pixies or gd Velvet fng Underground) I kind of feel that most of these songs could or would or should be really good! ...if recorded by another band. 3/10 2 stars.

Exactly the kind of album I would not have listened to for much of my life and is the benefit of this exercise. Big band / jazz singing was something I really didn't appreciate (like) growing up so this is a relatively new genre for me... ...but who hasn't heard of Ella Fitzgerald? I think the thing I appreciate most right way is how good this sounds - 1959?? Getting a full orchestra sounding this good and clear while blending with Ella's perfect voice had to be a crazy challenge. I'm usually more turned off than on by singing but her voice is truly perfect - there's a clarity and casual vibe to the way she sang that could probably never be taught - how do you learn to lay back on the beat like this and yet nail it so perfectly? It would be an insult to call her singing effortless but therein lies the genius talent I suppose, that she sounds like she could have been told "Ella! quick, sing this song" and she would have cut it on a first take then been on her way. And perhaps that casual-yet-perfect delivery is the reason that millions of people thought/think they could sing like her. (where's my mother-in-law...? ha) Now... the entire album is 3 hours long. Hello. Wayy too much. Then again, where am I gonna go - I'm listening on work time and this is actually perfect working music. I'm not focused on lyrics so it's more the entire sound that washes over me in a much more enjoyable way than I'd have thought... as a negative, on the rare occasion that I do end up hearing the lyrics they're a bit...goofy? I don't like it much at all - but it's the era, I get that, so I'll not knock Gershwin - just grading on Ella and the band here. Not really a genre I love but this is one of the most famous and celebrated singers in American history; for those like me it's a necessary education/addition to the list and has been an excellent listen. I feel like I'm giving this a bit of a legacy rating - even though I'm unlikely to listen to the album again, I enjoyed it more than I expected (again not grading the lyrics so much which for me are best-ignored) and to get by the mammoth running time of this I could see making a (much) shorter "best of" this best of for a personal compilation. 7/10 4 stars

Apple music marks this as "funk" - which...it is not. Categorizing music often isn't easy so how to categorize? I've seen "Afrobeat" which, ok. World+jazz+fusion maybe? For the most part this is simultaneously easy to listen to (passive listening) yet complex enough to actively dig in and appreciate the music and musicians on an individual level. My personal issues with it are that most of the songs just go on too long and soon become repetitive which that alone kind of knocks this down a peg for me - it's not the length alone that gets me, but each of these could probably have been cut down to around 4 minutes. All in all I like the music but it simply got a little tiring. 5/10 3 stars

I do love the music. The "skits" are totally grade-10 juvenile stuff but still provide some interest - to a point - in making this feel like an album rather than a collection of songs. His voice/vocal style and lyrics are tough, though. Real tough. There's this urgent-sameness to his vocals that I do not love at all on the most uptempo songs. And as much as I try to - and mostly do - ignore lyrics, they're just .... ehh. Way too much gangster for me and at some point it's like...come on. Rating wise i'd have given this a 4 for the music/production but the vocals/lyrics completely submarine it as a fun listening experience for me - after the first handful of cuts I was ok with it but holyhell by the end I was desperate for this to be over. 3/10 2 stars

I'm conflicted on this one. On the positive side - I like a lot of Sly & The Family material, and in general love a lot of early 70s funk/rock. So there's an immediate connection here. But... I've never been able to get into this specific album. There's very little of the band cohesion and unpredictability of their best work and there were reasons ... drum machines dominate this, which give a cold/sterile feel to most of the songs, and Sly's vocals overall tend to reflect who/where he was at the time: often in bed and on drugs :P - literally recording some vocals from bed. Even the hit single "Family Affair" should have been so much better; to me it comes across more like a great demo. e.g. "Africa Talks To You" goes on and on and never goes anywhere - but so many times it's so close. You hear constant echoes of Sly vocal melodies and some keyboard riffs here and there but ... that's the song. Like a collection of musical phrases patched onto a repetitive chord/beat. Definitely focusing on the negative which isn't entirely fair - there are some great grooves on this record which to me is sort of the bare minimum for a Sly record. I respect the wide (eventual) acceptance and praising of the album due to it being an accurate portrayal of the seeming betrayal of the 60s and entering the grime and fading dreams of the 70s. But honestly who cares. Am I or am I not drawn into the music... or at least entertained? I am not. It's a frustrating and hollow 2 stars because I've always wanted to like this album but there's just a solid disconnect that I'll never get by. p.s. Graham Central Station were better. 5/10 2 stars

Ready to give this one another chance - from my poor memory I recall being bored by it... My first impression was frustration. Simply: I think this music is cool and could bring some mystery but if I don't get used to these vocals - and soon - this is gonna be a longass boring trip. I don't like Jeff Tweedy's vocals, so there's one major factor. How about mixing him lower. Or more of the band/instrumental? I actually started to not mind the vocals on the second song ("Kamera") but that's as good as it got - and again... as I go on I'd like to have heard more from the rest of the band. OK a good example is "War On War" - I love the beginning synth pattern - here we go - and then...I'm just not sure about this - I kept thinking where are the dynamics - where's the excitement? ----- ok before I forget, here's a meta-comment on this book [the 1001 Albums... book of course] as I'm 4+ songs into this album and nearly 200 albums in overall...: I've noticed that there is - and will be - a dearth of Canadian representation. That's fine; it's a list, I get it, and by definition it is subjective. I bring this up right now because these songs (and really hit home with "War on War") sound like demo versions of songs by THE RHEOSTATICS (a band *everyone should hear* and who should have been worldly-massive but were too fng good and unique and and ...). I know Wilco are (were?) very popular so if by some chance there are Wilco fans reading this and have never heard the Rheostatics stop right now - go and put on Whale Music [in my "solid-lockdown-likely-no-chance-of-ever-being-bumped" top 3-4 albums I've ever heard] and listen to what I think is the next step(s) above what I'm hearing here. ----- So that's a bit harsh and not really talking about my feelings of this album. In a vacuum? You know...ok, it's not bad at all - I can definitely see the appeal. And actually I liked the 2nd half quite a lot more than the first - will keep my original comments but Tweedy's voice seems to mesh better with these later songs (*or am I just get accustomed to it??*). "Reservations" is a perfect album-closer btw. Since writing the above I gave this a few more spins - have to give it a 3 as of now because it hadn't given me chills whatsoever but it was a nice and polite 50+ minute ride. But...based on my 2nd/3rd listens (this one benefitted from being my weekend album) I feel like this might be a slow-burn and I'll come back to it at some point. 6/10 3 stars

"All My Friends" sounds like the Mr Rogers trolley music. This is such a weird album. It's a fun listen, even if at the same time I don't "get" the huge hype for the band...not really sure why this in particular is a top-1001? I do *almost* love it even if not my favourite type of music, but it definitely has its purpose - just that many of the songs a little too repetitive for me. Maybe that's the damn point of dance music? Eh - again - I had fun listening to it. I wouldn't call anything here musical genius or revolutionary but there is a surprising amount of diversity in the (again, repetitive) dance up-tempo rock, and the final song ("New York, I Love You but You're Bringing Me Down") was a bit of a surprise. They sure like their cowbells, too. I'm feeling generous today - 4 stars. 7/10 4 stars

If you grew up in the 80s, Rod Stewart could be (was) looked at a cheesy clown - boring middle of the road soccer mom music - and it even got a lot worse after that. And I definitely slagged on him a lot - for most of his video "hits" and even some in his recent past (e.g. disco stylings of "Da Ya Think I'm Sexy"). Good god no turn the station now please. But goddamn if there wasn't about an 18-24 month period in the early 70s where Rod Stewart wasn't the Man. And this is in that sweet spot - right off the bat from the first song, the title track (which makes me think of one of my favourite movies "Almost Famous" as it was used in a scene). The album vacillates between driving rock and mellow folk, from guitar-based to country violin and mandolins. I believe "Maggie May" was his biggest hit, in North America at least. To today's ears it surely sounds, well, old. But gritty blues-based rock has to start somewhere and if it didn't start here it was refined (in a year - 1971 - that had an absurd and historic amount of amazing music released) or distilled on this album to near perfection, backed by The Faces who for some stupid business reasons couldn't all be credited. Personal favourites are the title track and "I'm Losing You" It's not perfect (e.g. the weird Amazing Grace bit seems a little out of place and I wouldn't have minded a little more of the better up-tempo material) but it's a great snapshot and an easy ~40 minute listen - a perfect example of all the musical creativity exploding everywhere in 1971. 8/10 4 stars

Well this is certainly outside of my wheelhouse :) I was completely amused by the "introduction" - how he welcomes the listeners to the Columbia product (RAY YOU CORPORATE SHILL). Yow - they loved to drench his voice in cavernous reverb. So I'm not a country fan but I didn't completely dislike it, it's more a slow american western blues. I was a bit tired of the pedal-steel (no slight to the playing whatsoever; I know how difficult it is) as it really defines the sound. I liked to think of it as a soundtrack to a slow-moving 60s movie . Probably won't listen again but it's good to get an education on this classic American musician (also: Willie Nelson plays bass!) 6/10 3 stars

...a few bars into the opening number "Line Up" and listening to the 1/4 note vomit sounds i'm wondering what the hell is coming next... I loved this album - there's such a typical mid-90s sound to this, vocals mixed so low you have to strain to try to pick out lyrics but i *love* that - makes the vocals an equal instrument in the band - additionally the sweet harmonies put a lot of these songs over the top. And there's more unpredictability than I'd thought (having only been familiar with their US sorta-hit "Connection") - the strangely-non-imaginatively-titled "Indian Song" (likely based on the musical modality of the song?) was one of the surprises - "Blue" is another killer. Another small point is that these songs for the most part are so short they don't have time to get repetitive. Done! Off to the next one... Really enjoyed this. 7/10 4 stars

Yeah, this is a long album. And not all that poppy (for a band coming off a pop-rock masterpiece). For sure there are some definite pop elements (mostly Christine McVie) but famously (infamously?) it was a conscious effort to not be "Rumours: The Sequel" - total respect for that because it would have been boring, not possible, etc. But so yes - this is a long and a weird one. Not shitty-weird-for-the-sake-of-it-but-ends-up-being-a-pile-of-ass like Velvet goddamn Underground but definitely something way more than a collection of pop songs - it's a diverse mix. While there are some Stevie songs like "Sara" which are the kind of "ah yeah that's some AM-gold Fleetwood Mac (and the rather dull Christine McVie cuts "Over and Over" and "Never Make Me Cry"), but also the title track "Tusk" which I recall getting considerable airplay as a kid. Tusk is sort of an unsettling song... which I like. And to double back so as not to pick on Christine McVie's boring cuts - "Brown Eyes" has a slinky creepy vibe to it that probably couldn't have been a hit yet is still accessible. Love it. Also this album *sounds* amazing - just sonically. Don't listen to it in through chintzy phone speaker - put on some headphones at least. I grew up kinda thinking I hated Fleetwood Mac - as a kid in the late 70s and 80s very into music, I preferred more mystery, more hard-hitting, more drama, and Fleetwood Mac's smooth hits were always on the radio. But this is kinda/sorta their White Album? If I critique it in a negative way, there honestly aren't a lot of amazing songs, but on the other hand there just aren't really any bad ones which is something. What a milquetoast review - ha. I'd sum it up by saying there is a little of everything from good to less good, but it is quite a talented piece of art and I'm glad to give it a revisit, just won't be an all-time favourite of mine. 7/10 3 stars

I can't definitively tell you that the Velvet Underground is the worst music I've ever heard. But I wouldn't argue against it. I'm still angry that I got 2 VU albums in one week last month so getting Lou Reed today makes for a frustrating morning - but let's go, surprise me, Lou, you jackass. I knew the big hit of course but nothing else. Fortunately the album isn't nearly as awful as the sonic sewer of VU (how could it be). The music here is just fine at best - nothing totally unlistenable [yes my bar was extremely low this morning] but also not really ever interesting. And of course now we have to talk about the vocals - I'm never going to get around the double feature of Lou's dry (and fng terrible, just 100% terrible) vocals with distractingly-weird and awful lyrics. Having said that...if you're someone who really zeroes in on unorthodox / unsettling or weird lyrics (e.g. drugs, sexuality, etc.) - I could see the appeal here on that level. For me I'm always going to connect with the music first and it's just not enjoyable. So yes - this is not anywhere close to what I like in rock music and another 1 for Lou. If he's on this list again at all let alone anytime soon I'm calling the editors. 2/10 1 star.

Come on. No. Very literally my dog started to bark *upstairs* when this started. I feel you, Sadie. This sounds like someone violently vomiting up steel-spiked cheerios in the midst of 100,000 Orcs on coffee destroying Fangorn forest while they're frantically building a freeway. I'm tired and this is awful and it's making me angry - first album out of ~200 that I couldn't even finish. 1/10 1 star.

I don't remember if I'd ever heard this band, but I do remember a Feargal Sharkey (how do you forget that name?) video or two from the 80s. The music here is simple fun punk-pop, although to be fair, I'm not sure exactly why it's on the 1001 list as it seems nothing special (not a criticism actually). But points for the accessible simplicity and maybe I'm also enjoying it as it came up for me at the right time after a run of terrible albums lately; it's nice to hear some simple short melodic head boppers. Sharkey's odd wavering voice can start to get a little abrasive at times but after hearing Ministry and Lou Reed this week he sounds like Freddie Mercury in comparison. Not a keeper but I'd probably never turn it off if I heard it again. 6/10 3 stars

Not at all what I'd expected - in a good way. I've always been aware of Robbie Williams in that "oh right, he's always been huge in the UK ... former boy band guy?" way but I don't know that I'd ever heard anything by him. A bit of reading about this album shows that he wanted to break away from his previous career and was heavily influenced by the Britpop that was so prevalent/popular at the time. After even one song I'd say that's mostly accurate - I like a lot of that mid90s rock subgenre but find a lot of negatives in most of it...some combination of overly compressed loudness and constant whinging (Oasis at their worst, although they were great at their best... I digress). This is ... better? This has a good mix of instrumentation - layered guitars (but not too thick), heavy drums, cool keyboards, the occasional piano (on the semi-cheesy ballad "Angels" in particular), the vocals are mostly not annoying me - tons of melody overall... "Killing Me" has a really great chord progression - might be my favourite. Negatives: when/if I start listening to the lyrics I start to question my judgement ("Angels") which is exactly why I try to ignore lyrics if possible. So yeah, they're a little distracting to me at times - simplicity, cliched, etc (god help me if #$@$ Bon Jovi is anywhere on this list). So some of the songs are probably skip-worthy (e.g. "South of the Border") but even on that one there are a few cool instrumental parts (i.e. the funky organ post-solo). Anyways - for the most part this is a good and fun rock album I'd never have given a look at before. 7/10 4 stars

Well this is the *second* Pet Shop Boys album in the first 150 albums. ....? really? By the end of this exercise in about 3 years I'm going to be upset that they have (at least!?!?) 2 more albums on this list than most of my favourite bands but ok it's NOT ABOUT ME...sigh... (where was I?) Right. Pet Shop Boys. I scorned new-wavey-all-synth music in the 80s but now I quite enjoy it. To a point. Without looking back at my first review of the PSBs it probably goes something like this... it's nice. And this is nice! Nothing too memorable, though - it plays like a very pleasant sounding 80s soundtrack and is *fantastic* for background/working music. Nothing particularly negative outside of the fact that no individual songs are all that memorable. I can't remember anything in particular after finishing and looking at the song titles. Which...so why is this album on the list? Not that it's bad - it's nice! I've said that! But... It's a solid 3, would never argue against listening to this but not sure if I'd be in an overt mood: "PUT ON ACTUALLY!" In fact... the album cover is a brilliant slideshow of my reactions while first seeing this album then again sometime around song 7. In fact this would be nice to fall asleep to... [creates sleep playlist...] 5/10 3 stars.

I'd never heard of John Grant nor his band The Czars before so I had zero idea of what kind of music this would be. And almost immediately after the first track "TC and Honeybear" started I had a feeling I was going to love this. Simple but beautifully-recorded acoustic guitars to start what is a song steeped in melody and unexpected but brilliant chord changes I'm noticing the lyrics which can often lead to me downgrading but they're so bizarre in points in a fun way (e.g. "Sigourney Weaver" and "Chicken Bones" - one that I enjoyed was "...my head feels like it's filled to the top with pop rocks and cyanide...") and still the melodies and music construction have constantly kept me engaged. (also thank beelzebub or whomever for this not being yet another lo-fi indie album. Just recording something on your 4 track doesn't make it automatically cool, in fact it's probably awful. Yes I have residual anger for having been forced to listen to too many bedroom indie lo-fi "aesthetic" awfulness...ok onward!) And so in the end yes - I am kind of loving this album - maybe keeping it at "only" a strong 4 because it gets a little slow in points but the melodies, instrumentation (one particular holy crap moment is the synth solo in "Outer Space" - I love that 70s ARP sound), production, and musical construction are all things I love - what a great surprise and a keeper. 8/10 4 stars

If you enjoy hearing the real-time sounds of a guy singing songs with a terrible voice while in a mental breakdown with acoustic guitar in hand and sounding as if he's been awake for 24 hours drinking non-stop and sounding like he has never touched an instrument before, HAVE I GOT AN ALBUM FOR YOU... Nothing redeeming here - it sounds like a crude 4 track demo I would have made in my high school bedroom but without questionable language, fart noises, and silly giggling. Any/all of those would have improved things here. ...take "The Prison Song" - seriously, things like this make me unnecessarily angry. Not tuning the guitar/bass doesn't make it authentic - it makes it AWFUL. Sorry, that's not fair. It implies that tuning the guitars would have any effect on this - it wouldn't. <Please insert a gif of me diving headfirst through a skyscraper window here>. I love reading and hearing about the history of pop/rock music and what-if stories but honestly what the absolute bloody hell. Here's a what-if: what if this album never saw the light of day? It would have allowed anything else in the history of earth onto this 1001 list. 0/10 1 star only because I tried digging lower and there's nothing underneath.

As a little kid relegated to the unsafe back-of-the-station wagon (seatbelts?) I was subject to all that AM radio (and my dad's preference) had to deliver out of the rear-wheel speaker at my ear. Something about Steely Dan kind of freaked me out and I never enjoyed their smooth mysterious ways... But hot damn those smooth mysterious ways are pretty great - took me decades to appreciate them and now just hearing the simple opening riff to "Rikki Don't Lose That Number" is like a time machine - and how can a kid appreciate or understand the slightly odd jazzy *only Steely Dan* chord changes that take this pop song from simple to complex within 4 chords? Also I wouldn't have noticed how amazing this record (record. I'm listening through digital technology that couldn't have been dreamt of in the 70s) sounds - and it does sound amazing. It's at once full and clear, perfect separation of instruments, amazing musicianship. This is an album (band?) that sounds "dated" but somehow not in a negative way - more like a nostalgic slice of the 70s that celebrated creative and complex songwriting. Ironically what probably prevents me from giving this a 5 would be that some of the songs aren't as stereotypically "Steely Dan" as I'd now prefer (e.g. Barrytown doesn't seem good enough for them if that makes sense) but still overall a great listen. 8/10 4 stars.

What's the appeal? The music is abrasive and just terrible, the rapping is... mediocre at best when it's not shitty. The lyrics??? Holy hell.... unimaginative, utterly stupid and sophomoric and distasteful. I mean, other than that I loved it. WTactualF Again: what is the appeal? Anywhere. This should have been a perfect album for me since I'd never heard Kayne before, I was legitimately excited. For exactly one minute. Now I know. I never need to hear this again. Ever. E.V.E.R. One of the most painful and disgraceful albums I've ever listened to front to back if not *the* worst. 0/10 not worthy of anything close to a star.

Still always hard for me to believe that this is the "same" band that within a decade would release Dark Side..., Wish You Were Here, and Animals. I say "same" band realizing it kind of wasn't... Syd Barrett blahblahblah. I just don't know about this album. Some of Floyd's mid-70s period albums are among my favourites of all-time but so it's hard and maybe unfair to judge this as the beginning of some continuum. So to judge it on its own.... It's certainly weird. And at certain times interesting but is it actually good? I've listened to it 3x this weekend and I keep wavering on my own question. I guess as a poor summary I can't say if there is anything truly memorable or catchy here and that's not always necessarily a bad thing. This is definitely more of a feel album (or drug album which i've just eaten 2 enormous slices of homemade chocolate cake and the sugar coursing through me is definitely a kind of high...) that needs to be heard as a complete entity. It's maybe fun/weird/interesting in a mild way but the vocals are almost stereotypically 60s trippy/boring, most of the songs have interesting effects and often start to go somewhere but don't really have any cohesion to them. And honestly it's just not something I really would crave listening to. I tried. It's not bad, but give me "Animals" all day any day instead. 5/10 2 stars

The first three songs on this album are everything I love about 70s R&B/Soul - great simple mix, space in the arrangements, and of course the music - funky grooves that especially on the big hit "Papa Was a Rolling Stone" are so restrained as to become mysterious. I remember hearing that song in the car a lot as a kid but I'm not sure I ever heard the full 12 minute version - I love it. After those first three though, things dull more than a little for me. Maybe it's more of the "early" Temptations smooth doo-wop style - there's nothing remotely bad about it, I just prefer the funkier/edgier material. The final cut "Do Your Thing" is a return to the funk, albeit at a very deliberate/slow pace but that just creates a great tension. This album for me could have been much more - in sum those 4 great cuts would have been a high 4 for me but the middle slowdown on the album drops it to a 3. 7/10 3 stars

I'd only recently been acquainted with Elbow but had not heard anything from this album, so here we go... The vocals sound like a mix of Peter Gabriel, Sting, and Fish (Marillion)....this is a high compliment. I'm not often/usually/ever "into" vocals - mostly they're a necessary addition (or distraction) but too up front or over the top and it takes over and ruins things. But I'm finding them (vocalist: Guy Garvey) a real equal/compliment to the music -> which i *love* - mysterious, cinematic, melodic, yet accessible. For me their best songs keep the mystery - there are literally no bad tracks on this album but some of the more up-tempo/rock ones seem slightly out of their comfort zone (specifically "Grounds For Divorce" is a bit of a throwaway). You definitely need variety on an album of course but Elbow works best at any tempo when they're using more instrumentation. Having said that, it's nitpicking and if you're a fan of complex and delicate melodies in the vein of anything from Radiohead to Genesis to Pink Floyd and with a modern bent this is a keeper. I also feel like this album will only grow on me as I get more familiar with the songs. 8/10 4 stars

My first memory of Randy Newman was as a little kid and "Short People" was being played all over and I just didn't get it - why was this guy so mean to short people? Of course my dad had to explain the satire to me and once I got it, I loved it. That was pretty much the last I'd heard Randy Newman outside the random cut (e.g. "I Love L.A.") as he would never really again be played on my rock radio stations. So when I discovered this album "Sail Away" only a few years ago it blew me away. Starting off with the title track "Sail Away" is pure genius - one of the saddest songs I've ever heard for obvious reasons when you quickly realize what it's really about. I'm not sure I would have been able to appreciate this album when I was a little younger but I'm a huge fan - the music is tremendous; occasionally to me sounding like Broadway tunes for people who really don't like Broadway tunes (mea culpa). I enjoy the *sound* of this record - the clarity and simplicity of the production centered around Newman's piano and voice while accented by perfect accompaniments - of particular note is Ry Cooder's slide guitar on "Last Night I Had a Dream." And Newman is the rare songwriter who just through his unique voice actually makes me listen to the lyrics which are most often brilliantly satirical - poking fun at religion, nationalism, exceptionalism - fits comfortably in with my worldview :) As one who is mostly a rock fan first and foremost, I absolutely love everything about this album - perhaps because it gives me a curveball in my listening habits - and there are no missteps in this whatsoever. 9/10 5 stars.

Well, it's sure miles better than the execrable Exile in Guyville... (i'm still reeling from that one, weeks later). This is making me give Exile a deep dive for the first time in years and ... it's still just ok? That's it for me - it's only ever ok at best. I recognize that this comes in many peoples' top 10 albums of all time ... I mean, damning with faint praise here in that there's nothing in its (VERY) long running time that made me want to skip but on the other hand it's also like an hour+ of blues riffs often with 3 or 2 chords...or 1... and just meandering. Like someone would start a simple riff, they'd all jam on it, and forget that they were supposed to write a song. Print it - next. Also it really does sound like they recorded a lot of it in a living room - which I think they did. Which I suppose none of these are really hard critiques - I could see really liking (loving?) this if you're a fan of "vibey" albums and this is definitely one - is that what the attraction has been for it over the years? That they were on the run/lam in France, super smacked out, and "let's just let the tapes roll" ....? It's a fun story maybe but for me if you're defending an album's greatness based on the background of it coming together over the actual content it's not much of a defence. I don't want to continually rip this (joint?) album by pointing out things I don't like (I probably started with the negatives because so much has been written about it over the years) as there are definitely positives here - for example, when "Tumbling Dice" finally comes on 5 songs in it's fantastic, but maybe more of a relief - it feels like this should be the launching point for more of what was the best of the Stones. Turns out that it's not, but it is still nice to hear a good song. Other standouts for me are "Loving Cup" (which is probably my favourite song on the album) and "Happy" is a fine single. Also I suspect a lot of this comes down to whether you gravitate more towards blues in rock as opposed to more classical/jazz influence, which I generally do not. Sure, I like a lot of Stones songs - e.g. Gimme Shelter is definitely one of my fave popular/classic rock songs ever (less influence from a blues scale on that one, hmm.) - but I think they're generally not my thing. Summary: this album is bloated and often suffers from a lack of cohesive songwriting/songs. Cut this down to ~7 songs (are there 7 actual/good songs here?) and we might have had the start of something at least. 5/10 3 stars

After getting Floyd's debut album earlier this week (and still not really enjoying it all that much) it's nice to get this one for the weekend. Interesting meta-album concept to me ... I just listened to the Stones' "Exile on Main Street" which is an album I don't particularly like, one of the reasons being that rather than a collection of decent songwriting I found that album more of just a vibe (A bluesy drugged out communal country house vibe if that's your thing). To be consistent - I should say the same of "Wish You Were Here" - this is definitely a vibe album, but instead this one being a slow space travel vibe...? It's different because even if the longest song tracks in at over 20 (!) minutes, it still works as a *song* as do the 3 shorter ones. Right off the bat this album draws you in: the almost eternally-long instrumental intro to "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" doesn't give us any vocals until nearly 9 minutes in. But it's right for this music - it sets up tension before "that riff" comes in at about 3:55, slowly repeating into a crescendo before the band kicks in for a bit, backs off, etc. Perhaps a bit of confirmation bias here but this never could have worked as a shorter song. I don't think you can fully appreciate the (overplayed?) singles until you hear them within context of the full album. Which...of course just means playing them between the cut 20 minute "Shine On..." Random note: I never knew until many decades later that the vocalist on Have A Cigar wasn't anyone from the band but English musician Roy Harper. A word or two about the production - this is prime-era Floyd where the mix sounds gorgeous...the great 70s analog synths blending perfectly with Gilmour's perfectly restrained guitar, clarity in vocals and acoustic guitars - the overall sound is just as much what makes this a classic as the music itself. This might not be for everyone (but shouldn't everyone enjoy a 20 minute song now and again) and may not be in my favourite ~50 albums ever but for what they were going for it's perfection - turn the lights down, turn the volume way up, and this is a vibe I can always get behind. 9/10 5 stars.

It seems like there's often very little middle-ground on Neil Young. There are those "NEIL!" fans (or my wife who will no question be singing Cinnamon Girl the rest of the day after this is playing ha) and then those who think Neil's voice is a bit of a non-starter to say the least. Of course I'm taking the easy way out and staking a little middle-ground here but I think this album is a pretty good listen even for those who might "hate" Neil. You've got some good heavy rock starting off with the aforementioned "Cinnamon Girl" followed up with a nice easy rocker in the title track. "Down By The River" is one of those old-time 'holycow this is creepy' songs, which I like. And sticking to this song in particular...for the most part I kind of enjoy his voice on this album - although if anything I often find his electric guitar work (solos) more than a bit harsh and difficult to get through. But on the other hand it's also his unique *sound* and as much as you could always tell an Edward Van Halen guitar part you can do the same for Neil Young. That counts for something significant I think. Another album that I like the overall sound of - you can definitely hear the space in this one, even in the louder songs - a dry production that's somehow not annoying. The album peters out a little for me on the (former) second side - I'm not as much a fan of the country and slow/plodding feel on songs like "The Losing End" and "Running Dry" which knocks it down a notch. Anyways as a "yeah sure Neil Young is alright" kind of music fan this is a decent album - relatively short and with some undeniably important/classic songs that still sound good. 7/10 3 stars

This one's a bit of a mystery. I knew Malcolm McLaren's name as a promoter/manager (e.g. Sex Pistols, Bow Wow Wow) - was totally unaware he released music? I had to read about this one as to what makes it worthy of *the list* - "bringing hip-hop to a wider audience in the UK" is one, which ... ok, decent reason but maybe I had to be there. There's definitely a strong African-beat influence and perhaps is/was an early blending of music genres; not hard to hear that. Unfortunately to me a lot of it ends up sounding like giant sample patches for the first Korg keyboard I bought. Or mid80s Sesame Street music. It's not bad. Just not much in the way of songs and doesn't really hold up for me - kinda boring and not very memorable. 3/10 2 stars.

Wow this is a long album. I feel completely inadequate in giving any review to this album - I'm just not a fan of this kind of country music at all, even though I could appreciate the musicianship. It's really the singing (e.g. "The Precious Jewel" - sorry Roy Acuff, we'll just have to part ways here....) that I cannot enjoy. On a positive note, I actually really like the conversations between songs though; I like hearing how creative processes come together. 2 stars - I know it's probably good but I just can't. Also the confederate flags on the cover ... yeah nope.

Am I the only one who misses short albums? I mean...ok, 30 minutes is a bit *too* short but there was something about a shorter overall statement that of course made you want more. Probably anything around 45 minutes is ideal - I know the CD age allowed and then encouraged longer-playing albums so things started changing in the late 80s. Anyways back to this one - I wasn't a big Tom Petty fan growing up probably a little because of his voice and also because of my prog/arena-rock preferences but he's really grown on me over the years. This is my first pass through his debut album, although I was definitely familiar with Breakdown and American Girl - two staples of rock radio over the decades (although American Girl never got played back in the day - I like to think that "Silence of the Lambs" gave that song new life ~15 years after its release). Nothing incredibly unique or special in this collection but at the same time it's direct rock that just sounds great and clean and yet with minimal production tricks. Excellent guitar-based melodic short rock tunes (nothing even hitting the 4 minute mark). "The Wild One, Forever" and "Fooled Again" were songs I'd not heard before that stood out for me. A strong debut album - would recommend. 7/10 4 stars.

I listened to this one on a solo midnight bus ride from Los Angeles to Snata Barbara. I own this album, it's one I've listened to a hundred times but never like this and it finally dawned on me that this is a solitaire album. The music is incredibly complex, as is the musicianship. Tunings. Chords. Progressions. None of which are predictable or even easily accessible. Which makes it reveal more and more on every listen. It's a long way from Blue, a record only ~5 years in the past. This is an electric jazzy record. It might not be everyone's cup of tea but it's right up my alley - mysterious and haunting. Don't listen to this album just once. Give it a few runs and all the way through each time (although the clear highlight is "Amelia"). Slam dunk 5 stars: 10/10. One of my alltime favourite albums by anyone.

Seems harsh for me to give this less than a 2 but I really don't like this genre. After a minute or two it seemed like this could be a decent change of pace for me, but that's about the time I started tiring of it. And I think that first song ("Big Iron") was probably the best of the lot. I just can't with the simple tunes with that 50s echoey crooning vocal sound. Not exactly digging the lyrics either. I think it's really not so much the country - it's the western. 2/10 1 star - i'm sure there's a reason he's here but I just can't look beyond my personal distaste.

A great sounding groovy R&B album - was not in my wheelhouse when it came out although the great singles "Creep" and "Waterfalls" were unavoidable. Glad to give this a full listen as I appreciate it way more today - good songwriting and musicianship (noted: guitar solo on "Red Light Special") and even if it's not my preferred genre this is a great album with top-notch catchy songs and fantastic production especially for 1994. Recommended. 7/10 4 stars.

Another band I was familiar with by name only so I had no idea what to expect from this Buffalo NY band - within 20 seconds I thought of the Flaming Lips (having been introduced to them by the otherworldly "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots"). Apparently the two bands are or have been connected so I wasn't too far off... ...and in terms of immediate impact on me it is/was the same: I immediately had to stop what I was doing to listen to "Holes" which has a cinematic feel to it, almost visual in its melodies, which continues throughout the album. A vast array of instrumentation - strings, horns, woodwinds, keyboards - make each song consistently engaging; the songwriting keeps each song evolving. If there's a negative that I'm sure will be noted, it could be the fluttery and maybe... not-so-textbook lead vocals :D - I could definitely see that being a turnoff for some but instead for me it works perfectly with and for the music, bringing a vulnerability to the gorgeous and haunting melodies. Overall this is an amazing experience and - like many great albums - not too long at 45 minutes; like "Yoshimi..." before it this album was a revelation for me. If you look for something a bit different yet terrifically melodic and ultimately re-playable (assuming so - I'm on my 3rd spin of it today) this is an absolute keeper. 9/10 5 stars.

Hmm. OK I have heard of Can and have never been shy about my early prog-leanings. I mean....I grew up listening to Rush...Yes...Genesis... even some ELP for godsake so the idea of a 20+ minute song actually gets/got me kinda interested. First two songs are in the 9 minute range, they're fine, but not so much songs. The title track plays like a decent intro, even if it goes on a little longer than it should. I was sorta queued up waiting for the big 2nd half epic of "Bel Air" and .... Ugh, it's not that this is all bad - it's not (well....mostly.... the 2nd half of "Bel Air" is pretty rough and pointless) - it just didn't/doesn't hold my interest anywhere and it's frustrating. For example, Supper's Ready (Genesis) is perhaps my ideal of a 20 minute song that is cinematic/epic/captivating/enthralling - here "Bel Air" takes up the entire 2nd half of this album and it... meanders endlessly. Again if that's your thing - great - but to me this is just sound (not quite approaching flaming hot trash territory like Velvet Underground "sound/noise") and occasionally interesting musical passages but I was never able to latch onto it - maybe a semi-parallel could be the band Gong, who I really liked (Flying Teapot is gold) and knew how to construct *something* out of spacey jamming/weirdness but this ... does not have it at all. Mostly just disappointed. Pass. 3/10 2 stars

Talking Heads. They're a tough one for me... I'm glad this one came on a weekend so I've been able to listen multiple times; I just knew I wasn't going to connect on first listen and I definitely didn't. There's this weird dichotomy I've found with Talking Heads (and most definitely on this album) of sounding rhythmically worldly yet stilted at the same time - very pronounced to me over the first few songs especially. For example on "I Zimbra" the opening cut - my first instinct was that it was/is too repetitive/boring. But that's also my Western perspective - there's a hypnotic element which seems reminiscent of African beats. Perhaps this is the point - this band forces me to step outside of what I'd traditionally think of in terms of a pop music structure for a song. Rhythms and chord progressions that don't resolve in a traditional sense (e.g. both "Mind" and "Paper") initially are frustrating to me but I start to "get it" a bit more each subsequent listen. The second part of the album starts to drift back into more-accessible structures (e.g. "Heaven") and there are a few tunes on here that I'm familiar with (esp. "Life During Wartime" and "Memories Can't Wait" oddly enough initially through Living Colour's very cool cover version...). This is one of the weirdest "3" ratings I'll give. I kind of think there's a ton to unpack here, yet I still can't fully connect with some of the frequent atonal aspects of it. I think in the end very often with Talking Heads...I very much appreciate the skill and composition yet I can't connect emotionally with them. It feels like a total copout but they're a good "sure I'll listen to them" band for me. 7/10 3 stars

After hearing the follow-up to this album "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots" and giving it a 5 upon first listen I was hoping this one wouldn't disappoint... and it does not. Honestly I have no idea how I missed out on these guys when these albums were released - it has everything I love about music; detailed harmonies, gorgeous melodies, dramatic arrangements, interesting instrumentation, and just a little imperfection here and there (e.g. vocals - which work perfectly with their music). All the while having accessible songs. Another 5 - this is becoming a favourite act of mine. 9/10 5 stars

Definitely a mood album...! I feel like I should be smoking an unfiltered cigarette drinking coffee at an outdoor table just watching the world go by. I don't feel adequately equipped to review an album of this genre (...overly-theatrical French love songs...?) so perhaps my best review could be that this is enjoyable background music; I'm sure I enjoy it more (mostly?) because I don't understand the language - it helps Brel's aggressive voice wash amongst the instrumentation as if it were it's own complimentary instrument. Being a live album only adds to the mystique - the hall reverb, the urgent crowd responses are as important to the vibe as any other component. Somewhere roughly in the 2nd half of this album his vocals start getting....more weird? Little chirps and yelps - more akin to overacting :P although I'm sure some things are lost in translation. It gets a little annoying here and there but rarely lasts too long. Not necessarily a personal keeper only due to personal tastes but it is a worthy listen at least once - putting this on transports you to a different time and place and I could see how people love this album. 7/10 3 stars.

Well...it's different, I'll give you that... I love the diversity in this 1001-albums list and was actually pretty pleased to see this one on the list. It's not exactly entry-level ELP (which probably doesn't exist) as it's mostly a rock-classical hybrid cover of a Russian classical piece. The most impressive part is that they performed this entire suite live in one go which seems near-impossible. I'd never heard the entire album before ("Nut Rocker" at the end is the exception and not actually part of the full suite) so it was pretty fascinating to hear the interplay between the 3 guys and try to figure out how they did it. Oddly I feel like even though Greg Lake did the vocals for me I knew/know the least about him growing up as the other two got more acclaim - Lake's guitar playing is fantastic and there's no way a young Randy Rhodes didn't listen to him; *strong* echoes of his acoustic playing on Ozzy's "Diary of a Madman" in "The Sage" It's not at all an everyday album but holy hell these guys were A++ musicians and points alone for pulling this off in such a manner. Again not for everyone to be sure but a slice of history when an album like this could actually make the top-10. 7/10 3 stars

My first exposure to music came probably before I could walk as my parents had one of those massive 8000lb stereo consoles - about 7 feet wide, speakers embedded, turntable AND... an 8-track player. Worst music format ever? Some songs would be playing and *CLICK!* right in the middle of a damn song... more of a pause....then another *CLICK* and the song would continue. Apparently it could only play a few minutes (10 maybe?) at a time before clicking to the next "track" - brutal. This long annoying intro is only to state that one of the 8 tracks my dad had was a Paul Revere & The Raiders album. Funny how the band was apparently quite big in the late 60s/early 70s but you never hear of them now. I never really gravitated towards them; I was more into the CSN but I suppose one could do worse for late 60s rock. "Kicks" and "I'm Not Your Stepping Stone" are the hits, and I'd be fine hearing another song or two but in the end I'm still not getting a lot out of this - the simple twangy music is just not my bag. I did find the 180-turn funny that just yesterday a live ELP album was the album of the day...just a little different. 4/10 2 stars.

Well hell if I'm gonna be the Grinch who criticizes this album... Obviously I'm not wanting to hear these songs for maybe 49-50 weeks of the year but if we're gonna have Christmas songs this isn't a bad way to go at all. Short, not too filled with saccharine; so shed the cynicism and enjoy a half-hour of simple early 60s holiday pop rock. (Um...you can skip Killer Spector's silly thank you "song" at the end tho) 7/10 4 stars

I don't have much great to say about this one - I really wanted to like this a lot more than I do. Jazz with potentially a funk flavour (based on the wiki entry) from the 70s sounded like it would be fantastic but I don't get any bit of funk in this. It's smooth - wayyy too smooth - and not being a fan of vocal jazz the first song was a rough start for me. On the positive note, this band could play - that much is obvious - some outstanding individual musicianship is evident (notably in "Rodeo Drive") but my problem is that the songs aren't that memorable or interesting either. Even in Rodeo Drive it just sounds ... dated. I expect to hear this in the background of an old Dudley Moore movie. Not that that would be a bad thing in context :P - it's just kinda meh to listen to on its own. I've heard their earlier album "The 2nd Crusade" (1973) which hit me deeper - on this one I expected as much or more but it isn't anything that sticks with me at all. 4/10 2 stars.

I don't think I fully "get" this album. (...yet?...) It's not bad - there's a lot of melody in here. But in terms of songs and structure/writing, there's far less. And yet from reading about it that seems exactly the intent. Brain..lacking..anchor. Something I definitely appreciate from Eno's own words was that lyrics were a true afterthought for many of these songs, if not all - making the voice "just" another instrument. e.g. "On Some Faraway Beach" is nearly all instrumental with a lovely if not simple melody and the vocals don't come in until late in the song, almost as just an orchestral addition. I like that non-traditional aspect of it. Yet for every time I think I enjoy the different aspect/s of the album, I find myself reaching for something to sink into. Some hook or memorable chorus - anything - to keep me coming back. e.g. "Dead Finks Don't Talk" is ... different. 4 minutes of being different within itself. I love the piano / drum march intro then the vocals join which are most unexpected and jarring. This song is a good microcosm of the album itself. 6/10 3 stars - I think this is a tough one to give much higher on only one or two listens - potential slow burn and will come back to this one.

Laura Nyro is one of those names I know but completely missed out on her music - somehow. And to my own detriment. Quick review: if you're partial to early 70s complex singer/songwriter artists like Carole King, Elton John, Todd Rundgren ... you will love this. There's definitely a strong and immediate Carole King comparison to be made in songs like "Stoned Soul Picnic" both in voice and melody; it's a high compliment yet I find Nyro in parts to be more complex in her arrangements. For example - the amount of tempo changes within songs isn't quite jarring but it is eminently noticeable in a way that forces you to listen to these songs. Heck you could almost call it progressive 70s AM gold. Summing up -> I think I love every minute of this album. The mix is a very clear recording, the music a preponderance of major 7th chords amidst jazz+pop progressions, gorgeous harmony, dynamics, varying melodies constantly in motion, variety in songs... giddyup. 9/10 5 stars.

I grew up listening to Simon & Garfunkel - to clarify: I almost literally learned to read by following along with the lyrics on the back of their albums. So yes - a big fan of them (most notably their final 2 albums), was I. Additionally, as a little kid in the 70s it was impossible to not be exposed to a shittonne (scientific measurement, that) of solo Paul Simon on the radio. Which for me wasn't the same without Art but still - very good songs that helped define a lot of my childhood. But - and I know I'm in the minority here - I never could connect with this one. Sure I was in high school and in my peak hard rock / metal fandom but I (thought I) could still appreciate the finer musical arts, but I rejected this *huge* album at the time. So what better time to do a reappraisal of an album in so many "top 10 alltime" lists... And I know I'm wrong here ...but I still don't like it. What about this album is so cold to me even amidst the many radio hits that should at this point hit me with some degree of nostalgic fondness? I think on one level the overly-wordy tendency of Paul in these songs is almost an overt turnoff; of course he has made a career of storytelling in his songs but something in these is just too much. Also the music ... there's no passion, no energy or mystery...all of it is just not exciting to me in any way; I want so much to like this with the incorporation of African musical cultures but the progressions on nearly every song are terribly repetitive and none of it carries anywhere near the same musical weight as his earlier material. Maybe it just carries too much of that 80s sterile shine. Honestly I just think it's the songwriting. For a very lazy one word review - I did and still do just find it all terribly boring. I won't argue the consensus on this, I know it's a beloved album, but it'll never hit me. Personal pass. 3/10 2 stars.

So...this is kind of a wannabe-Woody Guthrie record. Hmm. That probably is the (only) explanation for this being on a list of albums one MUST HEAR. Nothing against Billy Bragg or Wilco; I wouldn't say I'm a *fan* of either yet I've semi-enjoyed their music at times. But not this. The first two songs were dreadful but once we got to "Way Over Yonder In the Minor Key" I thought I could start to enjoy this; not to seem pedantic but the movement to the minor key in this gives me chills and is the kind of music I'm looking for, I felt this one. But it retreats back into laconic country dullness after that - I just don't feel this kind of music, for me the progressions need to go somewhere and for the most part they don't. If you're a student of lyrics and american history over musical construction there would definitely be some interest here, but I'll detour around Mermaid Avenue next time thanks. 3/10 2 stars.

Trying to imagine someone hearing this for the first time in 1970... After even just one pass-through of the frenetic "Speed King" one thing should be obvious - these guys could PLAY. Amazing musicianship that over the course of this album they were clearly not shy about showing off - nearly every song has some sort of solo or break from each instrument. This was Purple's 4th album but the first with this lineup and the changes from their previous incarnation are dramatic, mostly with the stunning vocals from Ian Gillan. Nobody could go from a soft melodic passage to a blood-curdling scream and back again like him. Deep Purple were/are an interesting study - I know for a short time in the early 70s they were as big as any artist but as time goes on their influence seems to be hidden or forgotten. Black Sabbath gets a lot of credit as perhaps the "originators" of heavy metal but I softly disagree - put this album up against Sabbath's debut which came out the same year and this hits more of the "metal" benchmarks [aside: Sabbath's first is fantastic and belongs more in a doom rock realm] - fast, loud, articulate playing, moody (e.g. "Child In Time" which admittedly is a bit doomy-sounding). Having said that, simply labeling this as "heavy metal" isn't accurate -> aside from the obvious heavy blues base there are elements of prog and jazz throughout the album, and not to be discounted is guitarist Ritchie Blackmore's heavy medieval/classical influence which is obvious in pretty much every solo he's ever recorded. His interplay with organist Jon Lord is what helped define this sound and I don't know of many (any?) others that really matched this formula. My one complaint with this album isn't necessarily with the band/material but the fact that it kind of sounds like shit on many songs. Yes it was 1970 but sonically it never has matched up with their contemporaries and is sometimes a turnoff for me. Knocked down a bit for lack of obvious hits and mix but it's still a vital document in the advent of talented hard rock / metal. Highly recommended. 8/10 4 stars.

Could this be the Bowie album for listeners who are not Bowie fans? I've tried (admittedly not *that* hard) over the years to like Bowie, or even "get" him - but aside from a few cuts (mostly Ziggy Stardust) here and there I never enjoyed him and if I could pick only one reason it'd probably be his voice. No getting around his voice, really... unless... he recorded an album that sounded a lot like a focused Brian Eno record (hmm...) and he didn't sing a lot on it and when he did it was mixed down low with every other instrument.... Low! Eno worked on this record with him a lot which after listening to 3 early Eno records over the past few months it's not hard to pick out the similarities. But as referenced above, this is more focused (at least on the first half!). The first "half" (7 songs) are tight songs that are nonetheless not predictable; a lot of which has to do with lack of vocals or even just not having them come in when one might traditionally expect. That second half is weird and I love it - put on some headphones and turn out the lights and you can lose yourself in the sounds; I'd hesitate to call most of these "songs" but there is melody and depth to them. Shocking to me that this is the same guy that sang "Fame" or "Young Americans" - at any rate, the 2nd side is like a different album entirely, yet still fits under the same experimental melodic umbrella. A lot can be read about the production techniques on the album; especially the drum sounds on a few songs; they have a crunchy gated effect that suits the music really well. I enjoy the mix as well (again: headphones). This one surprised me - I saw David Bowie and thought "meh" but what a great surprise and a keeper. 8/10 4 stars.

Man. I do not ever get the appeal of this. When you sing like Lou Reed you're on borrowed time in my ears. Slacker rock? Is that how to define this? I don't know...at the risk (that I don't care about) of maybe sounding like I'm gatekeeping, at times it sounds like this band isn't even trying. Hence... slacker? I'm not asking for complexity, and in fact some of these songs do have that. But I do have some sort of baseline of composition and this is a goddamn mess. The first song is just flat out dreadful and although it gets a little less-bad, that's the best I can give. 2/10 1 star. I'll never listen to this again.

This is where Queen started to become "Queen" - drenched in layers of sound, melody, those harmonies... the undisputed classic here is "Killer Queen" which you can't go a few hours without hearing on any classic rock radio station. It's easy to dismiss it from familiarity but honestly who else ever had the talent and brains to pull off an amazingly complex harmonic song like this and in 3 minutes? Slight negative takes on this album might be that it can trend bit boring at times, e.g. I'm not wild about "Stone Cold Crazy" although it seems to be a fan favourite; I don't think they were great at metal overall) and "She Makes Me" is too plodding. But every time they lapse they come right back to their best work which is heavily melodic songs, utilizing tens of vocal harmonies at once, multiple instruments (either adding piano/keys or ~821 guitars to create a quasi-orchestra), and even giving a nod to 30s big band sounds ("Bring Back Leroy Brown"). Queen's follow-up to this ("A Night At the Opera") started a run of 6-7 albums that to me were a little more consistently excellent but this is a really good album (side 1 is the better half) and really brings a lot of their theatrical side to most of these songs. 7/10 4 stars for good variety.

This was a tough one to judge. I really didn't like Jane's Addiction when this came out, but decades later and now after a few listens this weekend I'm definitely more intrigued. I'd say the hardest barrier is Perry Ferrell's voice...yet there are times it fits perfectly. My highlights would be "Standing In the Shower...Thinking" - weird heavy/funky beat, the hypnotic metal "Mountain Song" and "Idiots Rule" - the added horns make it funky and different. Lowlight: "Ted, Just Admit It..." I like the idea of the weirdness but it's droning and irritating. Which ... when I'm not in the right mood, droning/caustic/irritating is how I feel about this album maybe half the time I hear it. Would like to have heard more sonic variety... sometimes the wall of sound is a bit much. 7/10 3 stars. Not sure if it's a keeper but points for a unique sound and spin on heavy late 80s guitar rock. I feel like I'll come back to this one on occasion.

Right from the first few seconds there's a darkness to this album that made it one of the more impressive debut albums I've heard. I can't remember why I originally bought this album but likely for something in the first single "Shadowboxer" - there was something there but the rest of the album proved how deep this all was. The opening track "Sleep To Dream" is bold and creepy, minimalist but powerful - a really unusual album opener and a captivating one - it feels like it's going to explode at any moment but it's all kept together by that tension... ...and then she hits you with "Sullen Girl" which starts with a gorgeous piano line and soon Fiona enters with her dry intimate vocals. And when the band gently kicks in after the first few lines it's hard to not be fully engaged - there's so much emotion and melody in this music and I particularly love the piano-driven aspect of it - here and in the rest of the album. "Shadowboxer" and "Criminal" were the big singles and very worthy/catchy bluesy hit tunes. But the rest of the first half shows so much more. The fact that she was a teenager when writing this albums ideally shouldn't have much bearing on how likable it is but... a teenager!? Borderline unreal to display this much depth in singing and restrained songwriting. The downside: I always felt this album started so damn strong over the first 5 songs and faded after that - I'm a sucker for at least a killer album closer - this second half really drags; needed at least one big uptempo track. But overall the strength of the first half is enough that I can listen to this album pretty much any time and in any mood. Love it. 7/10 4 stars

Years ago while living with my best friend in a sketchy apartment we would play hours (HOURS) of an old racing game, Playstation Nascar I think. Often til dawn. Important stuff. His brother visited one weekend and joined our league/circuit/whatever and put on a Prodigy album while we played. I'd never listened to electronic music before. For reasons, it was the absolutely perfect soundtrack to making virtual 200mph left turns for 3 hours straight before you inevitably crashed on the final lap. I guess what I'm saying is that I really want to play that game again right now. Judging this on what it is (as opposed to comparing it to what I guess I'd call a "normal" album?) it is kind of compelling. Hypnotic. Good to work to, especially if I want to stay awake. Sum: it's not something I can see putting on when I want to listen to *songs* because they're not really songs - more of an aggressive soundscape, but it works really well as a caffeine-substitute. Or additive. 7/10 3 stars

Somehow a big gap in my 70s rock knowledge is/was Roxy Music. I think before this all I knew was their later single "Love is The Drug" and their - to me - very tepid "Avalon" so my impression before putting this on was that it would be smooth crooner type songs. Obviously right off the top "The Thrill of It All" is a high-energy rock tune which although may not be exactly ground-breaking, is just a good rock song. After that "Three And Nine" changes gears a bit - there's the Bryan Ferry as crooner I sort of expected. This is an odd one - almost at first listen it seems "normal" but there's a lot going on in each song. e.g. "Out Of The Blue" is a rocker but takes a few weird directions closing with a weird synth? (electric violin type sound) solo closing it out. I like it. "Bitter Sweet" has some unsettling Peter Gabriel meets Gong vibe to it. "Casanova" is a compelling funky galloping swaggering beat matched with Ferry's odd Bowie-like vocals (which i like much better than Bowie). Sum: weirdly diverse early 70s art-rock album. I feel like this is gonna take a few listens to sink in (or not) which I'm willing to give - I'm not yet sure what to think but this is far more than I'd expected which is always nice. 7/10 4 stars.

Nina Simone had a crazy-unique voice - at times sounding very deep and masculine and then others where she could reach the high notes with such power (e.g. ending of "Four Women"). Very compelling. The music is at times not terribly interesting to me but the best songs are really good, much of the first 5 or 6 especially - it's interesting as a fan of Jeff Buckley to hear this. There's the obvious connection with "Lilac Wine" which he covered on his debut album but more than that in listening to this album you can hear how much he copped from her in terms of vocal style. Nothing wrong with that but when I hear praise for Buckley's vocals it bears remembering where it came from. Interesting to read that "Four Women" was actually banned due to the lyrics which makes me like it even more. I'm less partial to some of the slower jazz-vocal cuts (e.g. "Wild Is The Wind") and steer more towards the first half of the album and bluesier songs. 7/10 3 stars - I'm sure if vocal jazz was more of my thing I'd have given this at least a 4 but it's definitely worth listening to by all.

Reviewing as mostly a jazz novice, I like this quite a bit. I briefly studied Mingus in college and enjoy instrumental jazz infinitely more than vocal - this has an interesting continuity to it, definitely worthy as a full-album listen rather than any one of the tracks by themselves. The only part I don't love personally is the flamenco-ish parts in the final suite - it's just not a favourite style for me - but musically it's still impressive how the band can transition from one section and one genre to another so well. Funny note at 5:25 of the final cut, listen for someone (Mingus?) yelling "goddamnit" in the right channel :D 8/10 4 stars

I get that some people just do not like Steely Dan. Heck as a kid when they would come on the radio - and they did, often - I pretty much hated them. Smooth but weird...songs that didn't necessarily have the standard structure I was accustomed to. Then again I was a stupid kid. It's different and I guess that was what i didn't like at the time or freaked me out or whatever, but this is ridiculously-complex and good music. Is/was it pop? rock? fusion? jazz? who knows, probably all of the above and who cares. Can't even pick out a favourite song - literally good from beginning to end but if forced I might pick "Aja" as the unique standout. Also of importance: you just cannot listen to this album through a phone speaker, you've got to put on either earbuds/headphones, or play it through a decent stereo. Without succumbing to boredom about how amazing the studio techniques and worldly session musicians were... if you're listening to this for the first time just make sure you at least give it a chance in this way. It's one of the most celebrated *recordings* of all time for a reason - the clarity and fidelity are pretty much perfect. Jazz rock may not be my favourite subgenre but I'm not sure an album gets much better than this. 9/10 5 stars

My second EC album on the list and this one different than his later Imperial Bedroom - definitely a more raw approach which I think he had for his first ~3/4 albums. One point: I love Costello's bass playing; I thought that warranted more credit than I ever remember hearing - it really drives all of these songs and it's hot in the mix. Overall this album is catchy as hell, with "Pump It Up" always being a radio favourite of mine and the US versions of this album always contained "Radio Radio" which is another classic 70s pop rock tune. Funny though -> I thought I liked his early material more and I think I still do but in retrospect I sometimes grow tired of that organ sound. It's definitely a *sound* and in a lot of ways that's a great thing for an artist to have; to me it is distinctly Elvis/The Attractions, but just something a bit droning at times. Anyways - a fun album that i'm not sure is groundbreaking to me and doesn't necessarily give me chills but I'll always enjoy hearing. 7/10 3 stars.

So. Yesterday I had Elvis Costello. Today? Elvis Costello. When I went to the wiki page for this album I found out that this is one of SIX E.C. albums in the top 1001. ...?? SIX! Well screw it, at this point I expect - nay, want - the rest of the week to be Elvis Costello. (OK but really?) Look, I like Elvis Costello. Like. I don't quite get it though (meaning 6 albums?) and this isn't a fair review because now I'm creating some sort of meta-critique of how much he should or should not be represented in a subjective listing of the ~1k most important albums ever. He's not 6-worthy. Not sure anyone is to be fair. I can only assume this one is here because he reunited with his band The Attractions for the first time in nearly a decade. Cool? I mean, it's pretty decent - but I don't know if it's better (or worse) than his other few I'm familiar with. It's...Elvis Costello and if you're familiar with his old work it sounds like a slightly softer 90s version of his 70s material. Which yeah, nice enough. So. Overall, there are some good songs (personal faves: "13 Steps Lead Down" and "My Science Fiction Twin"), but the album is too long (EC was definitely an artist who benefitted from the pre-CD era of ~45minute max album lengths) by about 5 songs, it's not quite as punk/raw as 15 years prior but it's still a fun listen. Kind of an easy 6/10; straight 3 stars. A safe album, aka nothing explicitly bad but outside of a few choice cuts I probably wouldn't go out of my way for it. Then again maybe I've just had too much Elvis for one week...

eh. I don't know about this. ok ok these guys could play complex music. But could they write a song? Not on this one at least. Even a 20 minute song ("Supper's Ready" - Genesis) can be fascinating and well-crafted with distinct parts, a beginning/theme/ending. This just seems like a mash of Carl Palmer staccato-snare fills, Keith Emerson's organ dancing in 5/4 time, and then oh here's Greg Lake with his smooth double-tracked vocals to put a nice sheen on it. But it doesn't work. Second half (side) of the album was supposed to be more "traditional" short songs but even there nothing works very well. I used to think prog was my favourite style of rock when I was a kid but as the years go on I'm pretty sure that wasn't/isn't true at all. I loved - and still do - the best of the genre but this ain't it. This is prog-for-prog's-sake complete with the hilarious album cover. It's just dull. 3/10 2 stars.

There is/was absolutely more to this than meets the eye. ...or...ear. I did not think I'd like this at all...some notes of country rock which prejudiced me before I heard it but it was way more complex musically than calling it country rock (which i don't like). Some really advanced progressions and diversions that are unpredictable. I kind of had a tough time rating this though.... it's never going to be a favourite but there is some deep musicianship and songwriting here that probably will make me put this on again - definitely lacking a killer track or two which is likely what makes me give it a strong 3 rather than a 4. (Also...I am curious as to why this is on the list? The band was a one hit wonder in US, but the hit isn't even on this album.) 7/10 3 stars - Interesting to be sure and may eventually rate higher.

This is a definite hit parade. Although I've never listened to this album before I quickly realized that I already knew maybe 7 songs. I've often found it hard to separate my built-up biases over the years with being objective. In this case with CCR, I always feel like I never *ever* want to hear them again - always the same stuff on terrible classic radio in any city [see any of the 60s/70s bands, there's a list of 5-6 songs per band that have been played to death for decades]. But none of that is/are the bands' faults - and in this case I'm finding it's almost like hearing CCR for the first time, listening in an album format rather than a Two-For-Tuesday on Rock101. Personal favourites are "Up Around The Bend", "I Heard It Through The Grapevine" and the odd album opener "Ramble Tamble" which sounds like it probably would be more suited as an album closer but maybe that's why I liked it. The big negatives for me are that I'm not a fan of the bluesy remakes ("Before You Accuse Me" "My Baby Left Me" and the silly "Ooby Dooby") at all, but oddly I really like the absurdly-long "... Grapevine" a lot. Even if it's a little too often no-frills for my liking, this is classic American rock and probably required listening for anyone looking to tap into popular music as the 60s led into the 70s. 8/10 4 stars.

Tremendous album. If you only know The Pretenders material from the late-80s and after...this is not that band, almost literally. This album always felt like one of those rare crossover albums back in the 80s that appealed to punks, new wavers, and rockers alike. The pure energy from the angular attack of the band combined with the sneer of Chrissy Hynde's vocals is almost sad to hear in a way, knowing the musical (guitar/bass) half of the band would be dead due to drugs within ~2 years, but almost adds to its urgency. I've had this discussion with friends before on the best debuts by an act in history - not only in terms of an album but a song and "Precious" made everyone's short list - what a kick-ass song filled with attack, swagger, and musicality. With so many good cuts, it's hard to pick one personal favourite but for me you can't beat "Tattooed Love Boys" with that galloping rhythm trading off 7/8 and 4/4 measures in the verses. Punk? raw hard rock? Again who knows, who cares, it's awesome and those breakdowns are just weird in a great way. And all in 3 minutes. Not many downturns on this album* - the instrumental "Space Invader" serves as kind of a breather after Tattooed Love Boys. I will say that the first half is definitely the stronger one as some of the slower songs do bring the energy down a bit (the Kinks cover of "Stop Your Sobbing" is a misstep; it's not *bad* but doesn't fit well) but in general they do provide a nice ebb and flow - "Brass In Pocket" may be a middle of the road tune but it's an undeniably excellent and deserving hit song. Overall I just love the raw yet interesting production on this. Guitars sound fantastic, the double-tracked vocals often differ just enough to create some interesting tones at times especially in the heavier songs. Production combined with great songs... this is a keeper and one of the great debut albums ever. 9/10 5 stars. *only referring to the original release: 12 songs ending with Mystery Achievement.

Excellent album to put on at family dinners. ... ok seriously for a minute putting aside the tough language (which for me does get distracting quickly...and then even more so) this is my first true foray into Biggie and it's pretty good - I love the production and heavy head-bobbing beats. As for Big's actual rapping I like it a lot - he's forceful, very rhythmic (which is definitely my preference). Super tragic, obviously; it would have been great to hear how he progressed because this as a debut was damn impressive. So it's tough for me to give this a good rating because...when I notice lyrics on an album it's usually for a bad reason. I noticed these lyrics. eh, not to be all pearl-clutching but ... they were a lot to take in the best of songs :D and at the worst they're just gross or even worse. The skits are stupid even by stupid standards and it all started to slide further about halfway through. So on a musical level it's definitely fantastic, and again - a damn shame he died early because if he had grown a little lyrically who knows how good he would have been but for this album I gotta think a lot of the praise is too damn apologetic - these lyrics are awful. Could recommend a few songs and again - the music is pretty great everywhere but it all gets dragged down by the misogyny and infantilism. 4/10 2 stars.

I had a predisposition to not like this - sure I've heard the singles which were fine - but I remember reading an article a few years after its release about how Crow was either claiming exclusive songwriting or dismissing others' contributions to it. I realize that should have nothing to do with enjoying an album or not :D but it kinda does... (anyways it's all disputed anyways so who tf cares) but Sheryl is starting from behind the blocks already as I put this on... But ok I admit this first song "Run, Baby, Run" is great - some really nice subtly-different chord changes; probably ends up being my favourite song on the album. After that it's fine - I went back and forth almost within each song. Sometimes her voice is a little shrill and hard to take, other times I really like it. The music is varied and put together really well but for me overall it's just "nice" - probably deserves more than a 3 and I could see people loving it (could i equivocate more?) - ok summing up with: "worth a listen". 7/10 3 stars

Like Jack Black of Tenacious D said: "don't confuse the art..with the artist!" - although that's often difficult - referring to Clapton the racist anti-science lunatic, to be clear. Sigh. Anyways looking at this objectively... even before learning more than i ever wanted to about that idiot, even as a guitar player since forever i've never been in the Clapton-is-God camp. Probably a taste thing, but for me his songwriting was almost always crap, even if he could lay down a blues riff (which goes only so far ....zzzz). But so here it's mostly covers so I need a new excuse here ha. Some 50+ years later it's probably hard to understand the impact this might have had - I know this album was a huge influence on a ton of musicians that I love and guitar players in particular; this type of heavy rock+blues had never been done or at least on a popular scale before. Clapton's solos are definitely the reason this is on the list; 1966 probably didn't find many solos like this so I'll give full credit for being a forerunner. Overall it just gets a little ... same-ish after a while but being fair, it's a good album, just not one that i need to play over and over. 7/10 3 stars on a personal level. probably worthy of 4+ for historic purposes.

Number of albums reviewed thus far: 193 Number of those that are Elvis Costello: 4 We all bow to Elvis (no for real this doesn't seem right. Come on now.) Ok this isn't about me - and no offence to Elvis because I really like this album a lot - I love how the album starts with a catchy tune that's less than 90 seconds long - it plays as a great intro. There are a few radio classics that many people will know ("Alison" "Red Shoes" and "Watching the Detectives") but honestly most of the others are as good or better than the hits. Personal favourite: "I'm Not Angry." Overall it's a quick 36 minutes of great rock that's actually quite a bit more complex than one might think - it's the kind of album you can play in any setting, i.e. easily digested but also more than enough musical complexity and density beyond standard "rock music" to sustain repeat plays. Keeper. 8/10 4 stars

Just a classic album on many levels - Curtis Mayfield's falsetto voice just works so well over the fantastic funk/soul music; hard to explain but there's a perfect balance between his voice and the music. Probably as a testament to how good and accessible the music is, so much of this album has been sampled over the years from artists as ranging as Biggie Smalls to Beastie Boys to Alicia Keys. I'll admit to not having seen the movie but even without ... this album really does *feel* like a movie; there's a great flow to it - starting with "Little Child..." and the classic final title track truly feels like an end credits. Those two are probably my favourites although I really love the instrumental "Think" - Curtis was also a masterful guitar player and the tone and melody on this track are gorgeous. Maybe the only drawback would be a general sameness that runs throughout but I think the shortness of the album (37 minutes) helps stave that off enough to keep it nearly perfect. An album for pretty much any occasion. 9/10 5 stars.

Dense. I did some reading about this album which sounds like a great stereotypical rock mess fraught with tension, drugs, and pretension. I had an idea of what I'd hoped to hear before I put it on ... and it doesn't really match. The idea of a complex, sprawling album is appealing to me but - and I fully admit that it may be difficult to digest in just one or two plays today - there's not much here that's catchy. I'm not necessarily meaning in a pop-sugary way, but even some of the more proggy and lengthy songs I've liked or loved have something to sink your teeth into; e.g. some hook or theme. This album seems a mass of ~5 minute songs, none of which are bad, but none of which I can really remember. Mid-tempo, massive reverb on overly-emotive vocals, nothing really catchy, edgy, weird, or heck even poppy. If I were to be harsh...much ado about nothing? 3/10 2 stars.

New Order's "Low Life" surprised me a few months back in terms of how much I liked it - really made me re-evaluate my preconceived notions; great record. So today when I saw this come up I wondered if it'd be the same... Who can tell with this band? The opening track "Fine Time" was probably exactly what I'd thought they'd sound like overall - it seems a very dull/unimaginative synth dance tune and not much of a song. So my initial instinct was that that wasn't starting out so well... but then "All The Way" and "Love Less" are great tunes - lovely melodies, good pop construction. ...which are followed by "Round & Round" which is back to the sequencers and electronic formula that seem so meta-New Order....but I like this one? Are they just indoctrinating me? What's happening here? This is a weird album obviously - did New Order just not know what kind of a band they wanted to be? And if so is there anything wrong with that at all? (Of some note: so many of their non-sequencer songs sound very much like The Cure) Not really sure how to rank this one; I still think I like Still Life better but this is growing on me. 6/10 3 stars

I probably hadn't explicitly listened to this album in 20+ years but still know virtually every part of it. This album was *everywhere* in the mid-late 90s. Sometimes I can't really tell if I *like* it or not - there are (many) times where Alanis' voice is tough to take, and especially on the opening track "All I Really Want" but at the same time it's catchy as hell... ...which might be a review of every single song on the album - almost to a track, they're each catchy in their own unique way. It's an impressive record in terms of variety - from the alt-rock of "You Oughta Know" to the top-down easy-going sound of "Hand In My Pocket" and the by-now overplayed and over-memed "Ironic" it doesn't really get boring. It sounds really good too - I enjoy the creative double/multi-tracking of her vocals in spots which really punches through the mix. Not that it really matters but she was 21 when she wrote these songs (with Glen Ballard) which is amazing. Her vocal imperfections while occasionally distracting are actually interesting to me (still in the era of not correcting every single note) in that you're hearing her emotion [also apparently most of the songs' vocals were done in one or two takes]. You can almost call this a/the quintessential 90s album - put this on and you're instantly back in time. It's definitely an important album and worth hearing for sure...couldn't figure whether 3 or 4 but i'll give it the nostalgic bump. 7/10 4 stars.

cool fact: on most of these songs Todd Rundgren played all of the instruments. Whether that fact alone affects one's enjoyment of this or not is unclear, but you could make the case that there's something unique and special about an album like this because of the very fact that it is *not* democratic, and all under one person's vision. Contrast that with a lot of pop music today that has up to 10 or more songwriters -which runs the risk of drifting towards "the middle" or whatever might be popular at the time. That risk is nowhere to be heard here - there are some undeniably all-time classic singles that many people will know ("I Saw The Light" and "Hello It's Me"), but amidst the 23 (!!!!!) other tracks the variety and non-commercialism shows; yet at the same time even though many of these couldn't have been singles they're mostly quite accessible. Incredible sense of melody (this guy never met a major 7th chord he didn't love - I approve). "Couldn't I Just Tell You" should have been a bigger hit, that's a great pop-rock song right there. As for the "non-traditional" parts of the album, not only am I not put off by the spoken word parts (e.g. beginning of "Couldn't I Just Tell You" "Hello It's Me" and the entirety of "Intro") it adds to the experience for me (being a studio junkie). It's almost like (well, it essentially was) being there for a home recording yet decidedly NOT low-fi (thank god); you'll hear Todd talking about recording techniques, counting in other musicians (I believe the only songs he used other musicians on are in the final 1/4 of the album). Ok so... the album is long. LONG. Some of my favourite albums are double-albums but they tend to have a theme; maybe it's only that I'm not familiar enough with this one and/or it doesn't have enough cultural touchstones (outside the 2 aforementioned singles) so at some point I get just a little tired of it before it picks up steam again over the last half. But overall: the album sounds amazing; I'm a sucker for these kinds of melodic turns. It's Rundgren's most famous album for a reason and much more accessible than the one to follow... (A Wizard, A True Star) because when at their best, many/most of these songs are cohesive and a great intro to both Rundgren and 70s melodic rock in general. 8/10 4 stars

OK I was expecting The Jam (which would have been good) but instead I got.... something warmer and bluesier that sounds like excerpts from a 1973 Jesus Christ Superstar offshoot? Which to be clear is a compliment... So I don't think there's anything remotely groundbreaking or revelatory here, but who cares - it's a bit of a straight-up rock album with good if uncomplicated production. Every other song seems to harken back to something familiar... I'm hearing a bit of Traffic, Faces, and CSN in here. If I have any criticisms, it's a theme for me ... it's too long. This kind of album/music doesn't lend itself to much longer than ~40 minutes; it's not prog, most of the songs follow a fairly standard rock structure. Again: none of this is bad at all. It's just that it's better to leave 'em wanting more rather than something along the lines of "hmm...3 more songs...ok...." Still, it's a nice rock record that I think suits a lot of palettes. 7/10 4 stars.

...unfortunately for me this wasn't available on Apple Music in the States - here's a YouTube playlist if others have the same issue; first 9 songs are the original album: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSSNXW9EANA&list=PLDIxWXRU4UDpUpAB4vMTUroYuvodq118L - - - - Different. Excellent. I really enjoy this - very raw with not a ton of instrumentation; I enjoy Gil's voice quite a bit and it meshes perfectly with Brian Jackson's keyboard sound - perfect compliments to each other. The jazz-soul aspects of this definitely are "of the age" and one might say it sounds dated (and it definitely does) but in this case I like it. Really nice listening musically and lyrically interesting especially on multiple listens; many topics dealing with inner city issues and neglect. "H20Gate Blues" is sort of the outlier musically but still fun to listen to and important - a funny mostly-ad-libbed poem dealing with the then-timely Nixon/Agnew fkery of the country. This is one I'd like to actually find on vinyl - will definitely come back to this one. 8/10 4 stars.

Wow. This seems...random. For years my only exposure to Hanoi Rocks was from the car accident with Motley Crue (I can only hope they're not on this list) that killed their drummer. A bit of reading shows these guys (from Finland) were *hugely* influential on the early 80s hard rock scene, bringing a mix of glam and metal. Ok cool music history moment but what about the music? Yes as it turns out this has a strong early 80s sound but it's more Bowie+New York Dolls+Poison. If that's your bag. Aside from the fact that this sounds like a demo (I'm reminded of Van Halen's unreleased mid-70s demo that sounds similar yet better than this) the album is filled with simple melodies and predictable if not bad good-time party hooks, it's.... fine. So why is this on the 1001 list? Influence? I could be mean and complain that bands that merely influenced some emerging trends but weren't any good themselves should probably not be on this list (...but then i'd just be talking about the horrific abomination that were the Velvet Underground and that's playing dirty). "Sailing Down The Tears" sounds like a coke-fueled bash with Slash playing aside a drunk Alice Cooper. To sum up: this sounds like a good high school band that played their dance in 1983 and then should have gone to college and gotten better at songwriting instead of becoming Poison a few years later. 3/10 2 very dim and generous stars: early 80s "hard rock" for 13 year olds. At least there's melody.

This one puzzles me. On the one hand...it's nice. Nice. On the other.... I'm not sure I'd ever want to actively listen to this...? It's great background music. Is that worthy of a top-1001? It's all subjective of course but I can't ever see myself having enough interest in something that's manufactured like this (not necessarily a critique) to voluntarily think "I need this album and nothing else for the next 45 minutes." Atmospheric, uber-mellow, again: it's nice and truthfully after a few songs I was really liking it but afterwards it suffers a ton from just being itself. Repeated loops and beats that have a nice melody and effect still just don't hold up over and over. I have a hard time rating it and will give it a nice 3; would listen again, wouldn't necessarily remember anything from it other than the mood. Maybe that's the point... 5/10 3 stars.

Probably worth it to mention that I've never been much of a Stones fan. So there's nothing outside of maybe "Gimme Shelter" that ever gives me chills or demands listening. Having said that, it's pretty clear this is an important historical rock document - the album where the Stones became The Stones™ in a lot of ways; first one consisting of all originals, first one recorded in stereo; more usage of different instruments (largely due to Brian Jones' influence). There are some all-time hits on this album [depending on which version: the UK version doesn't have "Paint It Black" while the US version is missing "Mother's Little Helper" - both classics] which makes it worthwhile. And even though they're not really my favourites, I feel like this is too important to not give a 4 star rating to - inarguably one of the 2 or 3 most recognizable and influential rock bands in history with their first proper original album. Even if some of it sounds incredibly dated, it's certainly worth a few listens at least. 7/10 4 stars

This album was everywhere in ~1987 - as a teen into hard rock at the time it's safe to say I ignored it. :) ...and while it's still not necessarily my favourite [it's a bit smooth for my personal tastes] for what it is, it does sound freaking fantastic. Anita Baker is a great singer who didn't necessarily sound like anyone else but still was very accessible. Maybe it was her slightly-lower register or husky timbre; it definitely sits above others for me in the genre (contrast with wailing soprano vocalists of the day that I definitely still don't care for) and despite a general same-ness to the album, it's short enough (~38 minutes) to not really drag much at all. Again on a personal level, it would have been nice overall to hear more of the musicians/instruments reaching a bit - it's a very "safe" album musically which no doubt was the intent. If you're more into any instrumental flights of fancy over vocals, like me you might knock it down a few pegs. Having said that, this is objectively an excellent soft-soul album. 7/10 4 stars

Zzzz. I'm a fan of some of the early-70s Gong material and there's definitely a parallel here at least in terms of the long-form space rock...hanging on to one chord seemingly forever through an extended trippy section...sax solos...heavy heavy reverb... A big difference to me is complexity and interest... both of which are considerably lower here (again comparing to Gong). I'm not sure the musicians ...vocals...guitar...bass (sorry Lemmy)...drums... are any good at all, nor am I sold on any of the songwriting - "Time We Left This World Today" is akin to a slightly sped-up terrible Black Sabbath jam. I do respect that this is supposed to be more of a "feel" or a jam and given that this is a live recording I would accept that maybe [under the influence of something] this would have been super-trippy to experience in person. There's just nothing worth mentioning that's anywhere near adventurous or dammit just *interesting* on the instrumental side. Take "Orgone Accumulator" for a 10-minute example. It goes nowhere. Which...ok. But how is it any different than any other "song" on this album. Positives? I enjoy the effects; i.e. the synths are quite good and might be the only thing in this band/performance outside the occasional flight on the sax that elevates what would otherwise be completely base 2-3 chord songs into something slightly edgier or different. It's tough - I really wanted to like this; I like the idea of it - this weird fake mysticism, spacey/trippy rock that's not adhering to standard 4-5 minute songs but .... not even halfway through I wanted to hear just one standard 4-5 minute song. "10 Seconds of Forever" - I couldn't come up with a more appropriate song describing the album. It's disappointingly bad. 3/10 2 stars.

I've had a hard time connecting with this one. I fully appreciate how people could like (and conversely, could hate) this - it's so radically different and in 1978?? Man - almost unheard of. The part that I'm having most difficulty with is how can I like a lot of Gang of Four and Wire which I hear similarities but not this as much. Is it Siouxsie's voice? I appreciate and enjoy a lot of the non traditional aspects of this...the horror movie intro of "Pure"...the 5/4 time of "Overground" the almost but not quite straightforward "Carcass" - unique use of drums especially in that one, in that almost everything is on toms rather than the standard snare/kick. But then the album almost falls off a cliff... a song like "Metal Postcard" seems droning and doesn't hit the same promise as the songs in the first half of the record. "Nicotine Stain" and "Suburban Relapse" are just not good - bad atonal punk and the vocals are brutal. But then they come back with the excellent "Switch" and...? I have no idea how to rate this...my second time through I confess to starting to "get" this, at least the first half. I'll leave at this: this is not for everyone to be sure. I'll give big marks for being super unique and the best/mysterious songs are really worth a look, but overall it's not an easy listen. 6/10 3 stars for unique highs, but the lows are pretty low.

This is a very rich sounding album. Lush, even. I've generally not gravitated towards the modern folky-harmonic type genres but when this album came out there was something about it that grabbed me. I hadn't listened to it in probably a decade so it was interesting to revisit and definitely *sounds* gorgeous. Highly melodic and soft-ish tunes but quite complex instrumentation. It's a pleasantly short record - 39 minutes or so; any more might really start to get repetitive or suffer from a sameness for me. This works as more of an album experience as songs tend to run into one another but i'm treating this as a feature rather than a bug. Highly recommended. 8/10 4 stars.

Picture yourself as a 20-yr old living in the doldrums of the Thatcher-Reagan hellscape, surviving in a shitty London suburb with 4 other people in a 2 bedroom leaky apartment with no job and it's raining all the time. And you're just tired and angry but wired like an East Vancouver tweaker jumping from skateboard to stairs to railing at 100mph. That's what this album sounds like. There's no way I should like this album...I love grandiose sweeping music, big production, arena or stadium filling chills-inducing progressive side-long complex time-signature and key jumping epics. But for some reason I kind of have always loved this album. Angular and angry guitars, very very dry production. I usually hate that but here, it's awesome. This is nowhere near calming music - this is not breakfast table music - this is generally not to be played after Fleet Foxes (which in my case it was but I love them both). Killer tracks are "I Found That Essence Rare" and "Anthrax" the latter of which is just.so.weird. Two completely different vocal tracks stepping right on top of each other, spoken word, but every once in a while they align. You might really hate this album and I wouldn't blame you one bit. It's ugly. I don't even like punk music... I don't know - I just love this - I shouldn't but it's a mood. Aggressive, interesting and unique guitar work, bass propelling everything. I always forget to pronounce migraine as "mee-grain" - I'll get there. 8/10 4 stars.

Outstanding. A quick 30 minute primer into one of the greatest singers of all-time. Many hits and a few I'd never heard before. "Niki Hoeky" in particular is a banger. But they're all good - literally. It's Aretha, and prime Aretha. A great variety of up-tempo and more soulful/mellow. Just listen, buy it, save it, all of the above. 9/10 5 stars.

Songs From A Panic Room. ... Ok I was gonna try - honest - but literally from the first note ("note") I hated this. His terrible up-front vocals drenched in reverb upon more reverb over slow slice-your-wrist songs are not my bag. Which begs the question: whose bag are they? Yeah yeah poetry genius whatever. David Lee Roth wasn't a poet (or was he...) and/but used humour dammit and had Eddie by his side making some entertainment. This is not entertaining. I've had two LC albums thus far. I can think of ... a hundred? 200? artists I *hate*...that I'd rather have two albums from. Easily. Bring me Liz Phair's Greatest Monotone Middle School Naughty Words! Bring me Bon Jovi's Worst Ballads! Sigh. (...actually don't...) ...now i'm scared. Are there more Leonards?? Please say there won't be any more. [brain: ...say something nice... say something nice...] He's Canadian! [brain: invalid. ...where are the Rheostatics?...there should be at least 4 of their albums... try again; Canadian alone is worthless] Um, he's like a slightly less smacked out Lou Reed? [brain: ...what is wrong with you ... this is your base-level bar? we cannot stand anything about Lou Reed, remember? that's not a bar - that's a concrete floor. Again.] well. um...it's only 36 minutes so it'll be over soon.... [brain: ...GAK...send help - there is no way this is only 36 minutes it feels like days...brain dying...] 1/10 1 burned out dim star.

random note: as a huge baseball fan I never noticed the "Roberto Clemente" sign behind her on this album. My memory of when this came out is that in school there was the "Cindy Lauper or Madonna" debate. At the time I couldn't stand "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" and still can't but catchy is catchy and there's something to it to be sure. Her voice is certainly unique which is always polarizing in an artist. I get/got the appeal for sure in 1984 but I just can't do it though, too many of the up-tempo songs are very dated (which seems more common for 80s music) and her voice has that quality that for me is distracting (notably on "Girls Just..." and "When You Were Mine"). The mellower-songs are definitely more appealing - "Time After Time" is an outstanding song, well-written and I do like her voice on this one; "All Through The Night" is another where her voice is appropriate but holy hell the keyboard sounds on that one are just awful - were they even good at the time? Bedroom Casio keyboard.. In the end if you'd never heard this before you could pretty much nail down 1984 just based on the terrible keyboard sounds - I keep saying that but it is so distracting that I don't need to hear most of these again save "Time After Time" 4/10 2 stars.

I'm a terrible person - I know "Lady Day" is celebrated as one of the greatest singers of the 20th century. Who am I to argue? Very distinctive, no question. I just really don't properly appreciate vocal jazz at all. Or to be fully honest I don't like it. So my rating is purely subjective (aren't they all?) and if you're inclined to like this genre just ignore me. 3/10 2 stars.

Interesting history. This album can't be labeled as just "hip-hop" - yes there are elements of it in most songs but "Dreamin'" and "You Are" are melodic soul songs without a trace of rap. But songs like "She's Fresh" which is awesome and catchy-as-hell (a perfect opening track) and the early/timeless hit "The Message" are just fun old-school hip-hop with killer basslines/melodies. "Scorpio" sounds like something Beck would definitely have listened to and taken a lot from 15-20 years later. Interesting/cool crossover note: "The Message" influenced Genesis in 1983 so much that in their hit song "Mama" Phil Collins took that "hahahaha" laugh directly from this song. It definitely is "of the time" but for me that's what makes it enjoyable - it's definitely worth a listen now and again, especially if you really like early hip-hop. Fun. 7/10 3 stars.

One of those "never popular but launched a million bands" bands. Which is a definite trigger-warning for me (FU Velvet Underground you were the worst). But these guys are definitely better - way better. I hate to break it down to something so base but Tom Verlaine's voice is a real tough thing to get by. It's a shame because the guitar and melodies are so interesting, especially on songs like "Venus" (which Verlaine is playing lead on) - I keep thinking what if Elvis Costello sang for these guys? I realize his voice is a bit polarizing as well but for me that would have been an amazing marriage... Avoiding the vocals for a bit - the music is really cool here - definitely has that dry 70s "post-punk" vibe but I kind of hate that term; there's also quite a bit of interesting progressions within each of these songs; good and creative use of chord voicings and dynamics. After the album is over I still humming those guitar arpeggios from "Venus" which is a good thing. Upon replay I find I both like and dislike the album more - the instrumental passages for obvious reasons are really good but... I don't need a perfect tonal vocalist like .... Freddie Mercury? to enjoy a band, but Verlaine's attack-style vocals are grating and detract from each song rather than compliment; comparing to some of his contemporaries like Costello or Tom Petty. They worked better with the songs IMO. 6/10 3 stars. Kind of a waste - really needed a different/better singer.

Well... another Bowie album. Maybe it's Bowie+saxophone that i don't like? I mean...it's hard to separate the fact that this album contains "Young Americans" and "Fame" which have been unavoidable on radio for over 40 years. I could make the defence that I'm just tired of them but honestly I've never liked these songs, and maybe this is the pinpoint of my not being a Bowie fan? I'm not denying the talent involved or it's not that I can't understand *why* people like them/him, but these songs never resonate with me in any way. Maybe it's the faux-soul/funkiness with these songs that low-key irritates me? I think that's it. They all seem to have that similar vibe that turned me away from those hits so many years ago. Listen to the song "Right" - a perfect example. It's not *bad* - it's just not interesting. If I had to nitpick specifics, the constant saxophone and soulful bg vocals - while undoubtedly give the vibe he was looking for - are exactly what I don't enjoy. The other songs are new to me and ... meh... (although I actively dislike the cover of "Across the Universe") Random note: listen to the beginning of "Win" then go listen to "Debra" by Beck. :) Just a personal thing in the end I suppose: I've never really been a Bowie fan and this album definitely would be the nadir for me; however I previously had the album "Low" (which was new to me) and just listened to it again to affirm what I'd thought before and stand by: *that* is the Bowie album for people who don't like Bowie - I still love it. I'll stick with Low and pass hard here. 3/10 2 stars.

Dance music is most definitely not my thing but overall... this is pretty good. At its best it's soulful with great production especially for the 80s - I mean...you know it's the 80s but also kind of not? :P I remember "Back to Life" being the big hit and I like it far better now than in my mullet days. Other highlights for me are "Fairplay" - smooth yet with a fantastic groove - and the instrumental "African Dance" with flute solo throughout works even if the electronic percussion does get repetitive. But the parts of this album that I don't love aren't necessarily bad by any means (e.g. "Holdin' On") they're just more of a standard club/dance beat that don't hold my interest as songs and that's my overall feel here... Overall it's not really something I feel like is or would be an "active listen" for me; good party music perhaps. My rating is totally a personal thing - if you're more into dance/r&b this is probably like a 9/10 4 or 5 star. 5/10 2 stars

I read about this before putting it on and based on the descriptions - space-rock...neo-psychedelia...epic - I was ready to love this. But I don't. It's dense in a way that becomes inaccessible. Is it something that comes with time? The songs are long already yet seem longer than they are. Not a compliment. I had this one over the weekend which gave me time with it but I actually am finding myself liking it *less* the 2nd/3rd times through. It's noisier than i'd wanted (holy hell "The Individual" is an abomination that I didn't need in my headphones with the lights off). And I don't necessarily need pop but there aren't anything resembling hooks *anywhere* on this album that I could remember - even the best/longest prog songs will have recurring themes. I still don't really remember anything from this. I think I'm trying too hard - just cannot connect with this one. Clearly a lot of time/effort was put into this which - great - but there seems to be so much effort into making a vast variety of sounds and tones that they forgot to put any effort into the craft of songwriting. Lack of any good actual songs makes it essentially unlistenable for me. 2/10 2 stars.

The other night - very late - I had a giant 3 scoop bowl of ice cream with chocolate sauce, and a small glass of tequila afterwards. ... to describe the nightmare I had after falling asleep soon afterwards would be to listen to "Cemetery Polka." Man... This voice. It all seems absurdly affected. I'm trying. Well, I tried. I know I know - it's "cool" to like Tom Waits and if you're not cool apparently you don't get it. See also: Leonard Cohen (n.b.: don't.). I don't care about how great his lyrics *might* be - not that I could tell. They might be unreal, hell I'll give it without knowing - sure, amazing lyrics so I'm told. I can't listen to this. I don't get it. That's it. That's the review. I'm tired. I don't get it, I don't appreciate it, and I don't like it. 2/10 1 star.

My instinct was gonna be to pan this. Because that first song "Planet Claire" and jesusf#R#*&^#$ "Rock Lobster" are just straight up awful. I hate that keyboard sound and Fred.... yeah that's a big no from me. But then "52 Girls" is pretty good - the dueling vocals (read: NOT Fred) and punky guitars make for a fun song. I could maybe have gotten behind a full album of that. Maybe. Or maybe it's just that it's the only part of the album that floats above the sewage and kitsch. Because it dunks right back into that, which are what I cannot stand and unfortunately what I remember and think of with this album/band. "Lava" makes me want to drown in it. 2/10 1 star.

I'm not sure there's anyone over the age of...10? 12? who hasn't heard at least a few songs from this. I remember when this came out - there was a slow burn, people were sort of aware of it, then BAM it blew up and was *everywhere* - it was lumped in with the other longhair/spandex heavy rock of the time but is definitely different: greasier, dirtier, more raw - like the punk rock of hair metal. Due to the popularity - and it's gotten bigger over the years, too - I honestly never ever need to hear Paradise City, Welcome to the Jungle, Sweet Child again thanks to unimaginative and boring classic rock radio [or watch any hockey game and guaranteed at least 2/3 are played between plays], although to be fair in context they do sound great here. Some of the non-hits are absolute killers, especially the first half up to Paradise City; my highlight is that "Mr Brownstone" riff which has always been one of my favourites. So yeah - I hadn't voluntarily put this on in years but it's just a damn great angry punky stupid infantile amazing sounding album - emphasis on how cool it sounds; the dual guitars were/are nothing new but the way they didn't exactly match up and kept that perfectly-designed sloppiness in a Stones kinda way is probably what puts this album over the top. I'm not always in the mood for it and it's not necessarily my favourite kind of music [mostly please please look away from the totally 80s sexist-as-hell-at-best lyrics] but it's also arguably one of the 3-4 greatest debuts in rock history, perfect for the time, and I'm not sure could have been any better... if that's not a 5 star then what's the point... 9/10 5 stars.

First and most importantly to me - the music is excellent - gives a real 70s analog soul/r&b feel and Common has a great voice and I really like his flow. No trap beats either thank god. "The Corner" has a fantastic groove and has the feel of a gritty 70s movie. "Testify" and "Real People" are other favourites. Actually the bookends of "Be" and "It's Your World" are perfect as opener/closer and I think "It's Your World" is the highlight - really love the spoken word aspects to finish the album. Be....eternal. Hip-hop isn't the genre I'm most familiar with but I know enough to realize what i do like, and these ingredients are the perfect recipe for me. He lets the music shine through enough that it makes it a better musical experience than a lot of modern popular music. After a few listens this is a strong 4 - this is an album that will continue to grow on me. 8/10 4 stars

This is a slow-burn album - I wasn't sure over the first few songs ... it's inevitable that you try to make comparisons...Joni Mitchell? Laura Nyro? I don't know if either of those match. Way more than just the vocals on this one - the music and songs are each interesting/diverse. It's pop, it's folk, it's rock, bluesy... but at the same time nothing is so "out there" that makes any of it inaccessible. My highlights would be "Join the Boys" and "Like Fire" which is my favourite - this has such a crazy-cool acoustic guitar intro from Joan, and that last song "Tall In The Saddle" is a surprise; you think it's gonna be a slow jazzy tune to end it all and then about 2/3 through that changeup to uptempo was great. Really enjoyed this one. 8/10 4 stars

eh. My 2nd Pogues album in the first 250. At least 1.5 too many. I suspect my thoughts about this are the same as the first - would likely enjoy live in a pub for 30-45 minutes with a pint, probably as the music is designed, but listening as an album - very uh not-enjoyable for me. Actually...I don't think I hated the other one as much as this. Vocals are shit and I cannot get beyond that. Not something I'd ever put on to listen to voluntarily. Might even go to the basement if it were on the upstairs stereo. um...track 3 "Wild Cats of Kilkenny" was nice (instrumental). 2/10 1 star

Ha I legitimately have no idea what to think about this one. I am not a fan of punk... but I don't think it's at all right to call this a punk album. "Cohesion" isn't punk - it could be an acoustic Black Sabbath song. Some of the chord progressions and musicianship clearly show these guys knew what they were doing. Dammit tho again with the vocals. I hate it. but...then sometimes i don't. ...ok let's face it, it's just so/too damn long. come on. After about 15 songs I'm like...ok I'm done. Glad I heard it, there are definitely a lot of bands I like that *clearly* listened to the Minutemen, and they definitely took cues from Gang of Four and Wire which I also like. In the end...I like it and more than I'd thought I would but not sure how often I'd voluntarily listen. 6/10 3 stars

There's no way to prove it...but fng Morrissey is the most overrated pop/rock star of all-time. Utter bullshit singer, and absolutely stupid/ridiculous lyrics ...oh i'm sorry "Girlfriend in a coma...there were times i could have murdered her" is SUCH QUIET GENIUS tittered a hundred thousand Benetton-turtle-necked-with-bangs teenage girls in the late 80s - it's completely laughably awful; he only semi-got away with it with his prancy fey overly-wraught whiny British pomposity. He's awful and the worst of 80s Brit indie alt pop. And it's a fking shame - because the music here is *fantastic* - Smiths 2 3 and 4 brought their A-games and if they had pretty much any other singer on earth this album would be permanently in my collection. Give me any Johnny Marr solo record over this - he may not be the best singer but he's not distracting from the great/moody/melodic music. Morrissey 1 other Smiths 5 so we'll even it out and give a 3. Angrily. 6/10 3 stars.

I'm lukewarm on their "big" album Yankee Hotel Foxtrot so I wasn't psyched about getting this one but you know.... I like this one a lot better. Well....the first half at least. Another album that's just way too bloated for its own good. I'm not a fan of the uber-country tunes [stay tuned for the 2nd half...] but after a half hour or more already "Misunderstood" "Outtasite..." "I Got You..." "Hotel Arizona" are great songs - very interesting musically, and in contrast to the YHF album I'm not minding Tweedy's vocals (again, outside the country milieu) at all. I'll have to revisit YHF but I do feel like they were mixed a little differently here. More of a 90s-vocal mix rather than the 2000s vocals-way-up-front style that has become so prevalent. So... I wrote all of this up through the first ~10 or 11 songs. Do/should I detract my feelings since I really don't like the album much after that? There's a real slowing down of momentum for me; a lot of what doesn't interest me starts in around track 12 ("Someday Soon") - I mean...i don't hate it. It just doesn't interest me. I do enjoy the last two cuts (of 19 so... I mean, the more times you come to the plate, you've got more chances to get a hit I guess...). I'll pretend the album was only 10 tracks long. I mentioned it in my other Wilco review but there's some similarity to my favourite band Rheostatics; a little less oddball which is unfortunate :) but at its best there are some really nice surprises here (I might make my own edited cut of the album omitting the snoozers...)... probably 3.5 stars and just can't bring myself to boost it to 4 but I might listen to this again. 7/10 3 stars.

Love it. As if Keane discovered guitars, combined forces with Elbow, and channeled the smoothest of early Radiohead. This one grabs me right away - first song, first verse. The melodies are fantastic, love the vocals, and is a excellent mix. Revolutionary? Nah. Doesn't matter - sometimes a group of fairly basic pop-rock songs can just be great on its own. Honestly no dogs on the entire album - "Why Does It Always Rain On Me?" was the hit; "Writing to Reach You" "The Fear" and "Slide Show" are others I love. Well-produced, judicious instrumentation, nothing overplayed. A keeper. 8/10 4 stars.

Another unexpected one - not my favourite genre and even though it's not something I'd actively listen to this is really good music to work to or just have as background. I really like the vocals from Martina Topley-Bird - very low-key and chill, nice voice, mixed low. Note: interesting how "Pumpkin" sounds exactly like something from the Smashing Pumpkins' first album...hmmm... 6/10 3 stars

No. Nope. nononono. At first I thought the music wasn't terrible in a low-rent Elvis Costello kinda way, something I'd be ok with hearing a band playing at a pub but me not paying 100% attention or having paid a large cover for. Unfortunately before the first song ended I really wanted to leave the bar. But I couldn't because I'm not in a bar, I'm at home listening. I'M TRAPPED! SEND HELP. "Hospital" makes me want to check into one. JFC. I think what frustrates me about music like this isn't at all that people like it - hell, listen to 35 minutes of someone banging on a pipe and screaming that's fine who cares. It's that something like this makes a list of 1001 albums you must listen to rather than 1001 albums that, well, only a few people and their roommates might like and you *might* enjoy it but it's really not anything groundbreaking (there I go being subjective again). But no - critics love this shit *and* enjoyed deriding other acts for being too complex. That's the part that frosts me a bit. Oh look! John Cale produced it - what a surprise. Jonathan Richman has the vocal range of a walrus high jumping. Apologies to the walrus who is undoubtedly trying their best. <inner voice: Stop pussy-footing around, this is your review dammit!> Holy hell this is one of the worst things I've ever heard. I hate this. 1/10 1 star.

Long ago in a lifetime far away I took a college jazz course for my music studies - very early in the semester our homework one weekend was this album. Just that - listen to this album. My previous exposure to jazz was probably anything random from a movie or tv show. I knew I didn't enjoy jazz singing so I assume that's probably what I thought I was getting into. I'm not sure the word or term "jazz" is accurate (too widespread) because this album blew me away literally the first time I heard it. The mysterious almost creepy no-time intro to "So What" sets everything up before that classic call and response between bass and piano and gradual build... it's awesome. There's a *space* to this album - I'm not sure how to describe it well, but that space gives the mystery. There's no overload of sound; it always feels like something's coming around the corner and retaining the uncertainty. The entire album feels like that - every track. I love it. Again, I'm probably still speaking out of ignorance but this album might be the one cliché jazz album that everyone knows. To use my words carefully here...so what. Nothing I'll write here will be new - jazz is a little down the list of my preferred genres and I'll still not pretend to be able to know more than the next person but this kind of jazz is what I love and this album is perfection - I'm primarily a rock fan but after >200 albums this is my first 10/10. 10/10 5 stars

Surprising. I'm not a fan of punk and had definite trepidation on getting this, fearing truly one chord wonders with lofi production. Wrong! There's a ton of melody here, with frequent unexpected rhythmic twists and turns. Is it...crazy to say that maybe some very early Iron Maiden took some cues from this album? Seriously - there are hints of the Paul Di'Anno era of Maiden here and hey, who arrived first? It's raw without sounding garage-y. I like the twin guitar spread and simple yet effective and not distracting mix. I'd say the second half falls off from the excellent first - nothing bad, but suffers from a bit of same-ness. 7/10 4 maybe generous stars but this is an album that is a big crossover for me that held my attention

Didn't know anything about this group - the cover gives nothing away. Are they EDM? folk? hip-hop? emo? I'm not sure I expected the immediate lush melodies though - right off the bat it's hard to not be captivated by this. This melodic and catchy trippy electronic pop/rock carries on throughout the entire album - if i have any criticisms, it's almost an assault on the ears. Not that it's overly loud or abrasive, just that it's too *dense* to a fault in many of the songs. There's a lot of suffering from modern/digital production - jamming all the levels of every instrument to their peaks and after a while I didn't realize it but my ears get a little tired. I'd definitely listen to any/all of this again but even with the short runtime it's just a bit much to take in all in one gulp. Still, worthy of a strong 3 stars. 7/10 3 stars

Neo soul / progressive rap - these should be indicators that I'm going to enjoy this. The problem is that I don't like many of the songs. Is that simple enough? I shouldn't blanket it like that - "The Seed" is a good one, but it took 8 songs for me to enjoy a few. Not a good sign. I will say that the second half is definitely an improvement - one that's an interesting experimental spoken word piece is "Something In The Way of Things" which is probably my favourite. Overall it took too long to get going and find very few that were really catchy; that first half of music is too glitchy and chaotic for me, which I found it distracting and approaching annoying. Left me a bit disappointed. 4/10 2 stars.

Lush Orchestral Moody Melodic I enjoyed this - I missed a lot of the 80s new wave in my teen guitar-solo-oriented days and often to my detriment. Most of this is an enjoyable and elegant-sounding slice of early80s British music that at the time I thought was moodier and more somber than I do now. Or maybe I'm just moody and somber at this point in my life. Possible. "Thorn of Crowns" is an odd one... I can't decide if it's ridiculous or I actually like it. ... although maybe both apply. Overall the minor keys with a soaring production is a combination I find myself enjoying - even though it's very "of its age" is that a bad thing here? I say not. A keeper. 7/10 4 stars.

Thoroughly enjoyable album. Like a more-accessible Nick Drake meets Jonathan Edwards, both of whom I enjoy quite a bit. It's simple in one sense; acoustic guitar, Rhodes piano, bass, some drums, vocals. But for every nice simple tune like "May You Never" there's quiet jazz like "Solid Air" and spacious and anticipatory latter part of "I'd Rather Be the Devil" - the other standout is "Over The Hill" The album ends a little weakly with a few straight blues tunes... "The Easy Blues" wouldn't be a favourite of mine with the affected blues vocals but the great acoustic playing overrides it and makes it a good listen. Still, it is more diverse than I'd expected and all in a nice and tidy 34 minutes. 7/10 4 stars.

As much as I get bored by heavily blues-derivative rock... it's nice to be reminded that the real deal once in a while is a blast. Production is perfect on this, Muddy's voice is great, and I love the occasional "voices in the background" giving it the real feel of being in the room with the band. Of course there's only so long I can listen to 3 (or 2...or....) chord songs before I'm feeling a little worn down, but self-check: the entire genre is based not around songwriting/craft but feel and attitude, which this album churns with. The aforementioned voices of the band themselves give it that authenticity - and I usually hate that word associated with music but I have to admit it fits here. An absolutely essential primer for anyone who doesn't "get" blues. Learn from the master. 8/10 4 stars.

No No No. These screechy gimmicky-radio-frequency vocals get old by the 2nd song. And it's not a single, which means there were 10 more to get through. (jumping back in after I wrote an angry review to say that "Maps" is actually pretty decent, if still *sounding* lousy overall - if only the rest of the album were like this I could have dealt. Got rid of the tired effects on the vocals, she actually sings, decent mood-building. Ok I now return to my previous diatribe...) I may have recalled occasionally interesting or potentially interesting music but a lot of it sounded too lo-fi / shitty production ala White Stripes (hate) but ahhhhhh ALL I CAN REALLY REMEMBER IS TICK TICK T T T T T TICK TICK TICK shut it 2/10 1 star.

Seems important in an unimportant way to mention right away: this album cover is literally one of the worst I've ever seen, not to mention kinda terrifying. .03 points docked. OK! To the music: on the one (cynical) hand, I've been wondering why such a seemingly simple or rather un-complex album can make a list of 1001 albums you must hear. On the other hand.... it's not a bad selection. It's kind of a joyous sounding album right from the start - the melodies are fantastic (e.g. "Fall At Your Feet") if not gorgeous, and even if the composition is a collection of mostly 4/4 songs in a very late-80s predictable vein ... it works well. I'd never put this near revolutionary but it's a really *nice* album. I'm familiar with other/older Crowded House songs and I'm not sure this ever made much of an impact in North America - if I'd grown up hearing a bunch of these pop songs I wonder if they'd currently have more of an impact on me. 3 stars which may seem a little unfair but it does really drag after a while and has - for me - a lack of real spine-tingling/chilling songs that keeps it down a hair. 6/10 3 stars.

"Isi" - the first song on the album - is such a nice intro; hard not to love the gently building major melody; the added synths/sequencers partway through are slightly-reminiscent of mid-Who period. The problem for me is ... that song works as described: a lovely intro. After listening to it (and it doesn't really *go* anywhere, which would be fine if only...) serve as such, I want/expected the story to start. "Isi" serves as a transitional piece - an overture. After 4 minutes I wanted more and the rest of the songs just end up following the same slightly-repetitive pattern only less-catchy. ...except for "Hero" - that song is a damn abomination. Stop singing. Please. Best suited for background music to an indie-film about a divorced guy driving his pickup solo across the canadian prairies with no other dialogue. 4/10 2 stars.

I'm sure there are some out there who haven't heard this album. I don't know where they live but it would/will be fascinating to hear their reactions. Does classic/legendary status come from non-stop aural bombardment over many years? Or is greatness inherent in a work from the start? There has to be some gradient in there. It's an interesting exercise - this rating/critiquing of albums. There is no subjectivity, ever - whether you're hearing an album for the first time or for the 500th time. Even though I haven't explicitly listened to this album in...decades(?) I could and likely will be able to sing/hum every single riff. I'd bet that 500 figure I cited might be a conservative one. If you're of a certain age, and even if you didn't own this record (yeah i said record and meant it) there's no way you haven't heard many or *all* of these songs on the radio, in a ballpark, in someone's car hundreds of times. Literally. So it's easy to dismiss on one front - there was a point where I was convinced that I never EVER wanted to hear any of these songs again; enough already. That personal sentiment lasted for years. But. Say what you want about Boston yet they quite literally were the Ultimate Garage Band - Tom Scholz writing/recording *everything* in his Watertown, MA basement. Pure genius on so many fronts. It's not his "fault" that the songs were an absolutely perfect blend of rock and melody - every single one - plus it sounded huge yet personal and gorgeous and it struck the right nerve and sold approximately 30 kabillion copies. Ok "fault" is the wrong word here, but you have to at least try to separate the art from the commerce. In what amounts to a greatest hits album (Truly: every song has either been a 40+ year old hit and/or is still occasionally played on classic rock radio stations) "Foreplay/Long Time" stands out as the winner here. Favourite moment on the album is at ~6:19 - that high guitar note... yes. *chef's kiss* Even though I still won't voluntarily put this on much anymore due to changing tastes and undying/occasionally tiresome familiarity, there's no denying the impact this album *still* has and the quality of the songs within. Can I say it's the perfect 70s rock album even if it's not a favourite anymore? I think I can. 10/10 5 stars.

Hardly a jazz aficionado but this is exactly the flavour of jazz I like - combo/quartet, no vocals, spacious. Works either as something to actively listen to but also fantastic mood pieces to set as semi-background music. Classic for a reason. 8/10 4 stars.

What "is* this album?? I'd never heard anything beyond the single "Hey Ya" so the first part of this was wholly unexpected. Often it sounds like an updated Parliament which *thumbs up* or a modern version of smooth 70s R&B; hints of Curtis Mayfield. It's...weird. mostly amazingly so. Then the second half hits and maybe I expected it to be less weird and something more traditional....nope. Piano flourishes, goofy lyrics almost with a Flight of the Conchords bent. Negative: too lonnnng. Over two hours for anything is a lot to digest. There are just a few definitively lousy songs (e.g. "Tomb of the Boom") which is a bummer - momentum is occasionally lost. I'm never a fan of little interludes or comic bits either. I know they serve as resets but they always take me out of the vibe and do again here. A bit of editing and shaving a few cuts off this would have made it solid gold. As it is tho, grading on the best material there's a lot of strange and great music here. I have to redigest this much more slowly. I was thinking a three star for a while and maybe is on a personal level but man did they make something different and odd and I feel like this could grow even more on me. 7/10 4 stars for massive ambition.

Disappointing. I really loved Parklife - lots of varied melody and creativity. This one can only be described as abrasive; in music and vocals. The ubiquitous "Song 2" has always been a bit obnoxious outside of a sporting chant and unfortunately it's probably the most catchy of the lot. I don't have anything creative to add - maybe would add boring. Pass on this, focus on their earlier work for sure. 3/10 2 stars.

I was a big fan of Gish and Siamese Daydream but when this came out I never liked it...time for a revisit to figure out why or how wrong I was... Eh. Bloated. I do love the beginning... gentle piano medley into "Tonight, Tonight" but there's something that was lost for me in this album and never quite sure what. Billy Corgan's vocals were never smooth, obviously, but immediately I find them more abrasive than ever. I'll have to compare but I wonder if more effort was made to fix him dry and clear on these songs. Don't like. It's just too much. What I loved about the band's first 2 albums was the dreamy and mysterious sonic landscape they created...even in their heavier songs. Many of these - while rarely bad - just don't hit that same way. It ends up as a long aural assault that I still can't connect with. There are definitely moments and it never doesn't sound like the Pumpkins. And of course there was density on the first two albums but I always felt was countered with more dynamics and *space* - (e.g Hummer from S.D.) Also 2 hours come on. Should have at least Use Your Illusion'd it. Halfway between 2 and 3 and the answer to "will I voluntarily listen to this again?" gives it the tiebreaker. 5/10 2 stars

The voice. The mysterious yet uplifting atmosphere. These are things that sit right up front and center for any Kate Bush record. I'm not as familiar with this particular one but it doesn't disappoint. If there's any negative there's definitely no escaping some of the 80s feel to it (e.g. chorus, gated drums)...but honestly somehow it's rarely distracting I think because the music itself is so interesting. There's often much going on and yet not so much as to be distracting or anything approaching a wall of sound. Her arrangements are always impeccable in terms of instrumentation within a song. Highlights: "Love and Anger" (with notable guitar from David Gilmour) "Reaching Out" and "This Woman's Work" 7/10 4 stars.

This Brazilian jazz/folk album became the soundtrack for my driving around the remote Western Irish countryside. It was a perfect match. I'm not usually a fan of this genre - I thought - but this was an eye (ear) opener - occasionally reminiscent of an early Chuck Mangione live album ("Friends and Love"). And not being much of a vocal fan in general the old time low-mix of vocals here is appropriate to appreciate the music; filled with unpredictable chord progressions, tempo changs and dynamic arrangements. Some of the guitar work fits alongside the early 70s progressive movement. Favourites are tracks 1 ("Tudo O Que Você Podia Ser") and 3 ("O Trem Azul") Not as big a fan of track 7 "Dos Cruces" - very Spanish feel which isn't my bag. As it turns out I'd only listened to about 2/3 of the album..? (Apple Music has a shorter version for some reason) but wow. It's long. In the end I'm glad I heard this, a bit mind-expanding and I will definitely listen again (next time with bonus tracks apparently ha). I steer heavily towards the more complex musical numbers and not so much to the overtly vocal/guitar ones, but it's a good ratio. This is excellent music, bottom line, and can be enjoyed as background or digested in headphones. 7/10 4 stars

Before you can leap you have to run, and before that you have to walk. The Crickets and Buddy Holly are the walkers here in (white) rock history. They took short 12 bar blues and the rock combo and excelled at turning them into harmonized if not sanitized dance hall tunes. Without these songs the next levels of popular-rock music would likely have gone in different directions if anywhere at all. The trouble is listening today it often sounds facile, with middle school lyrics and a sameness to it that doesn't hold a ton of excitement. In other words I'm not likely to put this on except when referencing original rock and roll. Or after a Happy Days marathon obviously. But the hits at least are songs that everyone should at least know - building blocks for everything to come. 6/10 3 stars

A tough one. There's a lot I've liked about this - the essential furry sound of droning early 90s mega-distorted guitars; so much you can't even identify strings being played - acoustic chords strumming atop - more a sense of feel overall than the songs going in a hard and fast direction. A dreamscape of music. But it's often too much. I love a low vocal mix but this is so low as to become barely noticed. And that variable-speed effect on most of the songs ....? It's terribly disorienting. You're left with this feeling akin to an aural seasickness which i'm sure was the intent and might be cool/different/interesting for one verse of one song but over and over makes it disconcerting. Many of the positives I like from this record were for me done better by the best of Smashing Pumpkins at the same time on Gish, with a better mix and better dynamics (any dynamics, really). Hard to rate - I've heard it now and again and maybe need to really lose myself in it more to appreciate it fully; next time I'm feeling super-emo I'll try to fight through the tears and remember to put this on. Because I go back and forth i'll cut it down the middle - it's really interesting at times but doesn't give me chills either. Worth a listen for everyone tho since I can't really compare it to many other bands. 6/10 3 stars

Third Talking Heads album in my first 250. OK it's not my list - so here we go. I...like it? It's actually a bit more accessible to me than their previous albums I've reviewed. At the same time nothing is jumping at me in the "holy crap i need to hear this over and over" realm. I do like "Artists Only" - odd, and a really cool bass sound; I will also note that "Take Me To The River" is such a great cover - they really made it their own and honestly I like it as much as the original. I enjoy the overall mix/sound of this album too. Talking Heads were a good band I definitely underrated back in the day and even though I don't know if I'd frequently put them on, I would never object to listening to an album of theirs. That screams 3 stars to me... 6/10 3 stars.

I'm not a big pop fan so I'd love for this to surprise me a bit. It....sort of does? I'll go negative first: the trap beats I'll just never like; 808s, those fake hihats...it's a preference and i prefer to never hear them. This would sound SO COOL with - well, with real percussion (holy crap - listen to "Drunk In Love" and imagine it with a powerhouse drummer playing to it - it would be fantastic). So there's something I'm not gonna get past so...what else? There are some good and occasionally unexpected melodic turns on this; more so than e.g. Taylor Swift (who I've found a painfully simple songwriter). The album *sounds* like a few million dollars went into it, that's for sure. I'm not yet sure that's a great thing for me. So many producers in modern pop music tend to bring things back around to what is popular and smooths out any rough or adventurous ideas. Again - whether this is good or bad is as always up to the listener. There's no denying Beyoncé has a really nice voice - a lot of the production puts her voice rightupfrontandcenter which is definitely competing with other modern pop. It's a little distracting - I'd love to hear some vocal tracks a little less-perfect; put a little space on the vocals. If it sounds like I'm criticizing the mix/production more than the songs, I guess I am. That's a huge percentage of what modern pop music is and at times it frustrates me a little extra...like now. Because these songs are so much better than many of Beyoncé's contemporaries, I'd love to hear them a little more organic ("Blow" is funky as hell; could get a little Stevie Wonder treatment from this). Not my fave but I can definitely appreciate a lot of the skill and creativity that went into this. 6/10 3 stars.

This album is so utterly peak 80s. It's not necessarily a bad thing - really kind of a testament to the record; being able to put this on and immediately be transported to middle school (wait...that's a terrible thing) The emergence of Run DMC was the first time a lot of suburban kids heard rap in the mainstream - there was a lot of predictable handwringing for various reasons (some you could guess) but it's just FUN music. "Rock Box" - fit right in with a lot of the early-mid 80s semi-cheesy-but-fun-for-its-own-sake rock music of the time. I like the retroactive simplicity of the beats and rapping - the interplay between Run and DMC is a huge plus. It's a fun listen and this is where so much of everything started - popular music would be completely different if Run DMC never existed. 7/10 3 stars

I hadn't heard the Black Keys in a long time - I think my impressions of them (early albums maybe?) were that they rarely used a bass guitar. Not a fan at all of minimalist rock so it was nice to hear a more-full sound right away. Not a ton to say - I do like it overall and "Sinister Kid" is the hilight for me - even such a simple song can be driven and carried by a killer backbeat. I like most of these songs (although to be fair if the album had ended after "Sinister Kid" it would have been better; the last few songs really get tiresome) individually but my critique as a whole is the general sameness that I get from it all. There's only so much one can do with the blues and they do make the most of it - I like the production (the oversaturated vocals may be gimmicky but it works for these guys) as well. No objection to hearing this time and again but maybe in smaller chunks. 6/10 3 stars.

Elvis...was a hero to most but he never meant shit to me. Straight up racist that sucker was simple and plain. Come on - that's a memorable lyric. OK the album isn't terrible, it's just... yeah kinda plain. A lot of similar-sounding slow ballads. One thing though - I have to admit this record *sounds* really good; way better than I'd expected for a 1960 album. Recycled simple blues songs for suburban America. Just not my bag. 5/10 2 stars.

do.not.like. awful. That's as creative as I can get. It seems unfair; there was clearly a great deal of effort and creativity given to the music - haunting. It's almost entirely his voice - awful, dry, in-your-face;literally impossible to get by. Hearing his lip smacks - this is the kind of thing that would have gotten me a failing mark in engineering school having left that garbage in the tracks. omg these lyrics. jfc. Might have been really interesting as an instrumental soundtrack. Lovely album cover tho 2/10 1 star

Completely absurd. Well, isn't it? That's not to say it's terrible - it's just absurd; knowingly-so. It's fun and campy and theatrical and overwrought but I do think we need music like this on occasion. I don't think I'd listened to this album since i was 8 years old at my cousin's house on cassette tape. Of course like everyone in my generation I grew up hearing the 3 big hits pretty often and as a baseball fan loved the Phil Rizzuto monologue in "Paradise..." (even if i hated the Yankees). (...only struck me now that there's no small similarity between the vocal stylings of Meatloaf and Jack Black...) It's a bit much to listen to on repeat for me but probably a required listen to gain any understanding of the culture/music scene of the late 70s in america. It's a fun spin. 7/10 3 stars.

3 hours? 3 HOURS. and then i read that wikipedia states this about the singer Stephin Merritt: "He is known for his distinctive and untrained bass voice" this is gonna be really really hard. really hard. ..... ...and when he doesn't sound like a terrible version of Leonard Cohen he sounds like Morrissey. 2 singers I can't abide by. These lyrics are terrible - trying to be clever, it's actually distracting. Look - it's clear a lot of effort went into this and as a musician I can completely appreciate that. AND YET! And yet I'm not writing these reviews for the general public - it's how much I do or do NOT connect with the music or the project. And I'm so gd disconnected right now and i'm only 12 songs in. I can't do this. Wait i did. Song 14 "How F****g Romantic" is the worst yet and i'm how far from finishing this? "Sweet Lovin' Man" (track 22 dear lord) isn't so bad mostly because we've got a new vocalist, although it could really drop right into 1983 as an unspectacular late night MTV video. holy crap i'm only 1/3 through this - i ..... "Love Is Like Jazz" was my final straw. only the second of >250 albums i could not finish no nope no no nyet nah pass 2/10 1 star.

A good entry point for classic or stereotypical "60s music" sound. Jangly electric guitars, smooth creamy harmonies, the oddly off balance mix (e.g. drums right, guitars left), a solid dose of late60s psychedelia in many of the songs. It's not something that hits me hard in any emotional way though, so it feels more like mood music - i.e. those days i'm putting on my paisley shirt, hey throw on the Byrds! But it is a collection of great melodic tunes [except for "Mind Gardens" which is a psychedelic wet fart] from a band that's probably often overlooked as one of the more influential bands of the early rock era. Absolutely worth a listen or two. 7/10 3 stars.

I've often not known how to feel about Muse. At their best (whatever that means on a personal level) they seem a perfect modern mix of Queen and Radiohead with a metal-ish bent but with strong melodic tendencies. Then other times they turn me off with overblown production, overly-emotive vocals and just...too much. This album has always had a bit of both but I think overall it's a really good intro to whether someone's going to like them or not - i'll start with the annoying because there's less of that for me on this album: the only track I really dislike is "Assassin" - it's the too much/too dense/too loud all crystalized. Overall the album (and band) do suffer from a sameness and density that's occasionally tough to get through in long stretches for me. But at the same time the album is an interesting and rather diverse platter of weird and haunting melodies - you have a very accessible "Starlight" which has a very late80s new wave melodic sound to it in the verses...."Supermassive Black Hole" sounds a bit like a different band - took me a while to like that one with affected falsetto vocals but the thickythic riffs are pretty compelling. Speaking of riffs, "Map of the Problematique" is a pretty great one. "Exo-Politics" is a rather basic (for Muse) composition but a good straightforward rock song. Nice to finally hear a bit of dynamics (i.e. acoustic guitar) on the beginning of "City of Delusion" even if it (of course) launches into a much bigger song - albeit with different middle-eastern tonalities on this one (which carry into the next one "Hoodoo" - speaking of which...Jeff Buckley vocal influence on the beginning there...?). I can see why some would dislike this band for the same reasons others would love them: a larger-than life loud arena guitar rock band that utilizes a ton of electronic effects and overwrought vocals... it's not a band for everyone, but I'll take this over something like Lou Reed's* shit any day. 7/10 4 stars. *(yes it's a personal vendetta to crap on Lou Reed and his acolytes when/wherever possible even when there's absolutely no reason. Because he was a musical mockery and that's enough of a reason any day.)

Replacements are a bridge band for me - I don't like punk but can appreciate a ton of the energy and the bands that flirt with that aesthetic (of course like the Replacements, Clash, early Goo Goo Dolls). So the best songs here are super catchy and fun and yeah holy cow listen to Goo Goo Dolls Hold Me Up and Superstar Car Wash and you can hear the strong Replacements influence. The best songs. First two are great - "I Will Dare" and "Favourite Thing" but then comes "We're Comin' Out" - the first 90 seconds of that are unlistenable. Noise/shit with no emphasis on even basic songwriting - I strongly dislike this. So much back and forth on this damn album - track 5 "Androgynous" is a cool piano ballad out of left field that even with its low-fi feel (usually an immediate skip for me) has a nice back-of-the-barroom sound to it. Probably need to note somewhere in here (uh...here) that Paul Westerberg's voice sometimes is like listening to Drano. I think I'm a Replacements greatest hits kinda fan; I hear a lot of great things on this album but a *lot* of hit and miss. Too much for me to have this album as a keeper but the best have the common thread of a great melody - more of that please. 6/10 3 stars.

I can absolutely appreciate the gentle melodies and craft involved - full stop. Even the singing is likely objectively nice. It's just that this crooning style doesn't resonate with me on a gut level at all, and especially on the more country-oriented songs. I feel a little bad giving this a 2; it's entirely a personal-preference thing; this could be someone's favourite album and I'd kind of get it but the generally laconic overall feel isn't hitting me. 5/10 2 stars

Well, it's Elvis again. There comes a point in a lot of the more/most famous artists in which I wonder whether the album is considered important or great in and of itself or simply due to the artist? Is it even possible to distill the difference at some point? Probably not - so...the music. I like it quite a bit more than the previous/much older Elvis release. The more up-tempo songs are decent; notably the first track "Wearin' That Loved On Look" which according to wiki was the first track Elvis recorded that had electric bass. Gave it a more modern (for the time) rock feel. Songs in that up-tempo/blues ilk I liked well-enough (e.g. "Power Of My Love"); the slower ones just are really not that good. And ok yeah it's "ELVIS" but are these really groundbreaking or even any good or distinctive? Do they stand out as "better" than anything actually original (Elvis never wrote anything as far as I know) or was it his good-lookin'-white-dude bona fides that got him here? Going down a different path with that line of thinking :) to be sure so again all I can rate is the music. It's fine, it's ok, but for this style I'd rather listen to Little Richard or Chuck Berry or Roy Orbison. 5/10 2 stars

Tough one; this one always frustrates me. The music: fantastic - there's no way to avoid moving your head to virtually every track; if you grew up listening to 70s funk and r&b this is a direct descendant (if not more than occasional ripoff...) of that. Sneaky laid-back synth bass lines, good sounding drums - I like it. The lyrics: there's no way to avoid them. Sadly. No point in my reviewing them, a million others have. I just can't with the "bitches yo...my dick..etc etc" every minute yeah yeah ok jeez; the gunplay, etc. Just a massive distraction at best and deeply troublesome at worst. The vocals: separating the performance from the lyrics...damn, the vocal performances are great. I like Dre's (and to an extent, Snoop's...) voice a *lot* and his rhythmic flow is outstanding. It's just so often hard to reconcile with the lyrics which are so often just so goddamn stupid. If I detach a bit I just try to ignore it :D The production: man this album *sounds great* - it's not a wall of sound; there's enough space for everything to be heard, and there's a great stereo spread - A+ So many individual highs and lows, I think I'm going right up the middle with a 3. It's just hard to get by the stupidity...the misogyny and just too much gangsta (not to mention the skits which are like really really bad high school back of the classroom interludes - hard pass), even if the music and vocals are that good. 7/10 3 stars

I've heard the big songs on this roughly 800,000 times but never put the entire album on. I get why people might love this - it's definitely engineered (both literally and figuratively/songwriting-wise) to be catchy as hell; fast-paced power chords in a major key, with very melodic vocal lines. It's generally not my cup of tea (I hate tea) overall; I'm not really a fan of punk and although this is more pop-punk along the lines of a more melodic Ramones or early Goo Goo Dolls it still has that non-stop intensity that again - I get, but I just like a little more instrumentation and/or tempo variety. Having said that, it's such a representation of the mid-90s and really is a good sounding record, will put it right up the middle as a 3 even if it's not something I'm putting on. 7/10 3 stars

Excellent album. There have been Kate Bush and Joni Mitchell comparisons which occasionally make sense but I think this stands on its own - great piano melodies, Tori has a unique and super-expressive and emotional voice that - rarely, for me - considerably adds to the music rather than detracts. I remember when this hit; amongst the exploding grunge and alt-rock you would hear everywhere this album stuck out; on the surface it seems like it might have been at the other end of the spectrum from the Pearl Jam/STP/Nirvana wall but I actually think it compliments them perfectly. There's a hard edge here amidst the surface-level mellow piano ballads which is encapsulated in her voice and lyrics - the rare album where I do notice lyrics, and for good reason. Emotional, haunting, clear, and yet somehow still catchy. Highly recommended. 9/10 4 stars.

ehh? My reaction went from "aw jeez, i don't need to hear the Monkees" to "ok this is different..." to "yeah i'm just not that interested in this." I mean, it's fine - it's truly not bad at all, just that i think 60s pop music like this doesn't hold my interest for very long. Each song is kind of quirky and fun and I suppose "Randy Scouse Git" might be my favourite; it's almost like a very early period Who song. I'd say if you like 60s pop (I've seen this labeled as psychedelic but i don't agree) this might be up your alley. I'll give it a soft 3 seeing as nothing made me turn it off (what an endorsement eh). n.b. I had no idea that "Mr Dobalina" came from the Monkees (catchy Del Tha Funky Homosapien early 90s hiphop hit) 5/10 3 stars.

This is such a different kind of album or listening experience that it's hard to put this on any type of scale similar to the others. I mean...Brian Eno himself said that this music is meant to be "as ignorable as it is interesting." That's as good a description as I can think of. As a point of note I feel I should say that I absolutely HAVE listened to this album in airports before. It's very relaxing. I can also imagine very clearly many people loathing this album - like..."this isn't music!" or "the most boring 45+ minutes possible" and I get it. e.g. I got this a few days after getting Green Day's "Dookie" - they are not similar. Compartmentalizing it (because you have to)...: this album is not meant to be "enjoyed" in the same way a typical pop music album is; it is literally background loop music (but it is music, let's be fair) and I do find it entrancing, dreamlike [n.b. it's great to fall asleep to, if not already obvious], and mysteriously haunting at times. Also points for being one of, if not the very, first truly ambient records. I'm a fan. 8/10 4 stars

Who can write something about Neil Young that hasn't been written (positive or negative and everything in-between...)... There is definitely a large handful of his songs that I enjoy, some quite a lot - is it nostalgia or do I actually love them? Hard to unravel. I'll say this - tons of people hate his voice but I think it's his primary signature and at least in non-huge doses I like it. What I DO hate is his electric guitar playing - I haven't spent the time figuring it out but he might be my most annoying lead player of all-time - any genre. Every gd solo is the same shit: frenetic coked-out endless string bends, rarely letting any notes just *be* - I hate it. Maybe a bit hypocritical because that's also a big signature of his, but it's too much. He should have let anyone else on earth play leads for him. Having said that, "Hey Hey My My" is a classic - no question. The acoustic songs here are quite nice. I think after a while he does get a little ... eh, "boring" is overused (probably by me)... there are only so many major-minor 4/4 songs you can do with this ensemble before you have to try something different, and I love when he finally does - one notable example for me is "Ride my Llama" - some very cool chord progressions in this one. I steer away from the more country-laden ones (e.g. "Sail Away") (also token "something something...great lyrics" here i guess) Overall it's a nice listen - not too long, I like the spaciousness of the acoustic live recordings, but most of the band tracks are meh. I know we have about 80 Neil Young albums to go on this list (....) - I'd personally distill this one to liking 5-6 of the 9 songs, so I'll cop out and give this a pretty strong 3 and move on. 6/10 3 stars

I like this a lot. Great melodies that are just unexpected enough to be constantly interesting yet still completely accessible. "Happiness" is a particular favourite - I love the classic-pop progression combined with electronics; fantastic. If you'd told me "Road to Somewhere" or "Monster Love" was Kate Bush I wouldn't have batted an eye. The album drags just a bit in parts - each song in isolation is quite good, but the album suffers a little from too many similarly slow-paced songs. Pacing could have been a bit better overall, but in sum I really enjoyed this - nothing necessarily chill-inducing but I'll listen to this again. 7/10 4 stars

There's definitely "a sound" to these guys - that propelling/droning doubled guitar power chords, combined with Josh Homme's almost laconic singing style. I've just never been able to figure out how much I like it. Well I'd yet to hear this debut album so here we go.... and yeah it starts exactly as I'd expect on the first cut "Regular John" Maybe this is a Josh Homme problem (or rather me with his work...). I listened to a lot of Them Crooked Vultures when that album came out and I loved it. Well...I thought I loved it. I wanted to love it. I realized I didn't love it. My problem is that even though the sound is kinda cool - like a hopped-up Black Sabbath - none of these are great *songs* at all. It just sort of reveals itself as a stoner wallpaper that looks weird and cool in black lighting but sometimes you just need to turn that stupid light off and want to see something interesting on the walls. And it just ends up being a bunch of detuned sludgy progressions that all meld into one another. Terrible analogy but I just want to leave the room. And if that's the point, ok great - achievement unlocked. I just wanted a few songs - any song - to really sink my teeth into, but absolutely none of them are memorable and before the end i just wanted it to finish already... 4/10 2 stars

Man, was I ready to hate this. I really cannot stand the Metallica you hear on the radio - every song some diversion in E minor with James Hetfield's awful stupid growly roar after every phrase. I really really don't like them, and only had been peripherally aware of their early material ("...And Justice For All" and back) - I recall appreciating a few cuts so I'm ready... And...i still don't *really* like this - thrash is not my bag in any fashion. But there's a lot to appreciate musically here - twin guitar parts (as a big Maiden fan I do like these parts), acoustic-to-electric dynamics, time signature changes. From a musician p.o.v. I can listen for these. Favourite parts: middle section in "Master of Puppets" - sounds like a full Iron Maiden tribute - and "Orion" (no vocals, mostly medium tempo). Least favourite parts: anything double-timed (alas, most of the album) and any part where Hetfield is singing (again...). It's a personal taste thing - mostly the frenetic pace is nothing I can identify with or enjoy; those double-kick drums assaulting my ears don't help either - I absolutely do get why some people like this, I'm just not one of them. 2 stars is my personal rating but it's also unquestionably a creative album and showing off some impressive musical chops; stuck out in the 80s in a time where melodic poppy hard rock was dominating. 6/10 for impact - 2 stars for me

Wow - a second Belle And Sebastian album? OK let's do this... I suspect my feelings on this are the same as they were with my first B&S review: I would have hated this 30 years ago and now I hear it as gorgeous and shy and delicate and introspective - highly melodic, clear instrumentation... Just lovely and another keeper. 8/10 4 stars.

While it's definitely composed of the jazz ingredients I like most (standard combo + no vocals), I'm also lukewarm about bossa nova. It's either not dramatic or mysterious enough for me - something about the rhythm is just unexciting. So the album didn't stand a chance. :D Kidding - mostly - it's still great playing and absolutely fine-to-mildly enjoyable to have on as background music for me; it just doesn't hit me the same way others in the same era (Miles Davis, Bill Evans, Charlie Parker, etc) have. Would rarely if ever turn this off, but just as unlikely to reach for it by choice. 7/10 3 stars.

I've had the discussion with friends on what is the best / most dramatic debut song by an artist in history. "Good Times, Bad Times" was on everyone's short list. But also...over the years I had kind of forgotten about this album - I'm very hit and miss on Zeppelin; so much overplay on radio from the 90s on turned me off to even their best for years, and I also don't care for some of their longer/more self-indulgent cuts (e.g. Kashmir no thanks; same with Dazed & Confused here). Zeppelin II->Houses has always been my sweet spot if and when I go back to them, but it started here and this debut is pretty damn great all things considered. ...even if you consider that half the tracks are literally ripped off from older blues artists. But still... Quite a few highlights aside from the kick-ass opening track: "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You" just sounds really good with the contrast between acoustics and electric bombast, super heavy reverb... that grandiose and gorgeously huge organ intro to "Your Time Is Gonna Come" and the pure simple power of "Communication Breakdown" - both classics. Negatives: This will seem like too many negatives but the band was just finding themselves on this album - once they started writing more of their own material their diversity really shined. On the debut even when *sounding* great, it still drags in parts. "You Shook Me" is a plodding and dull ill-advised cover; "I Can't Quit You Baby" is similar, too often sloppy/ugly (i'm no fan of Jimmy Page solos - love his chord voicings/progressions but the blues solos are a hard pass from me); "Dazed And Confused" (despite being one of their more famous cuts) just drags too often (and ffs if you agree with that avoid their execrable live version which goes on for 3 weeks...). Hell, it is a very bluesy album which does occasionally sound repetitive by the end. Still though that's really nitpicking - this is a worthy and amazing debut overall and one which they'd refine to perfection just months (?!?!?) later on their near-perfect second album. 7/10 4 stars.

Keeping this one short as I have a feeling more Dylan albums will come - I've had one and will probably repeat this on each review: I'm fine with his voice etc, he's a lovely poet...I just don't get much out of the music. After reading a bit about this in advance however and giving it a listen...it is fun / interesting to listen to as a(n?) historical document - learning about the heckling as he "goes electric" is just...weird (get over it already, people). Although...I didn't realize I would enjoy his music much better in this live setting - both acoustic and with band - enough that I would say if I were told I needed to listen to one Dylan album... thus far this is the one I'd pick. 7/10 for history 3 stars.

This is a required multiple-listen album. I don't even know how to categorize it - it's dense; so many melodies happening within each song. There are elements of alt-rock, modern pop, 70s r&b, traditional folk, psychedelia....all within some odd idea of an android concept throughout? The production and sound are excellent - I don't think it's immediately-accessible enough for it to be a 5 but it's a minimum slamdunk 4 keeper because I feel like each time I've listened I've discovered new favourites (currently: "Tightrope" and "Neon Valley Street"). 8/10 4 stars.

Another I wasn't thrilled about getting this morning - not really being a fan of much southern rock, nor did I really feel like hearing Freebird. Again. But heh ... ok it's catchy and fun and legit. It's really hard to extricate yourself from what you've been (over)exposed to throughout your life and radio has spoiled a lot of excellent music from overexposure. This album has great guitar sounds; I love the riff-rock - I don't need to hear "Gimme Three Steps" or "Free Bird" on the radio ever (EVER) again but a) hearing them in context of the album and time period is different somehow; and b) there are a few songs I'd never heard which gave me a little more objective appreciation to the playing and songwriting. Yeah it's necessary to hear this to understand and appreciate the development of blues-rock-southern rock in the 70s. ...and f it -> ha...hearing Free Bird close this out wasn't so bad after all. 7/10 3 stars.

I love this album. Both mysterious and beautiful; raw and almost uncomfortably dry with Nick's vocals right up in your face. Almost ironically the minimalist nature of this album makes me pay more attention to it than many "big" sounding records. Something about the chords and/or the tuning he used on these songs (just listen to the first/title track) are so unique (yet the simplicity occasionally lends itself to little chill moments (e.g. piano melody in "Pink Moon" which is also - I think - the only overdub on the album). Maybe not for everyone but the haunting melodic nature of this (and maybe combined with the very short running time) makes this an alltime favourite of mine. 9/10 5 stars.

A few albums into the peak Stevie Wonder period here - it's not quite the high for me of his previous disc "Innervisions" nor his next one "Songs In The Key of Life" - even though there really aren't any bad moments at all here, the songs as a whole aren't up to the previous (perhaps unattainable) standards. Not really fair when you're competing against yourself, though - it's like complaining about a 33-year old Wayne Gretzky getting "only" 130 points. "Boogie On Reggae Woman" and "You Haven't Done Nothin'" are the highest of highs here. As with his other great albums around this time, the sounds and production are part and parcel with the greatness of the music and composition. It somehow feels like these songs were from the 70s AND from the distant future all at once. Could listen to this album at any time anywhere, just needed like 2 or 3 more killer individual songs to put it to a 5 for me 8/10 4 stars

I wonder if Interpol have ever heard of these guys....? Spooky. The album sounds like you can vividly picture them playing in a dank grey dimly-lit-by-singular-flickering-flourescent-bulb concrete basement room - but way way in the back of the room, and we're all on the opposite side just feeling cold. This is not a critique. I've grown to like this kind of post-punk gloom and doom rock. Ian Curtis' voice is *definitely* tough to take at times but I almost find that i have to dial myself in to that mood. Things that I don't like are jusssst a little of the low-fi aesthetic in here (which i hate) and some frankly sloppy playing at times (e.g. "New Dawn Fades") but it's not enough to make it terribly distracting. Personal favourite: "Shadowplay" Will never be my favourite kind of music but I was glad to have finally been exposed to this a few years back and it's occasionally the perfect record to put on when that mood strikes. Important record to hear for how much these guys clearly influenced so many bands not just in the immediate aftermath but for decades... 7/10 3 stars.

I was definitely triggered by seeing John Cale's name, with his association with perhaps my least-enjoyed act of all-time (Velvet Underground). But perhaps you can judge an album by its cover - it sounds very much like the cover looks. Much more melodic, classically-pop-oriented, and well-crafted than I'd expect, and I enjoy those aspects of it quite a bit. The mix is bad though - not in a dated way as 1973 should be prime analog era recording - but it's just cloudy and dense in a way that does not bring out the best elements of the songs in a way I'd have liked. Cale has a ... not good at all? voice ... which is really weak but at times ironically works with the music. "Macbeth" was almost out-of-place up-tempo/aggressive but when he starts singing it brings it back into line with the rest of the album. So... I don't know how to feel about this. I like so many of the musical ideas in this - e.g. "Paris 1919" and its near chamber-music melodies are really nice; overall I feel like this is something I should love and need to give it a few more spins - I've connected on little melodies but have yet to truly love any of the songs. Initial reaction is 6/10 3 stars - should have been more with a better mix.

Immediately recognized the opening notes of "Movin' On Up" - what a throwback. It's a good song, head-bopper, nothing amazing or revolutionary just...listenable. Which sort of applies to every song on the album. Probably why the name of the band/song didn't immediately make me remember anything because it all sort of blends into that very early 90s dance-rock sound ... I was feeling good about this album about halfway through and then realized...I could have started this album at any point and felt the same at any 3 or 4 minute segment. Just....fine. Is that just the definition of average? (also the 2nd half of laconic trippy repetition started putting me to sleep which made the downgrade to 2 easier) 5/10 2 stars.

I'm sure I will never get the appeal of this band. Really of Kurt Cobain. I never have come close to connecting with the jarring amelodic chord changes, the not-interesting and bad/sloppy guitar playing, and... the distractingly awful vocals. And that was for the studio-produced albums where you can polish up a turd so to speak, so having put it in an acoustic format.... ugh. The first few songs are fine in a "ehh..." kind of way then when Kurt Cobain starts wailing...I cannot. His voice makes me want to hurt myself. I remember watching this on MTV when it was first televised, trying even then to tap into something. In the "competition" during the birth of grunge (admittedly silly, all that) gimme Pearl Jam every damn time. I do not like. 2/10 1 star.

Culturally this is important - most definitely. Even as someone who doesn't pay much attention to lyrics and focuses almost entirely on the music, this is an important touchstone in music if not American history. But...the music. I could just copy/paste all of my studio Dylan reviews - essentially: I appreciate and even enjoy his poetry, I don't really like the music/songs enough to listen to him voluntarily. Boring writeup but that's all I've got. no wait: why did nobody do anything about the horrific out of tune harmonica especially on "Queen Jane....?" jesush... 5/10 2 stars.

I've always liked this album even if I couldn't give you the name of any of the tracks - it's not like there isn't some variety between them, it's just that it plays more as an album for me rather than any collection of memorable singles. For that reason maybe it might take a few spins before this clicks. My big negative is that it's too long - it'd have been perfect at about 45 minutes (the vinyl-era limitations were actually FEATURES) at which point the sameness of it sets in. There's definitely a strong Elliott Smith connection/homage in BDB's work and even if I find some of Smith's highs to be higher I think this is more consistently enjoyable. Highly melodic, multi-instrumental, creative and introspective - recommended in 40-45 minute segments :) 7/10 4 stars

...are you shitting me? this is a goddamn mockery of music/fun/creativity. i have a visceral hatred for any/everyone involved with this. 0/10 0 stars. (thus far the third of ~300 albums i couldn't/wouldn't finish)

..ehh... I saw Iggy Pop and thought "nah" but I was a bit more interested to listen to this after reading that Bowie wrote the music during his "Low" period (the only Bowie album I've ever really connected with). And...it's...ok. The music isn't quite as mysterious/odd as "Low" but certainly more appealing to me than anything I've heard from The Stooges. On an educational note - I never knew "China Girl" wasn't originally recorded by Bowie. Not that I really connect with either version. I just can't get into this - it's just ok at best, boring in the aggregate, and often worse than ok (that last cut "Mass Production" is just awful. 8+ minutes of droning hideousity that goes absolutely nowhere). Much of it comes down to the fact that I just don't like Iggy's voice at all. It's not that it's not "good" - whatever that might mean - he's distracting and abrasive and maybe that works for harder-edged punk-ish material but it's often off-putting here. On "Dum Dum Boys" he sounds like a wobbly cross between Jim Morrison and Paul Banks (singer for Interpol). I almost liked that song. 3/10 2 stars.

I'm not sure how I feel about this album. On the positive side, I really love/d 2Pac's voice - the deep and smooth way he'd deliver his lines, not in a rush but not lethargic either. He was really great - one of the best IMO. On the negative, the music is.... not quite there for me. I love that it predates trap beats which I hate - I love the sound/production of it - but not many of the songs/compositions in and of themselves are hugely memorable for me. Even though a lot of the lyrics are ehhh "too much" for me :P I did really enjoy "Old School" 5/10 2 stars

Hmm. Both Joy Division albums within 8 days here. I suspect my feeling on this album is roughly similar to the first - it's something that I very much disliked or just wasn't ready for. Ian Curtis' voice yeah yeah it's tough to listen to and I don't know if it was that I just heard the debut album or it really is more grating on this one but I'm steering towards the latter. When I focus on the dark/sparse mood of the music which again - there's a bit of sloppy and repetitive playing here - it's that *mood* that's the selling point. I'm never going to listen to this in the same vein as I'll listen to a Beatles or Van Halen album :D However, this one didn't hit me the same way as the first one; it might need/have needed more time to sink in but this one sounded more like a demo than the first and although at times I liked the effect it just didn't connect much at all. 4/10 2 stars.

Well yeah...this album does *sound nice* But it doesn't really hit me - I'm not expecting anything edgy, or even necessarily wanting that. Just some musical magic I suppose, as corny as that sounds. And everything just flows on by - I'm bobbing my head a little bit because it's utterly and completely accessible and frankly...melodically and rhythmically predictable. Inherently nothing at all wrong with that, but I wonder if you have to be a real Springsteen FAN to love and connect with this album. I'd probably never complain if this were playing, it's easy to listen to, but I don't think I'll ever remember any of these songs. 5/10 for just fine. 3 stars.

Not a fan at all. The music is mostly excellent but isn't that to Dr Dre's credit? Sure it's integral to the album and I care infinitely more about music than lyrics/vocals but when it's so damn distracting and obviously the main course and I hate it.... then I can't enjoy it at all. And I don't. Sure time passing has a way of making what was once shocking almost humorous, but jfc this is still gross - it's just awful. I really do still hate Eminem's voice and his style; whiny/nasally and slightly behind the beat. Hard hard pass on all fronts. 2/10 1 star.

(There are ~183 different versions of this album - I'm going with the "Deluxe Edition" -> the one with 33 songs; as it's the actual complete original setlist in correct running order. The original 6 track disc doesn't do justice...) This album could provide the answer to the question "if you could go back in time to see any artist at any time, what would it be?" Many have called Live At Leeds the greatest live rock album ever recorded. As a kid I didn't entirely get it, probably/mostly because there were originally only 6 songs, half of which were covers - apparently at age 12 I just wanted the hits. I was stupid. The Who had so many hits that everyone knows, and I grew up a huge fan...yet aside from the essentially perfect Who's Next and Quadrophenia albums I have to admit they never really "nailed it" in terms of ... something. Weak production? Restraint? Something was always missing. This album NAILS it. I loved "Tommy" but Pete always said it was released without really being finished - does that mean it would have had more tracks? More layers? That might have been amazing to hear. Then again.... virtually every track from Tommy played here live by obviously just the 4 guys is *better* than the studio versions. Similarly, I could never truly get into their early period albums and hearing some of those songs in this live format (e.g. "Tattoo" "Substitute" "I'm A Boy") are so much better here they almost sound like a heavier/better band covering the originals. Not sure any band ever had the power and controlled chaos in a live setting like The Who in their prime, and this is the proof. This album makes you feel like you're sitting in the front row - I also can't think of a better live album and that combined with the great material makes this flawless. 10/10 5 stars.

This starts off perfectly - right from the first note of the title track "Cloud Nine." Sounds fantastic, great soulful groove - this mostly continues for the first 3 songs (especially in the long/weird "Runaway Child, Running Wild"). After that the genre changes a bit; the band almost feels like they're going back in time a bit starting with "Love Is A Hurtin' Thing" - it's not bad, just occasionally more slow-paced, a bit of doo-wop influence; just a little more straight-forward and less experimental. It approached being a little boring for me. I'm definitely far more partial to the more psychedelic songs but overall it's a good listen. 7/10 3 stars.

Man I hated this album when it came out. As a teenager in the crap-center of the horseshit Reagan years, yeah all I needed was more jingoistic bullshit (gee, sadly familiar...). Of course...nevermind that it actually wasn't jingoistic at *all* but that didn't stop the yahoos from using it OH SHIT BRUCE HAS A RED GD HAT IN HIS POCKET IT ALL MAKES SENSE (no it doesn't). Also nearly every song was played on the radio and MTV all.the.goddamn.time. Millions of others can corroborate this. I was wanting my Police/Rush/Van Halen not this. Also and I only realized this years later - this album made me *think* I hated Bruce Springsteen. But i didn't, and don't. As a little kid I loved Born to Run and most of his other late 70s work, so this threw me off the scent for years until I willingly rediscovered him. But do I still hate the album? I don't. But I also don't like it and never will. It's repetitive (that title song riff good god man, you couldn't have at a minimum written a middle 8 to call it off for half a minute?) as hell musically in every song, bombastically boring, at times too pop, at times too country. All too simplistically upbeat for my taste - I prefer the darker or more majestic Bruce, and not the lyrics - the music. If I had to choose personal high points, "Cover Me" isn't nearly as bad as I recalled and has a particularly killer guitar solo; "My Hometown" is a nice ballad. I didn't mind a re-listen today but I realized it was mostly because it was nostalgic and really threw me back to my early teen years. But it's just not an album I like - even if I'll absolutely admit it was arguably the biggest rock album of the last 40 years (to my chagrin). 3/10 2 stars.

I'm happy to have finally listened to John Prine - he's one of those artists I've heard about for years and have heard cover versions of his songs but never heard him. It's not the kind of music I enjoy listening to, though, which makes it tough (or unfair) to rate - I'm partial to the lyrics on "Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore" :) but lyrics are a nice accompaniment for me and not the main course - I can definitely appreciate the sincerity and absolutely understand why people love him, I just can't get into it. 5/10 2 stars.

I love this album. I don't listen to much hard rock anymore but this one still hits - everything about the dual/harmony guitars, Phil Lynott's voice, vocal harmonies, the band's tight power, the mix, the song selections - there's never too much heavy as they'll drop back to more melodic songs (e.g. Emerald to Southbound) or classic mellow rock (Dancing In The Moonlight). Rock/Metal/Groove/Soulful. oh - plus some bonus Huey Lewis late in the album (he was part of their touring band in these days). 9/10 5 stars. ...who doesn't always get chocolate stains on their pants...

I'd never heard (of) this before but holy hell - i literally would have put a dollar on this being an early Duran Duran album (listen to "Halloween" especially). It's actually a pretty cool album, although I'm a little puzzled as to it being on this list. Maybe/probably because it was one of the first to adopt this sound - I suppose I just admitted as much calling them early Duran Duran. Strong 3 from/for me - I wonder if I'd have ranked this higher if I'd known it beforehand (i.e. nostalgia) and I'll probably listen again. 6/10 3 stars.

Said from one who does not enjoy so-called country music.... this is a great album. It's definitely the live aspect that really makes it stand out (i.e. I know to me it would be more staid and frankly dull if it were just in a sterile studio setting). Much of it really borrowed from (or established?) old rock/punky folk ... in addition his low-key band should get nearly equal billing for propelling these songs along. I actually love the banter between - and often during - these songs. 8/10 4 stars.

My only comparables to this thus far have been The Prodigy (decent) and Fatboy Slim (shit sandwich) and this falls somewhere in the lower-middle. I'd never put this kind of music on for "listening" - more of a background soundtrack or something to work to. The Prodigy held my interest a lot more - this is too or most often just incredibly repetitive. I get that "that's the genre" in many ways but maybe I just don't like the genre. Positives: i like the drum sounds...? Sum: too much of the same thing which isn't that interesting to begin with. 2/10 2 stars

Don't have my usual litany of words for this one, I've just never been drawn to reggae so I was never going to love this album. It sounds good, has a clean production, good playing. It's probably a decent mix of 90s pop/reggae - I can see how people might like it, although it's just not my bag. 5/10 2 stars.

In the 90s a band I was in did a really cool rock guitar version of "Knowing Me, Knowing You" - we butchered the vocal harmonies, alas, but I think we crushed it overall. I mean, it is what it is: it's ABBA: the sound of listening to the rear speakers in my parents' crappy station wagon while the family looked for open gas stations in the 70s. It's fluffy very melodic excellent pop - while it's not my favourite genre, it's still enjoyable and nice (in smaller doses) to listen to on occasion. 6/10 3 stars.

This is the 2nd biggest selling album in world history. !! So many things someone/I could write about this but I don't know the point because even if you're one of the 8 people who doesn't own a copy...you've probably heard at least some of this record. Let's go with: ...a rising hard rock band on the verge of superstardom...their lead singer dies...replaced by an unknown...and they sell 50 million of the first album with him. All while the new singer sounds like he gargled Krusty O's Cereal. And it's ....perfect?? Yeah that's it - perfect. 10/10 5 stars.

I'd never heard of Michael Kiwanuka before and so I had zero expectations or preconceived notions... Wow - this is great. Expansive yet accessible; harkens back to a lot of 70s music with its melodies and chord structure, but all in/with a modern sound. Multi-instruments, great vocals, varied rhythms and tempos - this is a treat. I figured this would take a few listens to fully settle in and I'm 3 times through already (got this on a weekend) - even after one pass I was really intrigued/impressed and will be keeping this in the library...hell, I'm enjoying this so much I can't say anything remotely negative about it - it's not even too long in the age of wayyyy too long albums. I guess I just talked this one into a 5. Love it. 9/10 5 stars.

I went in cold on this one which I like. I remembered one song by the band, I'd thought, but I definitely recall and really liked the first/title track. I'm thinking this is going to be a highly enjoyable Irish inflected album. but...it kinda all blends together for me. Frankly, by the second (long/repetitive) song I was getting real tired. ok to be fair, there are some really nice moments and although it still has that 80s sheen it does sound very nice. I just got back from Ireland so there's a little nostalgia still in me which may make me a little more generous with this... I'm sure I wouldn't reach for the album as overall I find it fairly milquetoast but then again it's not likely to be offensive in any setting. that's a real non committal review right there.... 5/10 3 stars.

My 4th (!) Brian Eno record; considering the fact that aside from "Music For Airports" prior to this 1001 list I don't think I'd never put an Eno record on front to back - I would have thought I'd be annoyed... I feel like this album puts 70s Genesis and Pink Floyd in a cake pan, mixed it just a touch more, and came out with something even better (and I love those bands). Also you can hear a clear path to/from Eno and Adrian Belew and Talking Heads. It appears that I've become a big Eno fan, and this is perhaps my favourite. It's weird yet somehow accessible. Blessedly short at 40 minutes (not a sarcastic knock at all; I much prefer shorter albums as a general rule - get in, get out, leave 'em wanting more), there's a ton of melody, the vocals are mixed low enough so they're not a distraction and more of an instrument - exactly how I prefer it. "Here He Comes" and "Julie With..." might be my current favourite tracks - the former seems simple and light but there's a subtle oddness to it and the latter is on the surface very mellow but it's almost off-putting in a way that draws me to it. I could see how the latter part might bore some listeners - it definitely gets very dreamlike/new age-y but it's just short enough for me to be the perfect amount combined with the pop-rock first half. 8/10 4 stars.

I don't like Eric Clapton. Strap in and let me count the ways...: Well yes he sucks as a human being. But damnit I'll say it: I do not get the hype as a guitar player. He wasn't particularly innovative nor interesting in any way whatsoever to me. Blues riffs yada yada yada. Snooze. Switch stations. If you just want to stick to the era give me Blackmore/Beck/Hendrix/Page (who annoyed me as a lead player but his chord voicings and progressions were one of a kind)/Gilmour/Townshend all day every day instead and that's naming only some of the so-called classic contemporary rockers of the 60s/early 70s...I could list 100+ more that were far more exciting or emotive or unique. I emulated a lot of guitarists and styles over the past decades and never once did I yearn to cop anything Clapton ever did. Boring. Plus songwriting?? Jeeez most of his solo material is utter shit. Lay Down Sally good god man i hated that song with a passion when i was SIX - it was all over AM radio. I knew even then I was not a fan. Have I expressed this enough?? ... Ok. Now ... this album is not that bad. :D But let's be honest - it's really just the title track "Layla" that carries it all - as much as I laid out the reasons I don't like Clapton (oh yeah i left out his singing...) this is a legit classic song which definitely goes on too long, but then is rescued by the out-of-nowhere long fantastic piano outro. If you haven't heard this song you're about to join the 99% who have. The rest? It's fine at best. Although god DAMN it's too long. Virtually all bluesy laid-back guitar rock - not my favourite style at all, but it's made relatively more-interesting with Duane Allman's cool slide guitar. I was originally going to give this a 3 for "everyone should hear/know Layla" but it takes forever to even get there and by the time I did get to it I just wanted anything else...I can't get into this. If you're into blues guitar this is fine I suppose. For a good example of what makes me roll my eyes at Clapton, see: "I Am Yours" - it's not that it's mellow, it's that it's...annoyingly laconic. No more Clapton please. 4/10 2 stars.

Another album I've heard about for decades but never listened to - I know Van Morrison's big hits but not this - first pass: it's way better than "Brown Eyed Girl" that's for sure. Overall it's nice; very of-the-era (60s) mellow and almost optimistically beautiful at times - yet I think I'll never fully embrace it. Van's voice is epic and immediately identifiable and classic...until the point where it gets annoying. And I find that I'm there on many if not most of these songs. First/title track is really nice but "Beside You" is awful - frankly it's entirely his vocals. Ugh. The initial chords/guitar playing in "Sweet Thing" really makes me think of Joni Mitchell (although they were contemporary so who influenced whom here I guess?) which is nice. ehh I don't know what to think - maybe it's just the music that doesn't hold me? It just seems like a lot of these are 2 or 3 chord songs (with nice flourishes over them, to be fair) that get really repetitive - look at "Madame George" especially - it's almost like each song grabs me in some part but in the end I can't remember any of them; maybe he needed some searing out-of-nowhere arena guitar solos. :D jkjk (i think) OK upon further review it is his vocals. I don't like them. Too loud/warbly and the music is mediocre - not for me. 4/10 2 stars.

Complex in a "how did she come up with the idea for these chord progressions?" way but still extremely accessible on literally every track. Incredible guitar playing, airy piano, her vocals are not only never too much for me and (as not someone who focuses much on vocals) at times it's simply arresting as to how perfect her voice is. I think the lyrics are probably pretty good too :P It's never good enough for me to just listen to one song on this album, even though literally every song is excellent. It works so well as an entire unit and it's only ~36 minutes long anyways.... which often means an immediate replay. In sum: this is pretty much perfect. 10/10 5 stars.

I remember when this band first started to hit it big, and I thought I'd get in on the ground(ish) floor with an up and coming band. But I lowkey kinda hated them and after a few spins of an early album gave up on them. Fast forward >10 years and so when I saw this I thought "excellent - let's give 'er another go..." And I still hate it. Some mental notes as I was cleaning the room trying to get through this: laconic, plodding, god I hate this dude's voice Leonard Cohen sucked enough the first time around, won't these songs go somewhere [I appreciate and often love songs with a great long build but these seem like cheap U2-knockoffs and U2 did it better and I generally don't like all that much U2].... I don't exactly know why this band bugs me so much - a song like "Little Faith" is actually pretty good and almost great - they did that dramatic one right for me; a little Radiohead-ish oddity near the end. But virtually everything else is a chore to get through. "Lemonworld" holy stab my ears "dih dih dih dih dih dih..." AWFUL. I'm sure over 75% of all of this stems from the mopey vocals - I'm not fully anti-mope, I liked a bit of Depeche Mode and early Cure, even a few Joy Division songs hit right. But if the goal of this was to sound miserable while making me feel miserable, goal achieved. I feel not *entirely* right giving this one star, as I consider some of the trash i've listened to and given an easy 1 star... because there's absolutely talent here and oddly i *can* see how people would like this. But not me. It actually did put me in a lousy mood while listening to it and as soon as I realized I'd probably go out of my way to not listen to this band again...1 it is. 2/10 1 star.

First of all - the best songs here are legit great pop, rock, dance, whatever you want to call it: "1999" and "Little Red Corvette" - those 2 songs, what a start to the album. But the rest is a bit....dated? Aside from the voice (which I'll get to), for the most part the instrumentation, sounds, drum machines, synths just doesn't distinguish itself from a lot from this era. e.g. "Delirious" I hadn't heard in decades. and it sounds it... Too many long songs that sadly don't delve into 7/4 and long passages about rainbows or planets. Seriously: 8 minutes of a rather repetitive dance beat makes me lose interest. (also: "Automatic" is just messed up - listening to the crying while I had headphones on and lying down was creepy as hell and not in any sort of fun way.) Finishing with a positive tho: Prince's voice is the real star - he commands confidence in these songs. I feel like I write this in half of my reviews: I don't focus much at all on either vocals or lyrics except when they're distracting/bad. It's rare that I'll boost an album in my mind for this but I think this qualifies. I do wish there was a touch more of his guitar playing. 5/10 2 stars - the music overall is meh but vocals/swagger bring it up...but I can't bring myself to give it more than 2.

It does instantly make me feel like I'm in high school again. That's not a bad thing. But I don't really love the music - it's just more than a little dull and smooth. Very distinctive singer, not sure if I like it or not, but I'm sure it wouldn't matter - it's just sort of non-memorable. Funny - there are albums I disliked a hell of a lot more than this one but understood why they could be on the list. This one's a mystery. 4/10 2 stars.

Today I learned that "Sade" was/is the name of the group, not just the singer. Huh. I kinda hated this when it came out - then again i was a young teenager injecting non-stop Van Halen and Def Leppard into my veins so I didn't allow for this smooth neo-soul to enter into my consciousness. My loss - this is pretty excellent - I appreciate and actually like it way more than I used to and it's wonderfully produced. Personal favourite: "Cherry Pie" - that little echo guitar fill is gold. 7/10 3+ stars

OK, the title track may be simple and overplayed but it's an undeniable all-time classic. I just don't know about the rest of it. It's fine. I like the Beatles as much as the next person (that isn't a Beatles diehard) but I think John really missed Paul. :) Maybe not *literally* ("How Do You Sleep" is an early diss track haha) ok ok obviously it's not supposed to be the Beatles and it shouldn't be but there's a melodic and quirky element that's often missing from John's songs that is...nothing *bad* by any means, but a little more straightforward than I care for. And some of these songs just drag. Still, I'm nitpicking - it's a good listen, just not a great one. 5/10 3 stars.

Honestly it's kind of hilarious; I feel like it's almost a self-parody. "The Hall of Mirrors" really? .... "even the greatest stars....dislike themselves in the looking glahhhss...." LOL. I actually don't hate it - it's just... and i hate using this lazy word but ... BORING. I can't see ever putting this on voluntarily other than when my German former college roommate visits for a laugh. Minimalist electronica - kinda cool at times, but extremely repetitive and too tiring for any active listening. 3/10 2 stars.

When I was ~9 yrs old I used to check out this record from our local library - they'd package it up in this ginormous special packaging and I'd trundle it home under my tiny arm, what a sight that must have been hahaha. (I wasn't allowed to watch the (weirdasshit) movie that had just started airing on HBO though...) This album (obviously) has a long history for me and was/is one of the pillars for my love of imaginative music - music that is at once bombastic, melodic, sometimes ridiculous, aggressive, a little scary, mysterious, powerful. I became a big Who fan for some years starting at that point, which at times frustrated me - I often felt that they should have been ... better? they had a relatively short peak (which this album marked the start of) that matched any band in history, but couldn't sustain. And during my later teenage years when I was more a fan of hard rock I learned that this album was released when it wasn't completely finished (according to Pete Townshend) - at the time I wanted some of the tracks to have been bigger/louder. But that would have been disastrous - a lot of the space in some of these songs gives room for that mystery. Plus the extended "Live At Leeds" with the full Tommy performance gives that hard rock edge if you need it... Tommy the story [for the few that wouldn't know, this is a concept album, if not the original concept album...] is both essential (i.e. about half of these songs would seem half as good out of context of the album) and ridiculous at the same time. Doesn't really matter that it doesn't always make sense; there's a flow to it that when I listen to it for the first time in a while (today, in fact) makes it impossible to not go through the entire 75 minutes. Obvious highlights here are the alltime single "Pinball Wizard" - which has been overplayed on classic radio for at least 30 years, but when it kicks in midway through the album you remember why - and the epic closer "We're Not Gonna Take It" but put on some headphones and listen to the entirety as picking out two famous singles almost deflates the entire project. "Amazing Journey" indeed - 10/10 5 stars.

Not a fan of "punk" really at all, but I have fleeting memories of seeing this band late at night on MTV as a kid and thinking they were more than punk - I'd definitely stand by that.... although if anything the vocals are the "punk" aspect which are ... not good... So the positive: I really dig the music on almost all of this. But.... yeesh. The dry dual out-of-tune vocals bring it all down for me. e.g. "Universal Corner" would have been better simply as an instrumental - gave me a little very early Pretenders vibe just from the guitar. The opening/main riff on "It's Who You Know" almost has a raw Iron Maiden feel. Love these. Eh it's kinda frustrating. Yeah - the music is cool but it sounds like a decent university band - I'm trying to justify a lot of parts but overall it rarely lifts itself above a fairly-well-polished demo; not just in terms of sound but performance - I wouldn't want anything modern/Pro Tools/perfectly aligned/on the beat but even slightly better musicianship would have taken this a lot further for me. 5/10 2 stars.

Nope. Hey - like what you want obviously - but this whole idea that "back to basics / simple and primitive / low-fi / raw" is some sort of ROCK PURITY that counters and surpasses anything else that has more art, thought, creativity, melody, and <gasp> a goddamn bass line is utter shit and insulting. I hate this. ...ok....upon a bit more subjective reflection and listening...am boosting to 2 stars. Having been subjected to the grating banality of Seven Nation Army for years I was ready to give this 0 stars if possible but there's actually more melody in here than I'd thought or expected. e.g. "I Want To Be The Boy..." and "You've Got Her In Your Pocket" were pretty nice - I'd really like to have heard these with a full (better?) band. But overall the lack of bass gives the entire production a hollowness that's impossible to listen to; the drumming is terribly pedestrian and sloppy, and the low-fi aesthetic is something I would be surprised I'd ever rate higher than a 2. So...yay I guess for Jack White's talent - and/but I like the Ranconteurs infinitely more than this band... 3/10 2 stars.

Well, it sounds good - I especially appreciate the lack of density; i.e. each element and instrument are clearly-defined and there is good use of space here. I'm not much of a reggae fan so I have zero quality comparison to/with other similar acts - facile review but my gut reaction is that I have trouble enjoying this because it's just too/so repetitive. 5/10 2 stars.

Man this is a hit and miss album. I was ready to give up after the second track "A Child's Claim To Fame" but the next 5 or so songs are great. I really dislike the Richie Furay songs - country/weak - and love most of the others (excepting the confused final track "Broken Arrow" which is an apt title. broken bits is more like it). So essentially the Steven Stills cuts are excellent and he should have kept them for himself. 6/10 3 stars for a messy hodgepodge; I'm glad to have heard the middle of this album which was good enough to keep my interest.

I like Sabbath. At times quite a bit. But still... I can't help but occasionally feel like Sabbath were no better than a high school band at times. This album gives a few good examples, loke...some of the riffs are really interesting but then don't really either subtly diversify or lead into a good derivative part. Maybe they just weren't great songwriters. Or needed stronger preproduction. Or were inhaling Scarface amounts of coke and peaked on the intake during this album. It's probably that. Enough nitpicking, this is actually for the most part cool. Sludgy and creepy (Ozzy's voice of course the primary cause) but with enough unexpected turns to make most of the songs interesting. The first track for example...that tempo increase out of nowhere is weird as hell. "Tomorrow's Dream" and "Supernaut" are just awesome hard rock classics, my two faves on this album and brilliantly showcase how good this band could be at their best. Overall tho, there are parts that are tough for me. e.g. sometimes the sloppy performances (excepting Ozzy. I actually think his vocals are tremendous) are a bit distracting. Again...it's probably utterly patronizing but it's like talented high schoolers trying to play a bit above their weight class. I love Tony Iommi's sound of course, it's probably at worst half of what made this band unique. But the solos...ehh. FX might be the dumbest waste of major label studio time in history. thankfully it's short. "Changes" is their mellow "hit" here and frankly it's kinda childish. And "Snowblind" - even tho it's a catchy tune - has always driven me nuts because could not *one* stoned to the gills person in that studio have told Tony Iommi to tune his goddamn guitar?? one string is just ahhhhh (I think it's the G string, I can't not hear it on the arpeggios. still like the tune... mostly). "Cornucopia" has such a bad intro; it leads into a fine enough main section but that comical sludge is too much. Still still... I don't know why I focus on the negative. Because even if there are a few ehhh tunes this is one that's a worthy early metal collection - and the 2/3 of it that rocks is worthy of a recommendation. I think I'm a bit harsh on it because I often think they should have been so much *better* than they already were! e.g. a clean or better band w/could have made this a 10/10. Then again they wouldn't have been Black Sabbath so round and round it goes... 7/10 4 stars.

Neil Young ...so many revere him, so many can't stand him. I don't think it's necessarily an either/or, and I tend to straddle the line a lot with him. I like him ok but would never call myself a fan; dad had a few of his old records I listened to as a kid so there's some nostalgia involved. But this one I don't know much about at all so I was kind of pleased to hear it... ...this one is raw. I wouldn't think I'd like something like this; often sounds like they just threw two mics in a room, didn't worry about levels or compression, and just went for it... but man it seems perfect especially on the title track which is great. It ends up being my favourite cut on the album (although "Borrowed Time" is also outstanding) but I have to say I like this. nothing groundbreaking - it doesn't have the same soft emotional touch of something like After The Gold Rush...it's raw and more basic and drives harder. I feel like if this were recorded today it would have been massively overproduced and ruin the vibe. Aggressive and more in your face than previous Neil records I've heard. I gave this a second spin and liked it even more, this might be my fave of his. (specific mention for the very cool solo by Nils Lofgren on "Speakin Out") 8/10 4 stars.

I like the idea, but i could not connect with this. There's a lot of effort that goes into creating music like this, I get that, but this ends up grating to me. Repetitive and mostly the vocals are ... not good at all. actually I think I'd probably have boosted this a full star if it were all instrumental.... (although some of the repetition is jarring). I just don't like it and wouldn't listen again. 3/10 2 stars

This is a weird one - always has been. I'd say I've always had a love/hate thing with this but it's not quite true at all - more like a love/frustrated relationship. On the one hand, these songs are catchy AF. They can get tiring after a while because of a certain sameness (or production....see the negative below) but individually I might have to say that ... literally every single song is good? Nothing super groundbreaking but definitely above average songwriting at worst and they really do go for the killer chorus which is infectious. ... Yeah that's it: these songs are damn infectious. Favourite: "Don't Look Back in Anger" [maybe because Noel sings lead on this...?] Negatives? Liam's voice is really tough to sit through for a long spell. Seems cliché to say that at this point but doesn't make it any less-true. But the BIG negative for me is the terrible mix/production overall. No need to get technical about it - it's just TOO LOUD and everything is up front for the entire album. Everything was/is massively over-compressed into this wall of sound / cacophony and there's no subtlety whatsoever ("Some Might Say" and the almost-alltime-awesome "Morning Glory" are maybe the best (worst) examples - distorted/noisy/everything peaking. Frustrating.). Song-wise this would be (and probably is) an all-time classic but it's unfortunately tiring on the ears to listen to (in headphones esp.) which knocks it down for me. Still - it's probably most-awesome coming out of a phone speaker or on the beach or from a convertible - it's just a great rock album reeking of that 90s vibe. 8/10 4 stars.

It's Thriller. I mean ... Edward Van Halen and 70 million fans weren't wrong here. 9/10 5 stars.

I could never connect with this album and still can't. Nothing is *bad* at all...just the combination of GM's overly-breathy vocals (just *sing* already - what a great voice he had when belting it out but i feel like 75% of the time he adapts this annoyingly-faux-intimate affected voice) and it all sounding so very 80s just still makes it just sort of wash over me. It's fine - I'd even say well or superbly-crafted - I just have absolutely zero chills or connection to any of it at all. 5/10 2 stars.

Two MBV albums? i don't know if i agree - i mean the first "Loveless" even if it's not my favourite music I can definitely understand being on the list; it really sounded and *felt* like nothing i'd heard before. I suppose though the same things I could never fully connect with on Loveless apply here as well - underwater/warbly effects to the extreme... just doesn't seem as revolutionary when it's another album of the same. None of these are truly "songs" in any traditional sense - again, that's kind of cool in the abstract but it's also not really working for me as any sort of background or atmospheric mood. I've just ended up either being annoyed/distracted at what is often approaching grating. The first half was fine - but after 20 minutes or so it really started to fall apart, and maybe it's simply that after 20 minutes of this ... that's enough. Also the final two cuts are omg please stop - especially "nothing is" - a joke on anyone who bought this album. come on, now. A 20 years waiting for the same thing is a long slog - I'm fine with Loveless on occasion but a big no to the remix. 4/10 2 stars.

a.k.a. Jeff's dad. is that why this is on the list? If the name were Tim Johnson would this even be remembered? I don't hate it, I just don't really connect with it overall - I will say that "Phantasmagoria In Two" is unique and "Pleasant Street" is a cool-enough song that is (as is everything else) very of-the-era. The rest seems to blend into the "oh this is clearly of the late 60s" sound - this may be unfair as there are a few sorta-unique/odd songs (e.g. "Goodbye and Hello") but at the same time they don't grab me - i.e. I don't know if I'll remember much from it. 4/10 2 stars.

I remember this group as a teenager but it was so out of my sphere of listening that I'm sure I'd dismissed them out of hand - but I really like it. Parts of it sounds like ABBA meets The Sundays :) There's still an unavoidable late-80s production value to it but I suspect this album would hit much differently and not as well if it didn't have that aspect. Dreamy yet accessible, happy (as far as I can tell - I couldn't pick out anything in terms of lyrics :D....), hypnotic. Simply enjoyable. 7/10 3 stars.

Raw and - for 1965 - quite new. For the most part if the only exposure to The Who is via terrible classic rock radio stations, aside from the title track this is going to sound quite different. Very much power-pop with a few hints of the aggression that would come about in roughly 5 years time. There's a bit of hit and miss but that's probably looking through a modern lens (I do think the singles are truly the best songs here - My Generation, The Kids Are Alright, A Legal Matter). One thing that stands out is that these kids (!) were outstanding musicians - virtually every song but especially near the close of the album; listen to A Legal Matter and The Ox. They just had that raw talent (especially comparing to similar/contemporaneous bands e.g. The Kinks) that could let them pull off advanced-for-the-time songs like these. I suppose purists will claim the mono version but apparently I'm picky (I find it tough listening in mono) and went for the Stereo remix. Also I'm not sure it counts past "The Ox" because that was the original end to the album, but if you include tracks from the bonus/expanded versions it increases the quality even just if you count the classics "I Can't Explain" and "Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere." Either way an important early rock document that presages the legendary status of this band just a few years out from this point.... 7/10 4 stars.

2 strong childhood memories associated with the legendary title track: 1 - dad driving me and friends to my summer birthday party with at least 2-3 times the legal limit of 9 year olds literally crammed into the station wagon, all of us having the time of our lives belting out this song (which was the summer hit and on the radio every 15 minutes) 2 - Willie Stargell Check out the bass on this album (Bernard Edwards - RIP) - especially on the title track and "Thinking Of You" - an album highlight. Very VERY 1979. That could hit different ways depending on your view or mood but I for one could almost always go for homemade cake, wiffle ball, hide and seek, a classic World Series, and fun singalongs that remind me of it all. 6/10 3 stars.

I was only familiar with a few Talk Talk songs before this, and I don't think any from this album which is a shame - this is great. It's 80s without sounding *too* 80s (in a dated way) - the songs are all catchy without being saccharine, a great mix of dynamics and instruments. A keeper. 8/10 4 stars.

Boy this is a mixed bag. After the first ~3 songs I was loving this - aggressive yet melodic, with enough complexity to keep interest. And although there is/was nothing I actively disliked...It just didn't hold up in the long run. Is it too long? Would I have loved this in the LP-age when were were almost limited to around 45 minutes? Maybe it's that. Maybe it's the vocals - they're good ... until they're not (the more aggressive tunes near the middle of the album just don't work for me). Some of the songs have an abrasiveness that I'm sure was intended but isn't my favourite...e.g. "The Intense Humming of Evil" is slightly uncomfortable but also has some great parts in it - I think I should sum it up by saying it - along with a handful of other tracks here - sounds like a bunch of cool parts that end up not being great songwriting. But I will note "This Is Yesterday" and I think how was this not a hit? Great mid-tempo song that could probably have appealed to a variety of audiences. I don't know if I'd say it's a completely satisfying album overall, but there's a lot of good rock here ... I'll split this one right down the middle and will come back to about half the tracks. 5/10 3 stars

I listened to this record a lot when I was a *very* little kid - courtesy of my dad's stack of albums. I do recall even trying to emulate the cover by magic markering my thumb. Although I could never have articulated it, it always left me with a sense that I couldn't identify - not just the title track but the collection as a whole - a sort of sadness. I'm pretty certain you can't be wistful or nostalgic at age ~4 but it was akin to that, and for that alone it was a pretty powerful record. It's easy to sarcastically "Gen-X" that title track as overplayed old guy classic rock; having been (over)exposed to it again and again first in crappy college parties, through cover bands, then later on unimaginative classic rock stations everywhere, in boomer bars or through the eventual commercialization of rock music. But it's not the song's fault, and maybe it should be to its credit. It really is that good, that epic. And although that title song overshadows anything else here (and probably should have been the album closer?) don't ignore the rest of the album either, although the best of it is much more ethereal and mellow. "Vincent" was another hit song that has mostly been lost to time but is a lovely sad song (about Van Gogh). The only negative is that by the end there's definitely a certain sameness to it, despite McLean's excellent vocals - the acoustic ballads do blend together a bit too much, and I feel like the other uptempo songs (e.g. "Everybody Loves Me Baby") detract from the overall album. Still a nice snapshot of an era and on a personal level a definite nostalgia blast. 7/10 4 stars.

Some undeniably famous all-time classic cuts on this one. So why can I never connect with it? I think a lot for me has to do with Bowie's voice. I like the silly/stupid concept album, I like the sound of the album, the first ~4 cuts are really good, but I get tired of it all after that. I don't know, this has always been a tough call for me - like, if "Ziggy Stardust" comes on the radio it's kinda cool but by the time I get to it here (track 9) it's nothing special for me. I never much liked "Suffragette City" Weak review - I just have never been much for Bowie overall (outside of "Low"). I think the best I can say is that at my most generous I kind of like it. Like, Dotty. Like. High points: "Five Years" "Moonage Daydream" 5/10 3 stars.

One of the rare artists who I am at least partially drawn to by their vocals; his deep haunting melodic and never strained voice is integral to the music which for me is all of the above and more - uniquely-played acoustic guitar using alternate tunings and the occasional odd time signature. Nick Drake is/was the rare acoustic artist that for me was fully captivating. In a marked change from my usual preferences, my favourites are the songs with a minimal mix as well - the songs work best when there's just vocals and guitar although I do enjoy when seemingly from nowhere another instrument or two (e.g. "Three Hours") emerges from the depths. Compelling. 8/10 4 stars.

Completely unfamiliar going in... My first comment is that I am most definitely not much of a lyrics-noticer but :D this first song "Jackie" is hilariously weird. Like a tongue firmly-in-cheek Tom Jones-esque knockoff of James Bond or Austin Powers 30 years early. "Cute-cute in a stupid-ass waaaaayyyyy" :D what is this. I shouldn't really judge this compared to anything else or at least not to anything I'd grown up with as contemporary popular music. "Next" :D "Now I always will recall the brothel truck, the flying flags - the queer lieutenant who slapped our asses as if we were fags - I swear on the wet head of my first case of gonorrhea" i mean.... that was impossible to miss. I gotta say .... I don't dislike it at all. I mean, it's *all* kinds of ridiculous and there were times during the album where I actually laughed out loud - the music isn't at all anywhere close to my usual preferences but ...this absolutely works with the vocals/lyrics and to its credit you really feel in another place and time while listening to it, and I'd say in a fun way. It gets a little more tame along the way which lessens the fun a bit for me. I'm thrown a bit in a goofy way after finishing this but for weird / fun factor I think I'd "softly" recommend it - just with a few words of caution :D 6/10 3 stars

There's so much going on in pretty much every one of these songs - yet it doesn't seem messy or scattered. Each part, each instrument, each voice - sits just right in the arrangement and the mix. Sure it's funky, but in many (most?) places I'd call this rock - even progressive in parts? there are a lot of complex musical passages in here to keep the interest up just where you might think it's about to become repetitive. Killer lead guitar almost throughout the entirety of the record. Contains more than enough weirdness to make it classic Funkadelic yet is oddly accessible, even if to my ears there was absolutely nothing that could have been a hit single (although from online accounts this was their biggest selling album so what do I know). Fun and great party (or probably stoner) music :) 7/10 4 stars.

There's something about Willie Nelson's voice that just makes me happy. Corny as hell but there it is. Not a country fan per se, but this sort of old/raw style suits me just fine. I think there are better Willie Nelson albums - this one being an album of cover tunes from his childhood which was about 371 years ago - but there's such a relaxing feel to this that it's just simple enjoyment...and the album cover suits the material perfectly. Makes you feel like sitting on a back porch at night with some Willie Nelson and just staring at the sky. 6/10 3 stars.

I had a nanny when I was ~2 and we used to sing together constantly. We'd put records on and have the best time while I learned to read (liner notes/lyrics on the back cover!), and the most-played record by far was Bridge Over Troubled Water. So the impact this record has on me moves well past just how goddamn great it was and is; it is inextricably tied together with some of the best early memories I have. I'll consider this rating one of my most personal. The title track alone - one of the most (if not THE most) captivating, arresting, and gorgeous songs ever recorded - would make the album great. It's not the songwriting alone - any other version of this song would be and is wrong and far far inferior. The grandiose piano intro, the *dynamics* - the ethereal vocals - all draw in the listener. Then there's the build to the semi-false ending which leads to the big third/final verse (which was written in-studio almost last-minute to give the song its dramatic ending) - unequaled. Again - this is the first song and the rest could be simple 1-4-5 blues songs and the album would stand out. But there's so much more quality - a lot of variety on the album and a few others that could be called classics, most notably "The Boxer" which is another chill-inducing track, especially during the giant snare crashes in the choruses (recorded in an empty elevator shaft to get that huge natural reverb) - other highlights are "El Condor Pasa" "So Long, Frank Lloyd Wright" and "The Only Living Boy In New York" Paul Simon is a fantastic songwriter but (aside from "The Boxer") my favourite songs or parts of the songs are where Artie G sings - he brought everything to those songs and is one of the few vocalists for me that can stop me in my tracks and force me to actively listen. The only slowdown on the record for me (although I loved it as a little kid) is "Bye Bye Love" which in retrospect seems a bit simplistic for this album; maybe it could have been placed better in the album rather than a second-to-last track (I'm also more of a studio-recording fan, this track recorded live). Still it's not enough to knock the album down in any way. One of my all-time favourite records (along with their previous record "Bookends") quite literally since I started to walk and through my own changing preferences over the years I've never stopped listening. What a tremendous way to close their short career. 10/10 5 stars.

That big single ("Bitter Sweet Symphony") was and remains just as annoying as possible. Hated and continue to hate it. So I wasn't too excited to get this album. But! It admittedly all changes immediately with the second song "Sonnet" - nothing groundbreaking at all but it's a hell of a lot nicer than cut 1 and a huge contrast. It's decent brit-pop. But after getting through it, it never strikes me as anything beyond that. Is it levels above Suede/Pulp/Oasis/generic1995UKband? Maybe, maybe not. I think one major detraction is the utter and complete lack of vocal range - I don't need or even necessarily want someone with the most beautiful voice but on too many songs ("This Time" jfc ugh) there's literally no adventure or reaching out - no alternate melodies, often just one or two notes. Horribly distracting. It's the kind of album I could put on and nobody would complain and yet nobody would remember either. 5/10 2.49 stars. Perfectly generic and safe mid-90s UK album.

Haircut 100? The (barely) one-hit wonder from the early 80s? Essential album? All spoken/written from admitted ignorance and after listening I could take two paths: 1) Sure, this album is light fun from the early 80s but why is this mandatory or special listening? 2) This was an overlooked gem (at least in North America) and there should have been 3-4 radio or MTV staples. I could make a quick Duran Duran comparison but I like this far more. There's an airiness to the mix and arrangements that absolutely has that 80s feel but still sounds kinda fresh some 40! years later. Never imagined I'd discover a Haircut 100 album but I'm kinda glad I did; I hear some unpredictably jazzy/funky elements of Joe Jackson and Madness (compliments, those). I'll split the difference between the above thoughts and say while it might never be a favourite I think I'll happily listen to this again. A pleasant surprise. 6/10 3 stars.

This is a big old curveball compared to many others on the list and I cheated a little looking at others' reviews. So many 5s and 1s, incredibly polarizing. I've heard a few songs from this - "Lost" is a very catchy tune, quite enjoyable. And there's more variety than I had expected going into this one. I think I can't think of it in the highest terms tho because of a few things; notably the tuned and outrageously-compressed production in his vocals. How would one describe his vocal style? It's not exactly mumble, but it approaches that at times and it's just not my preference, although I quite like it when he brings the vocal range up. How about "Bad Religion" as a positive example - this is a tremendous track and stellar vocal performance. Love it. More of this. Some positives and negatives: I don't enjoy the "sameness" of much of modern hit music - actually the production/mix: e.g. 808s, compression to the point where every aspect of the music is either confined to a small room or is quite obviously a loop. I love studio creations - hell, the Beatles were among the first to perfect the studio-as-instrument - and occasionally this album falls into that category - too many songs don't breathe. Yet the ones that don't sound like that - when the songs do have a little room, a little air, they *really* stand out. The aforementioned "Bad Religion" and my favourite track "Sweet Life" - I love the keyboards - a bit of a Stevie Wonder feel on this one - and having live drums is a *huge* attraction. More of this please! I'm going to give this a few more listens - I think this one might just be too dense for a one-day listen/evaluation. I suppose that alone is complimentary... I like a lot of the melodies here although too often they don't fully resolve which is frustrating - I wouldn't say I disliked any of the songs but only a few of them truly stuck out. Ehh I'm completely schizophrenic about this album. Let's give it a solid grade and give it another chance, shall we? 7/10 3 stars

This album was a game-changer. One of the creepiest low-res album covers ever ... an album leading off with thunder and then the "Devil's Interval" (tritone - which ancient cultures and probably today's fking amerikkkan south thought that simply playing notes in this interval - you'll know it when you hear it - conjured the devil.) ... dark and ugly songs that talk of possession and unfriendly/otherworldly spirits... Never done before. Probably never even *thought* of before. This will be the 8 millionth time someone has written "the birth of heavy metal" but it's more like the birth of doom/dark/"satanic"/scary metal-music. If you just know the name "Black Sabbath" or "Ozzy!" and have either never heard them or only heard the (few) radio hits, this is not gonna be what you expect. Sure I'll take a nostalgic teenaged trip and enjoy the cheesy Ozzy 80s "metal" (not metal) hit "Shot In the Dark" on occasion but that wasn't dangerous or frightening in any way (unless you saw Ozzy's makeup and outfit in the video). This album is terrifying - laugh if you will but try sitting in the dark by yourself after midnight...no other media or lights... and putting this album on at a high volume. A lot of it is slow. Sludge/stoner metal. There's no 80s wall-of-sound/guitars; rather in many/most places there's a lot of *space* which 100% contributes to the creepy feel. There's *harmonica* on this album. And then there's the vocals. Ozzy is... well, Ozzy. And there was nobody who sounded like him before and maybe since. Also and especially for 1970 it just sounds so fantastic - it sounds like the band is almost live in front of you (I mean, you can of course hear double-tracked guitars and vocals but there's a natural reverb to the entire mix and with enough .... kinda-sloppy playing it's easy to imagine 75% of this as being recorded in one take). If anything negative, I do tire a little of the album by the end - the uncomplicated blues-riffery starts to get stale and I find that I never want to put this on repeat, so for that I dock a point from personal preference. But if someone has to come up with a short list of albums that influenced millions of musicians and listeners forever after, this is a slam dunk. You very well might hate it, but you'll not deny the unique place this holds in rock history. 8/10 4 stars.

No soft introduction to this album - right away you're launched into a screaming 7/4 odd time signature heavy guitar riff. Welcome to the album if you've never heard this before ha. It was always a bit fascinating to me how big this band got - not because I didn't like them - which I did quite a bit - but they seemed a band that could only have gotten huge at that particular point in musical history. Grunge had just taken hold so abrasive/angry music was the sound of the times but this took it to a new level - this album was everywhere in 1992. There was really nothing like these guys and this album was their peak - bizarre and unsettling vocal harmonies, thickythicc guitar sound, great dynamics, sludgy-stonery in a Black Sabbath kind of style yet much better musicianship, angular and unpredictably dissonant chord progressions that could then resolve into something gorgeous - all the hallmarks of the best of this band. They got the singles right on this album: "Rooster" "Would?" "Down In A Hole" are definitely the three best tracks - "Them Bones" "Dam That River" and What keeps this down just a bit is the overly-dissonant songs - which sounds like a total contradiction from what I'd just praised this album for - but some of them just don't resolve well at all (e.g. "Sickman" "God Smack" "Hate to Feel") - Although...now that I'm listening again I might be off on this critique because those are the moments that likely make the gloriously-melodic resolutions shine even more. e.g. would the album be as dramatic and awesome if those ugly moments didn't exist? hmm maybe not. But they also make the album feel a bit longer than it is, which is a shame - knock like 3 songs from this album and it would have been pretty much flawless. It's not a pretty album by design so I'm sure it's not going to be in everyone's wheelhouse, but I love it. 8/10 4 stars.

Nice chill organic-sounding dancey-trip-hop. A few nice singles that I remember from the long-ago. I don't have anything negative to say but then again .... I don't know, it's not entirely memorable? i.e. nothing made me sit up and take notice and/or give me chills - the inherent nature of the music, the style, etc - gives the overall sentiment and impression of a bit of repetitiveness. It's not bad, per se, just more of a vibe that's interesting but harder than normal to distill into individual songs or "tracks" - your mileage may vary. So in sum It's more of an attitude record for me, something that would likely be great background/party/gaming/sleeping soundtrack - passive listening. And there's considerable value in that. 6/10 3 stars.

abrasive and terrible vocals? check. noisy and distorted music without any logical direction? check. rotten low-fi production? check. unmemorable and poorly-constructed songs? check. overall painful to literally listen to let alone get through? check. 1 star rating? checkmate. 1/10 1 star.

Not really a Stones fan here even if I'm likely firmly in an ideal demographic.... but this is *the* album. No 60s polite rock, no meandering like they were about to bore me with on "Exile..." - this is 45 minutes of mostly to-the-point grimy greasy excellent bluesy ROCK. Virtually every song works and there's a decent flow to the album, especially the first half: from the killer opening single of "Brown Sugar," the mellow "Wild Horses" through the groove of "Can't You Hear Me Knocking" and rollicking "Bitch" it's a great collection. Strong American blues/country influence throughout - although at times a bit too much - e.g the painfully slow bluesy tunes do nothing for me (e.g. "I Got the Blues" and "You Gotta Move" which also seems a bit too derivative) - and the 2nd half drags a bit but this might be the album to give the casual rock fan / i.e. someone who isn't always convinced of the Rolling Stones (e.g. me). When they were on like they were here, they were tough to top. 8/10 4 stars.

Have definitely heard "Pulsewidth" before and it's driving me nuts trying to figure out where. I'm often puzzled by the potential for this type of music performed "live" or I guess maybe I just don't "get" the concept of live DJs or raves. Not really a critique of the music I don't think because... I kinda love this...? It's completely different from what I usually listen to and doesn't follow anything like a traditional form of "songs" - I could call it background or better-yet atmospheric. I just really like the way it sounds - spacial, mysterious, never really abrasive but still not so safe that it's boring. Again - still not really active listening music but more music or melodic sound with a purpose. Would and will listen to again. 7/10 4 stars.

This isn't an immediately-accessible album; I feel like I've proven that to myself twice now - when it was first released I was given a copy of it and listened to it a number of times on the train on a long commute and it took some time to click, which it eventually did. For whatever life reason I hadn't listened to this in over a decade and today I'm feeling the same on the first re-listen .... so I know :D The vocals always gave me an early solo Peter Gabriel feel; not always necessarily with the voice but with the inflections and style of singing. Progressive music for the 21st century? Maybe (minus any overly-long tracks) - there are so many layers to this both in song construction and instrumentation; and perhaps the lack of a lot of repetition is the precise reason that it takes some time to fully digest this album. It's anti-pop. Personal highlights: "Halfway Home" "Shout Me Out" and "DLZ" wavering between a 3 and 4 but it's so unique that I'll round up 7/10 4 stars

How can you not smile at the very first "words" of this album. "Tutti Frutti" is ridiculous in/by today's environment but I'm pretty sure pop/rock music wouldn't exist as we know it without Little Richard. In general I don't get much out of "old" rock but this one is the real deal and - intentional naiveté here - when rock and roll was fun. Mandatory listening for history and for fun. It's Little Richard, just play it. 8/10 4 stars.

This album - and in particular the lead single - will never not transport me to being a little kid / 1980 / good times. No way to remove the nostalgia from any objectivity in this one for me. In saying that, this is a highly melodic album with jazzy twists and turns. Nothing really comes close to matching the opening track "While You See a Chance" which is pretty much melodic softish-rock perfection, although the subsequent "Arc of a Diver" is a left-turn that showcases the best of Steve Winwood (who, incidentally, played all the instruments on this album). After a few ok tracks the album picks up again on the second half with "Spanish Dancer" and "Night Train" - the former stays restrained and the space keeps the tension throughout the song while "Night Train" has a catchy repetitive groove that works well. It's not perfect - I'm not a fan of the album closer "Dust" at all; could have used a better end to this album which overall is enjoyable. In particular I've always enjoyed the sound on this album - nice mix Steve. 7/10 4 stars.

This is kind of a tough one because ... it's interesting. It's weird, it's different. A lot of homages to 80s synth pop. But I'm not yet sure how *enjoyable* it is? I very much enjoy a lot of Brian Eno and this is definitely giving me an Eno vibe so it might be one that requires patience? The leadoff track "o baby" is a nice melodic start, although becomes a bit repetitive, and doesn't necessarily tip off the listener to the rest. I did notice a huge Talking Heads feel to a bunch of these, including "other voices" and "change yr mind" I will note that "call the police" bucks the challenging trend; it's immediately accessible and is a great tune if not a touch too long. Labeled a few places as "dance music" but it's way more challenging overall. I feel like you put this on in a random group of 10 people and 4 will call it an all-time greatest album, 4 will call it the worst garbage they've ever heard, and 2 will just be confused. Kind of an accomplishment, actually. Even though it's occasionally a hair too abrasive for my likes ("emotional haircut" for one) and I prefer the less-aggressive tracks, this is worth a few listens at minimum. 6/10 3 stars.

I've been sitting here trying to compose some witty or sarcastic or even sincere defense on why I hate this so much. There's a bit of a cult around Leonard Cohen - oh what a poet blahblahblah - But isn't this just for me? Ok then... The emperor has no clothes - this is terrible. 3 goddamn Cohen albums already what the everliving hell. I'll finish listening because apparently I enjoy pain - this is/was not my first Leonard Cohen disc and I pray to any musical deities that it will be my last. Absolute shit. 1/10 1 star.

At times I've had no idea what I'm listening to - except that it's ... amazing? Melodic yet completely unpredictable, odd timings and key shifts punctuate this highly enjoyable album that is absolutely going to take 4 or 5 spins before I start fully digesting it but this is great. Early favourite: "Them Changes" 8/10 4 stars.

Short one: the music is really nice - excellent melodic poppy rock. The unfortunate and unavoidable downside is that I cannot stand listening to Morrissey sing. The (rare) parts where he's less-emotive (an impossibility, I realize) or is mostly instrumental (e.g. Billy Budd) is frustratingly good. Really just cannot stand Morrissey overall and there's no getting by that. The end. 5/10 2 stars.

Never would have connected with this at the time but I've really come to enjoy this sort of ambient electronic trippy music. The only critique - and it's not much of one - is that it's much more of a mood/feel than a collection of what we traditionally think of as "songs" - so I don't necessarily have a favourite but this has been great to loop and work all day to. I'll listen to this again in the right atmosphere for sure. So it's tough to "rank" this and though I'd never make this anything close to a favourite album or genre, I'm giving this 4 stars for hitting the exact buttons it means to. 7/10 4 stars.

Almost immediately - and I hate having a knee-jerk reaction - I come back to my usual Bowie thoughts: I really don't like him as a singer at all. It's not just his voice, it's the affectations and the style. Obviously a personal taste but it has always been nearly-impossible to get around. His album "Low" was a rare project where his voice didn't seem to be the main instrument and was more a part of the environment, which resulted in a different sort of album I enjoyed. This one had hype upon its release (because of Bowie's concurrent death) but I'd never listened before. And yeah - his vocals are often horrible. Apologies if you loved the dude. Music is wild but too often in a bad way. e.g. "Sue" is difficult to get through. Also stop already with the yodeling on "Girl Loves Me" Positive: I actually like "I Can't Give Everything Away" - would have loved more of this. I just have to settle on the fact that I don't really like Bowie's music overall and I look forward to the next 74 albums I'll have to listen to of his on this list... 4/10 2 stars.

Liking this more than I'd expected - I feel like I always have the same reaction to JA which is: Perry's voice is tough in larger doses. But the music is damn cool, and while "Been Caught Stealing" can just be annoying it's much better for me in context of the album as a whole. The guitar playing is fantastic on the album, keeping things from sliding into any typical late 80s/early 90s metal (not that there's anything wrong with that). Different styles and tones from song to song keep it fresh. Really good and somewhat unique hard rock album that I like more now than when it was released and a marked improvement over their debut with more diversity and dynamics. Also: do yourself a favour and don't listen to this (or anything) out of a single crappy phone speaker - makes a huge difference. 7/10 4 stars.

If one were to take a list of major label acts in history that weren't successful but deemed to be influential due to "attitude" over talent and songwriting and then cross-reference it with acts I don't like.... the Venn diagram is probably a circle. Hello New York Dolls. Here: let me introduce you to an album of 2-3 chord songs with horrible singing, poor musicianship, and barely-held-together arrangements. Ah but they were bucking social tradition! ...which I support 100%. But insert the modern meme here: "um...sirs, this is a Wendy's" - you're recording an album here. I suspect this became a critics' darling kinda album because of how shocking their act/dress were at such a legitimately dangerous time for it. Would and do completely support that, it's just the simple problem that this is unquestionably and definitively not one of the 1001 (10001) albums I'd like to hear again before I die. As with all of them, I'm judging this on the music. Put this in my Venn file and toss it in the dumpster. 2/10 1 star

Straight up: I've never been able to fully connect with this. I don't dislike it at all - but maybe it's *too* smooth at points? I don't know - everything here sounds amazing, it's soulful and melodic, but at the same time is - for me - missing *something* that gives me chills. But...I do love the theme/concept aspect of the album. Teacher & students discussions at the tail of many of the tracks, it does give it a certain cohesiveness and after going through it as an entire unit....that's the attraction. It's a vibe album; a definite feeling that listening to a track or two at a time doesn't nearly give the same fulfilling aspect as the full album. "Ex-Factor" [love that lead guitar near the end], "Doo Wop" and "Every Ghetto, Every City" are favourites. Yeah in the end it's not going to be a favourite but it's an impressive piece of work that you have to give the time to. 7/10 3 stars.

Well. That was weird. The music is... kinda funky and fun? It gets a little dull at times with a repetitive progression but is overall short enough to be a fine listen. Can definitely see how parts of this could be sampled (and apparently was) for triphop tracks. But... this isn't creepy nope not at all...: [wikipedia] "....Its narrative follows an illicit romance which develops between the middle-aged narrator and 15-year-old girl Melody Nelson...." uhhh 4/10 2 stars.

nope. not even 400 albums in and having a 4th Leonard Cohen album is absurd. This is terrorism. will not and you cannot make me. 0 poutines.

The major problem I've always had with this album - and the band - is simply that the songwriting is wildly inconsistent. Damn they could nail it at times - start with a killer and catchy instrumental in "Glad" and later an absolutely classic song like "Empty Pages" which completely showcases the rhythm, dynamics, and instrumental arrangement and chops of the band not to mention Steve Winwood's vocals.... And to be honest...those are the only excellent songs. Probably the only *good* songs. e.g. in between those two is Freedom Rider which... is awkward. Frustratingly so. Jazzy riffs that don't resolve well. That chorus has always felt wrong, as in it doesn't fit the song at all. And much of the rest of the album suffers the same inconsistency. Each song has some sections that work and each has sections that don't. Which add up to a lot of it being the most dreadful of words: boring. e.g. "Stranger To Himself" almost drags itself to its own death halfway through; it feels like the band is about to just collectively pass out from boredom. There's enough here to make it worth a listen but man ... the best of Traffic is so good - could they ever have just put together a full quality album? 5/10 3 stars.

A completely unknown artist to me - and only a few minutes in I knew I'd have to give this one at least two listens due to everything that was going on sonically. But all it took was about halfway through the first before I realized I loved it - love the spacey/mysterious/hypnotic/DoctorWho-in-space/melodic feels I'm getting from this. Yet it still has such an organic bent to it - live/acoustic drums, guitars - all blended so well with the kind of melodic sequencers and synthesizers I love. It's modern yet with heavy doses of 70s Gong+Hawkwind and 80s artrock. 4 complete listens today. A keeper. 9/10 4 stars.

There is so much I could write in detail while actually analyzing my feelings and thoughts and strangely enough - emotions - about each song, each chord change, the arrangements and each note of this record. Instead I'll keep it simple: I unequivocally and wholeheartedly hate everything about this album. 2/10 1 star.

Well this is unfair because I reflexively hate covers albums - fine, record a cover song here or there but an entire album... it couldn't be less in my wheelhouse. I hear a cover and inevitably feel like it asks the listener to compare/contrast to the original. Which to me is already a stamp, a statement; a record in time of the original artists' vision. Of course I didn't know that not *all* the songs are covers. Which surprised me when I ... liked? the first song (an original). And the next few were...kind of good? But then OK I cannot abide by his take on "Bridge Over Troubled Water" - it's lazy and completely misses the point of the original which should never ever be covered (even/especially by Paul Simon. It's an Art-vocal song and nobody else's and that's a hill i'll die on). Other big misses: "First Time Ever I Saw Your Face" and "In My Life" - just do not work with this voice, yikes. "Desperado" sucked with the Eagles and sucks here.... Ehh... i think listing all the songs I don't like isn't serving me well. It's a majority. I enjoy the arrangements that stick to almost a traditional blues/country progression (e.g. "Tear Stained Letter" - an original!) I suppose the overall goal was achieved in that I'd never have given this a chance before this exercise (always keep an open mind!) and it wasn't nearly as bad as I'd feared. Still not a fan overall; a few songs were good but it's truly pick a few and move on. 4/10 2 stars.

Over the last 20-30 years radio has kinda killed (or maybe just wounded) a lot of classic rock. Use/abuse the same goddamn 100 songs everywhere, so it might be easy to dismiss this since I've heard it 10000 times (and own multiple copies). It's still an absolutely perfect, flawless, and infinitely repeatable album. Over and over and over. Even the ... very slightly "lesser" songs (the three from "Love Ain't For Keeping" through "The Song Is Over") are only that because of the absolute monster works surrounding them. And I'd even say those three that close out <ahem> Side 1 of the vinyl I would and will defend as being integral to the flow of the record as a whole. It's almost an ebb and flow - like they're collectively saying: "I'm sorry...you just wouldn't be able to handle this much timeless genius all at once - we're going to bring things down just a touch while you catch your breath for side 2 which will kick the world's ass for the next 50+ years." Both explosive and gentle at times, the sound is huge overall - mixing hard rock with incredible melody and impeccable musicianship that never is overplayed. Also that ARP synth all over the place holyhellyes. I don't know if this is the greatest album ever made but I won't argue if you stake that claim to the death. One of the few absolute pinnacles of 20th century music. 10/10 5 stars.

Visions of me as a 100lb 12 year old biking home from the used record store with a tattered copy of this under my arm after having heard Roundabout on mystery FM radio for years and putting it on and being given an aural representation of that trippy Roger Dean cover... Honestly I do remember putting the vinyl on my cheap turntable and it being a kind of instant magic. Led me to being a fan of this band's 70s work right around when they were making their big 80s comeback. The combination of instrumentation - interplay between guitar and (lead!) bass and keys - is unlike any band I'd ever heard before or since; like them or not (and even though I have their entire 70s collection, I don't really like all of it) I kind of feel like this version of Yes were possibly the most unique "rock/popular music" band I can think of that ever made it so big. Others were progressive, sure, but either far more bombastic or heavy and just never as appealing as the best Yes could offer. And for this album in particular, those 4 true songs (3 of which you'll still hear on some of the slightly-more-adventurous classic/old radio stations) are progressive melodic perfection. Just listen to "Heart of the Sunrise" and truly digesting it...has there ever been anything like this before? From the powerful repeated riff to those gentle piano runs in the middle... it's not a background song, I can definitely spend 11 minutes in a dark room just blasting this. Incredible musicians - every single one. I've tried to play this stuff. It's not easy and the complexity + melody/accessibility is what made them - and this - stand out. OK. However. The obvious whatthehell?? aspect of this album has always been the 4 (or 5) "individual/solo" pieces are absolutely weird and jarring and really cannot be played as one-offs (i.e. you're not hearing "We Have Heaven" on the radio). Do I "like" them? I've never really known but I honestly don't think so (I like "Mood for a Day" enough for a nice classical guitar piece, I suppose. Couldn't play that for shit either.). But in context they do sort of fit - you have the long band pieces and those interludes give the listener a bit of a rest in-between. Blahblahblah still this is and always has been an all-time keeper for me even with (or because of?) the strangeness. 10/10 5 stars.

This kind of upbeat jazz isn't usually something I'd get excited about but this was just darn enjoyable. Kinda made me happy on a cold Monday morning. Not sure if I'd always reach for this but also seems too good to give it a 3 - I do like me some instrumental jazz combos and maybe as I get older I really am getting more open-minded :D At a minimum it's really good and productive work music. Try to be in a bad mood while this is playing. 8/10 4 stars.

Listening through hundreds of albums, one of the artists I've rediscovered has been Brian Eno to the point where I definitely consider myself somewhat of a fan. This one might be thrown in the exception pile. I get the concept though - it was probably a *lot* of fun to make, in the same sense (but far far more advanced) as when I first got a 4-track recorder I was making all sorts of weird shit and sounds and I loved it. I seriously doubt I could have sold a copy :D With apologies to experimental music and with a few exceptions, this one doesn't serve as much more than almost an aural equivalent of a whiteboard - trying out ideas that could (or should?) have been left in the garage and further developed. ["Regiment" is an outlier - I really love that groove. But it could or should have been used for a better final product.] Actually.... I could see this as a great repository for *other* artists to use and sample from. Like a sound/sample grocery store. "..ok, gimme some of Mea Culpa, i'll take 16 bars of Regiment, and ... yeah, a touch of Moonlight In Glory. All at 90bpm please, thanks." As a proper "album" though - it's a little disappointing and not that easy to listen to, even as background. 4/10 2 stars.

Generic sounding for the era and overused/cliched effects (tremolo, reverb, hard panning) make this end up a perfect stereotype of boring late 60s psychedelia. It's not all terrible. But it's...not sticking out much for me either (and honestly it really gets worse as the album progresses; oy the last few songs are trash). I'm trying to figure out what the influence is? And by my count 10 of these 12 songs were not even written by the band - the group were forced by the record company to bring in a writing team at the last minute to push the album; even by the band's own admission the album was rushed "...there are definitely songs that I do believe didn't belong on the album" Not the worst but I'll forget this ever existed in about 8 minutes. 3/10 2 stars.

It's...eh? At the risk of an easy/novice comparison... the only other Brazilian artist i've heard on here was Clube da Esquina which was mind-blowing and has become a favourite. This album doesn't have anywhere near the same musical passages, drama, diversity, and occasional explosiveness of expression that that one has. And I realize it's a lame comparison (sample size of TWO) but I can't help but make the parallel. And this just comes up short and uninteresting overall. 4/10 2 stars

Ahh I love this album. Aggressive yet extremely melodic (and very British) songs - has an early Police meets angry early Who vibe and I just love the mix. The bass fits in so perfectly (Elvis Costello-ish) and Bruce Foxton's playing propels so many of these songs, it might be my favourite individual aspect of this album. Sound Affects is their most-lauded album and it's good but this is my favourite Jam album from top to bottom - no filler. 8/10 4 strong stars.

I would rather have sat in silence for an hour. you can't shoot me. I'm already dead. biggest nope from me. dreadfully laconic, plodding, depressing, uninspiring. And I've already had far too much Leonard Cohen. 2/10 1 star.

I enjoyed some damn good years in the 90s. But what I've come to realize is that how much of that was surrounded in myth because I don't miss the decade of snark, the cynicism, and in music that manifested into the "if it's not indie (which this wasn't...) it's utter shit" credo that wasn't even so much stated as just assumed. And Nirvana was the perfect synthesis of all of that. Which is probably why when they hit I hated them right off the bat. I wasn't stuck in the 80s or any particular era; as a marked counterpoint to that, the early 90s brought a revelation of/in rock music to me - so much amazing new music EVERYWHERE (I would say comfortably that nearly 100% of any excess money i made for a 2-3 year stretch went to buying new CDs) that I couldn't believe *this* was the band that stuck out and somehow got to be the symbol of the GenX rock fans. Goddammit WHY?! I wanted to revisit this today and give it a fresh ear. Because I hated this album. But I still hate it and maybe even more-so. Members of the loud/soft/loud cult of the late80s/early90s which I never enjoyed - there's not much melody to be found anywhere on this album; it's a noise record and - ok I can see how some people would like or even love this - but as much as I love power and energy in music there's no release in Nirvana's music for me. Kurt Cobain's voice is like listening to my cat angrily vomit into a microphone over and over which doesn't cover up the lack of musical progression. Listening to "Scentless Apprentice" are 4 of the worst minutes you'll ever spend. Until "Tourette's" - it's less than 2 minutes but feels like 20. Was going to give small points for occasional - OCCASIONAL - nostalgia. But then that same nostalgia gets some points docked because this is even worse than I remembered. No apologies. 1/10 1 star.

More than a bit too lo-fi for my tastes. Although there are some interesting and compelling musical twists and turns, it's not enough to sustain a ton of interest for me. They eventually developed a bit more (and splintered into rather more successful groups) but essentially my lazy summary is: late 80s college music that was on at parties - just a solid 2. 5/10 2 stars.

Something that starts ok with "100%" but then shits itself with a non-effort like "Swimsuit Issue" just pisses me off and remains just as awful ... until it gets worse. Just an ugly-sounding hour of insulting laziness. no. 2/10 1 star

Not my usual genre to be sure, so it's a tough one to grade - I think the older I get the more I can appreciate this, even if I don't love it? It's of course by its nature quite light - string orchestras dictating the melodies throughout - and thusly doesn't have much emotional impact on me. On the other hand I can certainly appreciate those well-crafted melodies and the arrangements; whatever one might think of this genre - in some ways it sounds *so* dated that it almost seems new again. Even though it's a "vocal" album I think I like this as background music; and not being much of a vocals fan I'm "whatever" about Frank as a singer, although I will say that I prefer/like when he's quite laid-back which is the case over most of this album. In other words, listening to this feels like I'm watching an Austin Powers movie. 5/10 3 stars.

I used to criticize this one quite a bit, and for decades never really got into this Floyd album. I found it cold...which it definitely is, but of course that's the intent. It goes on and on, gets a bit too dark-musical-theaterish...and yes, it's overblown, patronizing, far too long, alienating, etc etc... And yet... I find that I like it far more than I'd thought I did. My favorite Floyd LPs were their previous 2 albums but instead of comparing I'm realizing this was fng huge and ambitious and epic and... you know - I like modern music a lot but there could and should be more projects like this. I stand by those flaws, and they were not great at hard rock (Young Lust, e.g. - my least favourite track by a longshot) and like many huge classic albums, I always feel like I never want to hear the radio songs again - ever. But (for the most part) they were huge for a reason and work far better in context. Also in headphones it all sounds like a different fascinating and terrifying world. Also the musicianship is fantastic. Throw on some cans and sit alone for an hour and a half and soak it up while trying to wait out a baseball rain delay like I just did. No regrets and I'm glad I reevaluated this one. 7/10 4 stars

Without looking, I'd bet I could copy/paste my review from Ziggy Stardust. It's a catchy-at-first early 70s rock album that I slowly get tired of because I'm just not able to really be moved by Bowie's music. It's fine - starting with "Watch That Man" is easy-entry rock (although there's a little bit of Lou Reed sound to this which puts me off - am not a fan of LR). And the title cut "Aladdin Sane" is a nice diversion from the initial cut - but then it just gets...Bowie-ish. And if you're a Bowie fan I can see how you'd like this but his voice is always a little distracting for me. On a positive note, aside from "Low" which feels to me like an Eno record that Bowie happens to sing on, this is probably one of the more-enjoyable or perhaps immediately-accessible records of his but I'll never voluntarily put it on. It feels like I always use his voice as a cop-out because there are plenty of artists who I listen to that I don't necessarily like the singer's voice and I like the music. It's as simple as this even if I can't articulate it well: I don't connect with his music on any emotional level - can just appreciate it from a distance. 5/10 3 stars.

I used to watch Hee-Haw at my grandma's house when I was a kid. To be accurate, she would put it on and what was I gonna do? Trying to be objective I can definitely hear how this was an influence on a lot of 70s music, and not just the same genre. You can hear how artists like The Eagles, Elton John, and the Stones to name a few took a lot from this (also there are shittonne of echoes of "AM Gold" type music in here; e.g. listen to "Hot Burrito #1" - could be Bread). There's a nice simple clarity to the record that makes it easy-listening. Having said that ... I'm not sure I actually *like* this all that much...? just on a personal level; it's fine to listen to but not something I'm going to ever reach for not being much of a country fan (having said that, "Hot Burrito #2" is really good and more along the lines of an early-70s vibe I enjoy). But props to not trying to do too much. And for the 37 minute run-time. Everybody could probably get something out of this for one listen at least. 6/10 3 stars.

Ahh the "acoustic Zeppelin album" (as was poorly nicknamed by friends in middle school) - this was a slow burn if you grew up on "THE CLASSIC HITS" on radio but damn this is so much better than a "superset of zeppelin" on the radio any day. Maybe it's the lack of overkill from old DJs, but likely it's the variety in here that I enjoy. Sure we start off with one of those short hard rock classics in "Immigrant Song" but "Friends" is a really odd change of pace - and a fantastic one. Odd and semi-off-putting chords create this almost Middle Eastern droning effect. Love it. Aside from Friends, the rest of "first side" isn't too out of character - I'm not a big fan of "Since I've Been Loving You" - bluesy yeah yeah we get it get on with it already. Far too long and uninteresting. But surrounded by a few great rockers it's not unfamilar Zeppelin. But the real changes start with "Gallows Pole" through the rest of the album - a lighter touch (meaning laying off the electric guitars / big drums) and some mysterious and lovely chord progressions - very folky and very much *not* bombastic. There's nothing I actively dislike on the album, but I just can't quite bring myself to give it a 5 - perhaps primarily Plant's voice has always been a bit much to take at times and although it's *mostly* perfectly mixed on this album, his blues warblings i'm just all done with by "Hats of to Harper." Overall this is among my favourite Zeppelin works - especially the first 4 cut sequence from side 2 - and I'm not convinced they got much better after this. 9/10 4 stars.

A little abrasive at times - certainly by design - but the funk and groove in these beats are undeniable. I'm especially drawn to the excessive live instrumentation used (e.g. fuzz bass, drums/percussion) which makes a *huge* difference in terms of overall groove. Hip-hop/rap might not be my expertise but this just kinda rocks (aside from the throwaway thrash tracks - definitely not my bag) and having known nothing outside of "Sabotage" I was surprised and thrilled with the funk and even the instrumentals. Definite keeper. 8/10 4 stars.

I don't know about this album. I mean.... it's really well-crafted pop. Definitely. There's something just *too smooth* about it for me - is it his voice? A lot of it might be his voice - which...he was a great singer. Definitely. But I really enjoy when he sorta aired it out, ya know? e.g. This guy should have joined Queen like 11 seconds after that Freddie Mercury tribute concert because he had the charisma and the voice to carry those tunes. For an example here, the big single "Freedom! '90" shows off some of that, but it's the more exaggerated breathy vocals (even on the same song) that just feel not just overproduced (which is a cliché to be sure) but overwrought. It's almost as if there's a theatrical insincerity to his vocals that I've never been able to get by. In listening both more critically and generously, I would love to have heard more of a live band type of feel to many of these songs - I feel like we'd have had more of an improv feel from his vocals even on the mellower ones. Can definitely see how this was a smash hit and how some would elevate this to great status - just not connecting with it on an emotional or deep level. 5/10 - 2 stars.

eh. it's ok. I don't care much for the uber-laid-back style of rap - everything hanging on the back of the beat - so it's never gonna be a favourite; pretty much every song does have a nice soulful feel but they all blend together. Missy has a nice voice though. Preference thing - it's good but the laconic style ends up repetitive and a bit boring. Talented but not my thing. 5/10 2 stars.

I've never been a fan of country outside of the occasional one-off or a few outlaw country albums but I really really like this. The simplicity and clarity of the arrangements, Kacey's almost childlike enunciation and voice seems weirdly authentic and refreshing. Many of the tracks here have more elements than merely country - e.g. vocoder on "Oh, What a World" ?? love it. At the risk of sounding ignorant, I feel like this is like old-school country with modern production, yet avoiding the way-too-common over-produced pitfalls of modern music that make it all so bland and disposable - there's no overlayering or walls of guitars and/or voices; there's just that innocent-sounding clarity to each of these songs that I have no idea why I connect with it ... but maybe I already gave the reasons. 8/10 4 stars.

Awful. Unfair but this album/band comprises almost every single thing that I hated about turn-of-the-millenium nu-rock: massive wall of tuned-down guitars so overly compressed and processed within an inch of their lives that sound more like a steel factory than like guitars... and what.is.up with the Cookie Monster vocals - honestly wtf I never understood how that became a thing for a few years. Hard hard nope. I actually kinda get why some people would like this - but I can't get through this overly aggressive unrelenting assault. Did/could not finish. 2/10 1 star.

so many disparate thoughts... the entire album sounds like the soundtrack to a low budget local access tv show from the early 80s. but I kind of like it. but I also sort of think it's not that good at all. I mean, we're all here for "Cars" right? it's a classic, my entire elementary school would sing it at lunch. but again... the entire album sorta sounds like an extended remix of Cars.... what's going on here? I love the spacy synth sound until I don't. I like the acoustic drums and bass, making this a real rock band that just has no guitar and a weord robotic singer with not much range. I have never been able to pull this one together - clearly. I suppose I'll admit that I just occasionally enjoy the weird almost amateurish simplicity here despite its repetitive nature. 6/10 3 stars.

not gonna give one second of streaming credit to this moron. 0 stars - eat shit you nazi pig

As a kid of the 80s REM was a band I was "supposed" to like but when my go-to acts were Van Halen and the like.... it was a big/strong/closed-minded NO from me, right on into college. It's the end of the world and guh this song sucks fk no no no no. So I can vividly recall where I was in Cambridge MA in 1992 when I heard "Ignoreland" on the radio without knowing the band until afterwards ("...that was REM? ....hmmm...") - having grown tired of my usual musical interests, I went to Newbury Comics that day and bought my first REM album not having heard a single cut from the rest of it - I took a shot. And loved it all immediately and still do to this day. OK I could honestly skip the treacly hit "Everybody Hurts" every time and never miss it but that just feels like a harmless outlier; that's the only semi-throwaway on the entire album. I'd initially considered "Drive" to be an odd opener; a slow-starter if you will - but I've since seen it as a feature rather than a bug. It preps the listener for so many songs that could be (and were) hit-worthy, and not even counting the gorgeous cuts like "Try Not to Breathe" "Sweetness Follows" and "Nightswimming" - all brilliant highlights. They'd largely moved on from their early days of mumble lyrics and jangly Rickenbacker chords (which only a decade late finally hit me in the right places) and it must have been the perfect time/place for me to embrace this one - while this album rarely if ever sounds huge* this is a lush sounding record driven largely by clear acoustic guitars, and perfectly accompanied by accordions, mandolins, intelligible vocals, and perfectly accessible yet memorable melodies. * the notable/cool exception is the brilliant and huge "Ignoreland" - is this REM channeling early-mid period Who? I mostly don't care much about lyrics but this one strikes a direct hit on the plague that Reagan brought to the US/world, etc. Read those lyrics today in 2022 and sadly/terrifyingly they apply even more. Long-belated thanks to WBCN radio in Boston for that fateful afternoon drive. Tremendous album. 9/10 5 stars.

Parts of this make me feel as if I were dropped into a 1990 Sesame Street marathon. And so much of the keyboard and drum machine sounds just scream of an old Benneton commercial. OK seriously - this is fairly complex in places and more interesting than I'm giving credit for - it's never going to be a favourite due to the genre, but there's enough catchy bass lines and varied instruments (notable: guitar on "Everyman's An Island" and guest vocals by Sinead on "Visions Of You" was a nice touch - could've used more of that) to make this decent, outside the often-dated sounds. Not necessarily memorable but very listenable. 5/10 3 stars.

It takes exactly one second to figure out which decade this was made in. (gated reverb drums although it certainly sounds like it's just a programmed drum machine). I do quite like the mostly minor key of most of this album; the 80s goth mood is definitely intriguing and cool (even if i didn't at all like this kind of thing at the time). It's just that so much of the instrumentation (drum machine in particular; keyboards) sounds so very dated and often too much so. Not sure why this in particular is so noticeable to me but it becomes a little distracting and often detracts from the songs - e.g. not the fact that there's a drum machine but that there's often little variation in the rhythm (and it's also mixed so damn hot; esp on "Never Land" yeeeeesh turn that snare down) - it's a bit soulless/joyless. Again... it's hard to distill that from the intent and what gives this a unique sound but it often makes it fall just short of me connecting as much as I think I could have or really want to. Would enjoy hearing again but it's a bit short of elite. 5/10 3 stars.

This will be impossible to grade fairly. I always thought as a kid: "who doesn't hate the Eagles??" meanwhile conveniently ignoring that 32 million people bought this album. Even 10-15 years ago I'd have panned this upon seeing it, but I seem to be more open-minded (and perhaps nostalgic about some) about music and sweeping aside the easy jokes and constant classic rock airplay... I'm ready to give this a new ear. First of all - and easiest to discuss: how can you deny the awesomeness of the title track? Can't be done - it's a great song; the haunting opening, the dramatic lyrical build throughout the song, and of course the fantastic double-guitar solo. Ah nearly everyone on earth knows this - nothing new here. The rest? I mean - I did truly dislike "New Kid In Town" but <ahem> mature ears and really listening to this song for the first time in probably uhh 35 years - wow that transition from verses to chorus is really gorgeous - great songwriting. Dammit I'm finding new things to appreciate in this. Maybe I didn't want to admit this to myself. "Life In The Fast Lane" - the 3rd big hit and another you hear all the time... again it's often hard to separate the cliche and the fact that if you're over 35? you've heard this song 3172 times, mostly unwillingly. It's fine-to-good. It's after that where it starts getting ... Eagle-ish? Syrupy ballads (with the exception of "Victim of Love" which is an average-at-best hard rock song that is completely unmemorable) that maybe don't entirely harken back to their country-rock roots but do a good job of ... boring me. Let's cut to it here: this album is built on the monstrous first 3 cuts, all of which were or/and still are big hits. The rest is kinda wasted time <rimshot> Even though I'll never voluntarily put this on I'll be generous and acknowledge the historic aspect of the album and the enduring quality of those first few songs. 6/10 3 stars

Hold up if you "don't like the Beach Boys" (i.e. me)...: I'd never heard anything off of this and when I saw "Beach Boys" it was predictable disappointment. I never caught on to any of their music; the admittedly impressive vocal harmonies and perfectly crafted major melodies had always missed me as being less dramatic or frankly interesting than music I usually gravitate towards. But the dark and mysterious cover actually does give some insight to what's inside; aside from the opening obvious vocal calling card... this doesn't sound anything at all like "The Beach Boys™" - mostly gone are the thick 3 and 4 part harmonies in favour of far more variety and creative progressions. And even if you're of the sort where lyrics tend to be secondary to the music, it's impossible to miss the obvious soft concept running through this one: environmental and societal concerns abound on virtually every song give each of these more weight than any typical surf song they'd built a career on. And musically it's a complete changeup - e.g. listen to "Disney Girls (1957)" which is far more complex and difficult than it seems, which shows how impressive it is. "A Day In the Life of a Tree" is just weird and lush and gorgeous. No giant or quick big melodic chorus or hooks within, I had to immediately play the entire (short) album again to really digest this - mark of a creative album. The highlight overall is "Feel Flows" - the best song on this [and I do know this from the film "Almost Famous"] album and definitely the best Beach Boys song I've ever heard - so good, mysterious/sad/happy all at once - some great studio effects on the piano and vocals that add to the mood. The only real miss for me is "Student Demonstration Time" - a dullish bluesy number that seems out of place even here on what to me is a (beautifully)n out of place album - it's lyrically simple and a bit dull overall. But overall this album's melodies and craft seem to carry forward echoes of highly melodic bands 10-20 years later like Jellyfish and XTC. I definitely didn't think I'd enjoy this but there you go - it's not flawless but I'm glad to have been given the chance to be surprised and discover it. A keeper. 7/10 4 stars

Almost the essence of what I stereotypically think of as an early-80s robotic synth pop sound. Completely dated but that's probably the point of this being influential - I don't know how often this kind of sound broke through to the masses before this. Even if I only know the smash single it all has a familiarity to it; giving it a generous 3 as it doesn't have much that "sticks" but at ~40 minutes is short enough to not get annoying (and I kind of like that the hit is the last track). It is admittedly kind of fun; definitely worth putting on at a party. Sneaky best song: "Seconds" 6/10 3 stars

Second Roxy Music album. Roxy are a great example of why this 1001 album exercise is a blast - I had almost completely bypassed all of Roxy's work until this past year. Highly varied and interesting British rock. Such a dull and lame description but how else do you describe this band? They rock out right at the start with "Do The Strand" then they tap a bit into glam on "Beauty Queen" - and what the hell even is "Strictly Confidential" - almost a touch of early Genesis in there...? "Editions of You" adds a touch of (not shitty) punk into the glam... and this all in the first half of the album. All along the way topped by Bryan Ferry's adaptable vocal styles...In recalling "Country Life" I believe I thought of Bryan Ferry as "a better Bowie" - odd inflections in his vocal stylings that - forced or not - works way way better for me than anything Bowie ever did. Also this music is far superior (ending the Bowie comparisons right now) - this was a band in the truest sense i.e. it was not the Ferry Show by any means: individual performances from each of keys/sax/guitar/drums all stand out. On the negative side... this album is difficult to really dig into - it is a bit weird-weird. i.e. It's tough to latch onto many hooks or memorable phrasing, especially in the second half / side. But I'll turn that around and say it's a feature not a bug - actually it almost pains me to say that this is not that much unlike Velvet Underground ... only the biggest difference is that this band doesn't suck ass. So in the end - I don't think I like this as much as "Country Life" even though that one took a few listens to really start to catch me. I could see this being another slow burn but I'm going to round down here due to songwriting that's just not quite there yet. Weird fun art rock but lacking just a bit of lure that emerges on other Roxy records. 6/10 3 stars.

Frank Zappa released something like 412 albums during (and after) his life so the great thing if you like Zappa is that if someone doesn't like one of his albums, you can steer them in almost literally any other musical direction with another of his releases. Of course with some of them you might need to be mindful of the audience as some of the lyrical content gets a bit *questionable* let's say. Only leading with that because this one barely has any vocals/lyrics at all ("Willie the Pimp" - which incidentally is most definitely not Frank on vocals). If you're immediately turned off from/by instrumental albums this is still worth a spin or two - there's a rock/jazz feel to it that has just the right balance - it doesn't go off into too esoteric a space nor does it simplify to the point of boredom. I'd put myself in the "I like Zappa" category (emphasis on *like*, not love) and one of the things that might be impossible for me to extricate from my enjoyment of this album is that lack of vocals. I actually like Frank's voice and *some* of the vocalists that he had through the years but on too many of his albums the lyrics were often a 30 year old's idea of a dirty middle school song - completely distracting at best and downright stupid at worst. "The Gumbo Variations" is the one that is just too long. Venturing dangerously into "jam" territory which is like....get on with it already. In a vacuum though I'll just call this record "cool" - some memorable and catchy musical phrasing throughout. This is the Zappa album that can be mostly enjoyed by musicians, nerds, geeks, rockers, sportos, motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, waistoids, dweebies, and dickheads alike. 7/10 4 stars.

Listening to this makes me feel like I'm looking for bugs in a dirty apartment complex; I suddenly open a dark and dingy closet and this is the soundtrack of what would blast at me with 200 silverfish scurrying out. Appropriately titled album. Low effort music, repetitive nonsense, lo-fi. No appeal whatsoever. 2/10 1 star.

Well I can say that it's not *anywhere* near as bad as the previous THREE albums with Nick Cave (there's no way he didn't blackmail the author/s.). I try to stay objective but thus far when literally more than 1% of the albums thus far are Nick Cave or his crappy offshoots I start to get a little itchy seeing his name pop up this morning... OK OK OK to be fair...this is different. And a different singer would have made this album pretty decent. It really is far better than the previous Nick Cave I've heard - bigger and better mixes, less dry, and better arrangements: in many songs there is clearly more emphasis on melodic craft and instrumentation than his typical gargling vocals. There are definite highlights here. Some songs like "There She Goes, My Beautiful World" even succeed despite him, or generously perhaps... his voice is mixed low enough to actually compliment the song and not be a distraction. There's almost a touch of David Byrne in this? "Nature Boy" is another nice one - a dash of middle/late Springsteen perhaps? A touch of Warren Zevon in some of the slower ballads? "Supernaturally" has a rousing feel to it, like a Spirit of the West shanty. It's all more creative than I'd expected based on previous (more punk/aggressive/noisy) recordings - points for that. I only wish the rest of this (long) album could be like the non-gargle-voice tracks, and some of the slower ones do plod a bit. Honestly - cut this down to a 7-8 song single album and I'd have definite interest. 5/10 2 stars.

The album might have been mind-blowing for 1967 but wow there's really not a lot of "there" there. Psychedelia in the lamest-sense - not really even a collection of songs, just more of a soundscape that does not resonate at 7am to be sure. I'll take their Woodstock performance for a one-off humor trip but this is easily forgotten at best and kinda awful at worst. 3/10 1 star.

what the fkng hell was definitely down for some cool jazz, not this absolute and utter mess. Would - or could - have been amusing if there was one 45 second passage like this to start the album, then it settled into something listenable, but it does not - it's a chaotic violent garbage plate of musicians who might know their jazz but they play it like they've been on coke for 48 hours and in between have been fed pixie stix. Or the creatures from the movie Gremlins but sped up to 16x the speed and insanity. What an exhausting disaster. I tortured myself and made it through. This is unquestionably in the small runoff for worst albums I've ever heard. 1/10 1 star.

A bit unusual for me but I've always liked Dr John's voice, only being familiar with his rare hits or the occasional crossing over into the wider public eye. The problem here is the music. I'll appreciate weirdness and offbeat melodies but when it meanders is when things start to go off the rails. (esp on tracks 2 and 5 - Danse Kalinda Ba Boom and Croker Courtbullion) The very rare record where I wish there was *more* singing from the main vocalist. I suppose this serves as an intro to Dr John? But there's more aimless 60s psychedelia here than anything else which I'm slowly learning is a subgenre that I... do not find much or any comfort nor interest in. If there was better Dr J. to come - and I know there was - I'd much have rather heard that. This is the right singer - must've been the wrong album. ;) 4/10 2 stars

Didn't really love the laconic lead single when it came out so my enthusiasm was a bit tepid upon playing this ... But I'm glad I stuck with it - it's a nice easy-listening album but not without complexity. As is often the case, the single is the least-interesting song on the album. Probably what I appreciate most is the space within the album. One can easily envision themselves in a very small club listening to the band perform these tracks as is. The tracks are tight in an intimate way; raw yet still polished but not overly smooth. Again - picture a very small stage with 4 musicians playing to a late-night Sunday gathering. Highlight of the album is "Nightingale" - a great example of taking a simple 3 chord progression and turning it into something special, both in vocals and instrumentation (n.b. especially outstanding drumming). Although i can't necessarily see myself always in the mood for it it's just a real nice album for a quiet night. 7/10 4 stars.

Written as one who would always take the Beatles over the Stones..... this is pretty great. This was the beginning of their classic run, jumping out of the peaceful 60s and headlong into dirty blues-based rock, leading off with inarguably one of the handful of most famous rock songs ever released and really one of the best. I could get picky and say how great can a song be with the same chord progression for 6 minutes but damn "Sympathy For The Devil" is one of the greatest almost *because* of that. If you're more a music-before-lyrics fan (mea culpa) here's maybe your best exception possible. I recall as a kid following along with the words accompanied by not a little anxiousness: singing about dead bodies, revolutions...it's brilliant. Almost anything after that will pale by comparison - and to be fair it does - but also doesn't try to compete with the power of Sympathy. The Stones' brand of country-blues takes flight here and I find it far more palatable than their lauded and frankly aimless, meandering, and boring "Exile..." just a few years later. The only single from the album was "Street Fighting Man" and I'm finding I like it now far more than I did growing up... my perceived lack of constant musical progression within some of their songs doesn't seem as important or necessary when they had a great sense of arrangement and build like this one does. "Stray Cat Blues" is another grimy rocker. I even like the slower acoustic/country type songs, there's a structure and discipline to each of these tracks that makes every cut listenable ...wait, maybe I kinda like the Stones after all??? 8/10 4 stars

Van has some highly infectious songs on this collection and it would be hard to be inoculated against falling for timeless classics like "Into the Mystic" "Crazy Love" or "Moondance" - that would just be a conspiracy. Why, you'd have to own the media to refute such pseudoscience. Hey, I'm just asking the questions. It's too bad that at particular period of time (1970) he couldn't have been locked down and quarantined yet alas, he had the freedom to go on shedding his fake news all over humanity lo these many decades since. 7/10 4 stars for the music only. Not for the shithead who won't be missed when he inevitably keels over bloated and dead from his own freedom.

I always appreciate and often love well-crafted melodic pop music, and this seems to qualify. Yet sadly after 32 minutes I'm left with not much I remember, which is frustrating. The vocals are occasionally slightly off-putting; a bit musical theater-ish maybe, but not enough to derail it on its own... as for the music, there's almost too much polish, too much that's evened out here - i.e. I can think of nothing that sticks out either instrumentally, or a creative bridge, chord progression, hook, vocal.... it just sort of washes over you in a (pleasant, to be sure) hurry and after the half-hour I'm left with "wait, what did I just listen to again?" 5/10 2 stars.

While I appreciate the fact that he was a big influence on many greats from the late 60s/70s, and wrote some classics including the excellent "Everybody's Talkin'" (...which I actually like Nilsson's version better...) .. I don't really like the album. And it's almost entirely his voice. It's not bad, really. He occasionally approaches a bit of Gord Lightfoot and someone else of the era that I just can't put my finger on.... yet it seems to always in my mind deteriorate into almost a campy tent revivalist style. I half expect him to start singing at me either about my soul or some elixir he's trying to sell me. I'mma pass on this one and actually pick up on some of his covers instead. 3/10 2 stars.

[reviewing the original 7 track album, not the week-long reissues...] So. I like the Allman Brothers, and was lucky enough to see a later period show of theirs around 1991. Great musicians - each of them, and there was a chemistry on stage that was unique. To be more specific...I like their songs. THEIR songs. I like the beautiful melodies, the intricate time signatures, the dual guitar shredding. All of it came out in their original music....in a *slightly* ;) more concise formatting. This is a long-winded way of me getting around to saying this: while this album is a nice timestamp of their "legendary jams" in the early days.... most of it isn't their music, and just long long LONNNNNNNG blues jams. Which sounds cool and all but at best ends up as background music for me. Jamming for 10 minutes over one chord... man. It's a bit odd because it seems to work out more than fine in a live setting (i.e. when you're actually there) and is fun and you feel part of that on-the-spot creative performance. But on record....ok. come on. It's like get on with it already. I'll say it: it's *boring* - do i need 20 minutes of "You Don't Love Me" - no I do not. I do not love you. Next song. NEXT song. NEXT. It's occasionally nice to listen to and again - great chemistry - but this is definitely not for everyone, or I'd even say most. I'm not a huge jamming fan so I can get through it once every few (many) years. If you love the jams oh man you MUST hear this. And. if you hate jamming well don't even bother:) I hate to do the Allmans dirty like this because their 4 albums around this are great and if this is playing somewhere...sure, I'll be good with it - but I'm not reaching for it by choice. Ironic highlight: "Hot 'Lanta" (ironic because after I rip the long jams....this is one long-ish ("only" 5+ minutes) jam piece but it's original and jazzy and absolutely sticks out from the rest of the mediocre material) In a word: meandering. 5/10 2 stars.

The idea of me ~30 yrs ago giving The Cure any respect whatsoever is hilarious; I was so stupidly-prejudiced against this band that I never gave them any semblance of a chance while I was basking in late 80s loud/turn it up to 11 guitar rock. Robert Smith's kinda whiny and somewhat prancy British vocals :P were an immediate and stubborn NOPE for me - "man somebody get me some David Lee Roth dammit." Times change but the music remains for me to have re-evaluated many many times over and this album is awesome - no apologies to 17 yr old me. I knew years ago I'd like the Cure as soon as I'd set my mind to it - moody synths combined with minor-key guitar riffs and emotional vocals - there's nothing *not* to like for me, even (or even especially?) while still affirming any semblance of guitar-worship I once had. There are so many hilites here - starting with the perfect album opener "Plainsong" - lush and melodic but (of course) at the same time moody and sad; it washes over the listener giving a perfect intro to the next hour. "Pictures of You" and "Lovesong" were/are the perfect singles and really hold up ... "Last Dance" has almost an 80s/modern prog feel at times - not unlike Marillion in parts ... the hypnotic and almost evil-sounding "Prayers for Rain" might be my favourite. I haven't heard this in its entirety in years and one of the great aspects that strikes me is that it sounds both from the 80s yet not *of* the 80s. It's not nearly as dated as I'd expected. If I had one complaint it's that it runs too long for my liking - ideally would have cut maybe 2-3 of the uber-long tracks at the end - but with no bad cuts this is still an easy keeper. 9/10 4 stars

This is what the soundtrack would have been to a more serious/depressing "Peanuts" special, but set in the adult world. Snoopy as an aged dog, wandering the streets after Charlie Brown left home... Linus becomes an addict and ends up working at the docks where blankets are most definitely not allowed.... n.b. that's the highest of compliments. Peanuts rule. Labeling this "jazz" might be accurate but it's not describing it at all. Super accessible but not in a simplistic way. I love the melodies he composes on the spot - his occasional vocal outbursts add to the live feel - the record wouldn't have been the same without those. I've owned this record for years and never am sure how I came by it - maybe inherited from an older relative, tucked away between old Elvis Costello and Cars albums. But it's been a Sunday morning go-to for a while - perfect soundtrack for a quiet snowy day. Even if you think you hate jazz, give it a shot. This isn't bebop; it's more just instrumental melodic composition. Love it and definitely recommended for all. 8/10 4 stars

6th Bowie album out of the first 411. Come. On. I don't think I have much effort anymore with Bowie reviews; my last one (which felt like last week) was for Aladdin Sane and I made commentary about how I felt like I could copy/paste my previous Bowie review.... and since that absolutely once again applies here, I'll just *literally* copy/paste, while replacing a few specifics. I stand by it: -------copy/paste------ Without looking, I'd bet I could copy/paste my review from _Aladdin Sane_. It's a catchy-at-first early 70s rock album that I slowly get tired of because I'm just not able to really be moved by Bowie's music. It's fine - starting with "_Changes_" which is perhaps his most famous cut and deservedly-so. It's admittedly timeless and very well-crafted musically ..... And the cut "_Life On Mars?_" is a nice diversion from the initial track - but then it just gets...Bowie-ish. And if you're a Bowie fan I can see how you'd like this but his voice is always a little distracting for me. On a positive note, aside from "Low" which feels to me like an Eno record that Bowie happens to sing on, this is probably one of the more-enjoyable or perhaps immediately-accessible records of his but I'll never voluntarily put it on. It feels like I always use his voice as a cop-out because there are plenty of artists who I listen to that I don't necessarily like the singer's voice and I like the music. It's as simple as this even if I can't articulate it well: I don't connect with his music on any emotional level - can just appreciate it from a distance. -----end self-plagiarism----- TL;DR: I don't hate his music, I just don't really *like* it or ever connect with it and after so many years don't really care that much. 5/10 2 stars

BASS! The album that woke me to rap both in terms of music and lyrics - it was the natural progression of rebellious r&b rock and roll. And as much as I love Chuck D - the best rapper/lyricist in history don't even question it - it's the beats and music that make this album essential - e.g. "Don't Believe the Hype" is as funky as possible with the James Brown samples - it's an immediate groove. Flavor Flav is less annoying on this album than he'd be soon afterwards - he's a great foil for Chuck when his adlibs are interspersed amidst a song but I still maintain he doesn't carry a song on his own. Having said that, it does almost provide a perfect break in the relentless album (e.g. "Cold Lampin'" brings a silly levity between "Don't Believe the Hype" and "Terminator X to the Edge of Panic"). Impossible to pick a favourite track or two off this since it's almost a non-stop aural assault, but "Bring the Noise" is among the all-time GET THE HELL *UP* opening tracks in music history. "Black Steel in the Hour of Chaos" might be my favourite with Isaac Hayes' music propelling the mid-tempo fury of Chuck D's rap. Or no, it might be "Louder Than A Bomb" ... Eh words words words - greatest rap album of all-time and one of my favourites of any genre. 10/10 5 stars

When "Fight For Your Right to Party" came out it was humorous for/as a teenager but honestly still kinda sucked - the kind of joke that worked once or twice then got tired; hard pass on the Beasties for me then. And as an aside I wasn't ready for hiphop at all yet. Then this album hit and a friend of mine bought it and played it for me and .... holy hell - this was completely different. I still found it hard to break from my "traditional" rock roots and pretending to be offended at all the classic samples that were used (e.g. Zeppelin, Isley Bros, Curtis Mayfield, Beatles, etc) so I merely stuck to the immediately-accessible "funny" cuts like "Shake Your Rump" (that BASS) and "Hey Ladies" at first. But damn. This album is awesome. It was a new artform and it sounds idiotic but once I let myself be open to it I loved the entire album almost immediately. The time and creativity spent to craft the beats is almost unimaginable to me - fitting it all together to make 15+ songs that are (mostly) catchy as hell, not to mention the really good and rhythmic raps. The only negatives are I suppose what I'd deem hangovers from their first album - the humour occasionally isn't all that funny; the infantile stuff barely passed back then and now just doesn't work for me. BUT it's almost entirely ignorable because even as they're being young morons :P the beats are so good and funky that I've already forgotten (or just not paid attention to) them, but a small personal deduction for immaturity. Lesson for my younger self: don't be a closed-minded idiot. This is a classic. 9/10 4 stars.

o my GODDDDDD i am not listening to any more of this man's shitty music AGAIN 4 of his albums?!?!?!????? GET BENT and and and on this one his horrid MIXED WAY UP FRONT IN YOUR FACE vocals get treated with sequencers, the worst of 80s keyboard sounds, and drum machines? Also this dead emporer was buried with no clothes: these lyrics are embarrassing. I need to be more clear: this is utter utter shit. 0/10 and chafed that I can't give 0 stars

This one is a challenge - not always or necessarily in a bad way. It's just absolutely not readily-accessible even after a few listens - I first heard it upon release and thought "interesting" but nothing stuck. Or continues to stick. I think it's the exact intent and nature of the album that makes it seemingly-impenetrable: it's aggressive, very percussive, and not smooth in any way which if someone was only familiar with Fiona's debut album it's a bit of a switch especially on the first ~3 tracks. She's almost creatively rap-singing on many of the songs which creatively acts as a perfect accompaniment to the percussive elements of the album. There's very little that's "normal" about this record - there's no 3 1/2 minute standard singles with a catchy chorus or hook, or nothing close to that; it's like a smattering of paint thrown across a large canvas then before drying it was pushed into slightly-familiar patterns. That description makes it sound...terrible, and it *is* frustrating. Frustrating enough to say that I don't think I could voluntarily put this on, as opposed to earlier works of Apple's. But I do think there's value in giving it a listen or two - it's an impressive effort towards art, even if I'm not entirely sure whether I actually like it or not ... (and steer towards the latter.... ) 5/10 2 stars

I've always been somewhat lukewarm to the shoegaze and emo bands - rarely do I dislike them, but it's hard to describe - it's almost like even when bands like Ride were new/fresh in the early 90s they already all had a sameness to them. Not necessarily bad, but so much of the music truly became interchangeable to me. In a parallel way to the 80s I can probably pinpoint the release date/s of albums like this within a year. Bringing it back to this album by Ride - I've listened to it from time to time and always enjoyed it a bit but if someone put it on by surprise would I be able to identify this as Ride as opposed to one of a handful of brief shining star bands like Mystery Machine? Maybe that's ok - because this album really is almost a soundscape; a mood. Vocals mixed very low and a likely-intentional lack of clarity and high-end both in said vocals and overall give it that almost-muddy cape of sound that just overtakes you as you listen. So AGAIN like similar albums this isn't one I can say "oh these ~3 songs are my favourites" - it's more a "put on the entire album"* listen and pretend like I'm in college again. 6/10 3 stars *"the entire album" meaning the original 8 tracks; extended versions are often just too much.

From someone who does not "like" punk rock... I've always liked this. Not as frenetically chaotic as many punk bands - this is more melodic than most (I'm not a fan of the most aggressive songs (e.g. Surgeon's Girl) but then again, they're over in usually less than 2 minutes :D...). At its best it's good British rock and I feel like it seems to have more in common with some Britpop than I'd realized. Not for everyday consumption but who doesn't want to occasionally slam dance around the living room and terrorize the family. 21 songs in 36 minutes. It's an aggressive but fun trip. 6/10 3 stars.

I love the concept - trip hop with no vocals, mostly samples put together to create a groove. There's a lot to enjoy here - e.g. I love tracks like "Changeling" and "What Does Your Soul Look Like/4" "Stem/Long Stem"- that's how I want the entire record to sound; not exactly the same, but these are tracks that you can really feel. The negatives though....it's inconsistent overall, especially early on; there are many jarring moments (e.g. "Mutual Slump"); t