1001 Albums Summary

Not a country fan so take it all with a grain of salt: it's deep 70s simple country with emphasis on the pedal steel guitar which always turns me off - i.e. it's just not my thing. BUT...I kinda feel like I might have actually liked this a bit more with a different singer - there's not that huge a difference between this and a lot of what was popular in the pop/rock/country blur back then. The voice is too ... idk, Texas? Just a preference, sorry Guy. 4/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I'm gonna get the only negative thing out of the way first: it's too long. With some definite and notable exceptions, 45-50 minutes is the most an album should run. YMMV. Outside of that, this is pretty damn good, fun, and VERY weird - rhythmic hip-hop with a lot of old school type elements, non-annoying drum programming, and an underlying tongue-in-cheek weirdness that for the most part offsets the length of the album. I usually hate skits or other/similar spoken word transitions but I don't even mind the "interludes" as it adds to the theme. Always loved "Mista Dobalina" so it was nice to hear Del the Funky Homosapien again. I'll definitely put this on again - nice find. 7/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Well after about 30 seconds I'm thinking get fucked indeed - I am about to hate everything about this. God - this Aussie bloke screaming at me is laughably irritating and honestly the album cover is a spot-on indication of what I'm listening to. ...ya know, but ok yeah I hate it (did i say that?). But. They're actually pretty tight and almost ALMOST feels like if they had a different vocalist - or none at all - there would be parts I could listen to. e.g. "The Price of Smokes" isn't bad. Just stop screaming. Seriously tho this is a good lesson in giving an entire album at least a shot [some exceptions do apply, see terms and conditions] - I really don't like abrasive punk - actually hate most of the genre - but when I sort of let this one wash over me and "got" the attitude ... some of these are actually bangers. I just fking loathe the vocals, jfc woof. 4/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I fully get why people would and do like/love this. Full stop - fully sincere. Alas, I think perhaps the biggest reason - that plaintive and precious falsetto - is what prevents me from ever attaching myself to any Bon Iver. The music is simple and lovely and I do like the atmospheric touches (e.g. "Flume") - we're close here... But. His vocals are tough for me, really tough; I'm actively put off by them. If - as Apple Music's bio states wrt this album - this voice truly inspired "generations" (I do not think that word means what they think it means) of imitators - then I have a bone to pick with Mr. Iver. (yes stfu I know it's a nom de plume, I will have my fun dammit). I'll give full credit and respect to the musical creations within and suck it up just a bit (I don't like anyone's voice, I'm an inhuman monster) because it really is lovely, but it's hard for me to sit through more than 20-25 minutes at a time. Give me the instrumental version please. 6/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? <sigh> Yes.

Hadn't heard/seen her name in ages and upon listening I do remember a few of these tunes. It's not something I'd listen to often - a bit too smooth/slick (production/mix) and country for my tastes, although I like her voice a lot more than most others in the genre. I mean, it is "nice" and I don't mean that in a patronizing way - it's just nice. I suppose it's easy Sunday morning music and nothing wrong with that. 5/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Feels like I'm listening to a 40 minute long Volkswagen commercial. Leasing available at $299/month with just $3000 down. Not sure I can explain it even to myself - there's melody here and some unpredictability - but it's overly cloying and I hate it. The vocals? The lack of dynamics / overly compressed 21st century sound? Me having a bad day? All of the above but that's probably the heavy order of things. Doesn't even sounds like a cohesive unit - more like an annoying bedroom project. Who knows. I tried - I really did and I really really don't like it. And I wrote that before I got to the hideous autotuning in "California English" Only elevating it to a 2 in a moment of being generous but now I'm glad I know to avoid Vampire Weekend entirely. 3/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Yeah I like it - Teenage Fanclub always come up with excellent melodies, the album doesn't suffer from annoying modern mixing bullshit, I'm not a big fan of the vocals but I find them less-annoying/slacker than on their big Bandwagonesque album - this one's better overall. Also it really felt like it ended at the right length - any more I would have started to feel a little tired of it. Was initially feeling between a 3 and 4 but gave it another spin and I liked it even more - will definitely go out of my way for this one again so 4 it is. 7/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes

I freaking love this album. It's so weird and non-sensical and creepy that even Colin Meloy's plain-ish vocals don't bother me; they actually might even contribute to the unsettling feeling within. Extra/guest vocalists give it the proper rock opera treatment. Who cares if the story doesn't make much sense, it's almost better that way [e.g. The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway is a total disturbing mess and that's what makes it work] - weird tie-ins musically and lyrically with previous songs/suites on the album definitely make it a full-album listen rather than a few cuts here and there. Some of the melodies in these songs (e.g. The Hazards of Love 2, that descending guitar line) will always give me chills. Elements of folk and prog and metal and smoothed together nicely - this has been a favourite of mine since release; absolutely top-notch addition. 9/10 5 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Props for something completely different - not sure there could be something more outside of my wheelhouse but I ... kind of liked it (or I could say I enjoyed this last hour over a few cups of coffee)...? Breezy synthy J-pop with great melody - and entirely more-enjoyable when sung in Japanese; the vocals become more of an instrument for me to not really think about (the English parts are by far my least-favourite, e.g. "Nichiyou No Asa" but fortunately they're not nearly as frequent). Not something I'll probably come back to voluntarily and honestly as with too many modern recordings it's just way too long [e.g. cut this off at about 44 minutes] but honestly it was great music to work to on a Monday morning - glad I heard this one. 6/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

I wasn't excited about this at all but as this went on I liked it more than I'd expected to. Power punk / power pop punk etc etc ... whatever you call it - just kind of ... expires for me after a few songs; i.e. I can usually get with the energy for a song or 2 then I'm done, it's all a bit samey; I'm always wanting more layers, more dynamics, subtleties, etc. But I have to give it up for this one, these are all pretty good songs at their core and I feel like if these were done in even a slightly different style I might even love it. The smash hit ("The Middle") might be my least-favourite which is probably a good sign. They end up as one of the more catchy power pop bands I've heard, probably due to the shockingly non-abrasive vox that I liked (rare for me) and excellent melodies. Still not my fave genre but they do it well enough that it's kind of a surprise strong 3 for me. 7/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Man this was a wild off-the-radar pick! No critiques there, it's even just hard finding info in English about this band - the mystery makes it more intriguing. First impressions - and from someone who doesn't like punk much at all - this kinda kicks ass? And from someone who generally doesn't love many live albums - yeah this kinda kicks ass. The performance is/was tight. The French language aspect for me enhances it; most music I don't care too much about the lyrics (unless they're uniquely creative, catchy, weird, or... terrible...) but so here it's all about the energy right? The more it goes the more it has a metal bent than punk for me; almost an early-Maiden energy without the twin-harmony guitar attack. Biggest problem for me though is...."the more it goes on" - it's really really long, and feels even longer than it actually is just with the similarities from song to song. It's not really about the songwriting/composition though, more the energy so even if it's not one of my favourite things I'm glad to have heard this! 6/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Sorry to whomever submitted this - I truly and actively do not like this band. Every few years I've tried and with their main entry to the list it sealed it for me - something very detached about them for me; certainly the vocals are a main ingredient - dreary and not even a "let's mock his affected accent" Morrissey way but more in a "...really, dude?" way. In some ways it's not *that* far off from, say, Interpol but that band have a post-punk / truly mysterious and interesting modality to them that The National doesn't bring for even a measure. If I cared more I would be almost fascinated as to what is it about this band that annoys tf out of me - there's something in my brain screaming about it being a bit overly-precious, but if the objective music theory part of me takes over I recognize that these compositions aren't throwaways, i.e. there is creativity here. Perhaps it's just that there's absolutely nothing exciting - nothing mysterious - nothing silly - nothing remotely dangerous in here. And if that album cover truly is of them playing at a wedding I'd rather have heard the chicken dance. "...hey kids. congrats on your nuptials. ....sigh..... try not to cut yourself on the way back to the hotel. anyways. here's our latest 70bpm dirge...." After 3 songs I'd have said I think I "enjoy" it more than High Violet but damning with faintblahblah and all that and now I'm not even 7 songs deep and I'm picking lint off my shirt with a greater interest than anything else I've done this morning. I don't/cannot/will not ever connect with this. 3/10 1 star. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I don't love the lo-fi aspect of it at all - not to mention the approaching-mumble-vocals (thankfully they're mostly mixed low and mediocre enough to not actively detract) but there's the occasional shine from the occasionally-interesting music. I've seen some comparisons to shoegaze and some early grunge and there's definite crossover. Was initially going back and forth almost song by song - while I really paused to listen more closely a few times to appreciate the odd direction on the melodies ... too much of the dissonance just sounds like ass for ass's sake. Never go full ass. It's all ultimately very early 90s though, for whatever that's worth - I'm hearing a Mystery Machine meets Slint but overall it too-often dips into the Dinosaur Jr pool for my tastes in which case I'll just be in the chaise lounge drying off thanks. 5/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

It's ...decent? I have seen a lot of Arctic Monkeys comparisons (and I hear it when the drums have the annoying disco beat) but I can't stand that band - so I'll go with these guys are a more-basic and yet more appealing version? When they veer away from that comparison it's way better - e.g. in "Cavorting" I'm hearing some cool echoes of The Alarm which is an awesome throwback. Overall I don't know how to feel - I'd say I didn't feel much...? But as it went along I thought most of these songs are pretty catchy even if I'm not completely vibing with them - almost like - and this is completely unfair - but if 5 of these songs had been local or national hits near me when it was released I could buy that and then listening again could bring a nostalgia to it. Feels like that kind of album e.g. why was this any bigger than Oasis and why should I like their big album more than this? Familiarity maybe. Again unfair but hey. wayyyyy TL;DR: I didn't dislike anything at all here, just sort of hit me as very nice examples of semi-modern british guitar rock? i.e. wouldn't punch it off the radio, not sure how many I'll remember (although nope that's a lie: I'll pick out "Not Nineteen Forever" as one I particularly enjoyed). Probably a 4 if I'd known any of them, maybe someday I'd bump it up... worst summary ever ramblemuch just commit already 7/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I put on track 1 after work, really enjoyed the majestic and almost-triumphant instrumental voyage it took me on - it was a bit unseasonably warm so I transferred the album to my phone for track 2 and started getting tired ... went to take a nap and woke up 40 minutes later as the album was still playing ... only on track 3! which is entitled "Sleep" appropriately-enough. Decided I was ready for dinner, and reheated an amazing homemade Thai pork meal while reading a book on 1970s baseball and as I finished the meal and the chapter on 1977 the epic album finally came to an end. Coleridge? Homer?? Proust??? AMATEURS. 7/10 4 stars but you're gonna have to work for it. Or sleep through it. Or both. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Mostly-excellent album - grandiose with obvious comparisons to classic 70s Springsteen, but this hits harder (no sax - sorry, Big Man) even if/when Craig Finn's vocal delivery can get slightly irritating if you let it. Always loved the guitar sounds these guys get - props to the mixer/producer John Agnello. I am a much bigger fan of their later album Heaven Is Whenever, where Craig Finn actually tries to sing a bit more - but we're not getting there without this one; glad to have gotten this - but the album feels longer than it actually is, which might mean I have a time-expiry each time I listen to them. It actually seems to fall apart for me starting with "Chill Out Tent" which I've always hated, so I can cut it after track 9. Sum: I hadn't listened to them in ages and I often forget about them, although about 35 minutes at a time is a good enough dose. 8/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Late-80s "popular" music was pretty funny in retrospect (it was probably just as funny at the time, I couldn't hear it through my mullet) in that there's a very very fine line between this, Billy Idol, Def Leppard, Poison, Prince.... they all had that *sound* - pop songs with crappy fake drums and slightly varied window dressing. OK you guys can take the rippin guitar solos, we'll have the fiery gang vocals, you grab a synth, oh and everyone turn up the reverb. We were all supposed to pick one lane, stick to it, and shun or mock the others. Turns out everyone was in the same lane after all and in the very shallow end. Eh. I'd possibly look at this more-fondly if I'd remembered them or the songs but I'm definitely going to forget this in 20 minutes and I'd like to sooner than that. 3/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Ooooo... Cookie Monster vocals, dropped D tuning, AND software-drum-replacement high-attack double kick drums??? The full skull-drilling trifecta here. HellNo. 1/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Man this was an unexpected surprise and a 180 from yesterday's which I'll leave unnamed ... Mellow, jazzy, simple and spacious, yet filled with unexpected melodic groovy turns. Guitar and music overall reminds me of this fantastic Icelandic jazz guitarist I happened to see years ago in Reykjavik with his band: Omar Gudjonsson. Sometimes you get what you need when you need it. Very nice - I'll be listening to this one a lot. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Kinda groaned seeing this one (although I do like the cover) - not at all a fan based on what I've previously heard from them. But in reading that this was a massive departure I thought ok ... open mind... And as the music starts with the first track I'm immediately liking it more, until the loungey-vocals come in and it just turns me right off. Every song. A nice effort, and I can see why people could dig this - but I'll never get by the horrible voice, vocal effects, and dumb lyrics. I don't like Bowie at all and this is ... a far worse imitation - I'd rather have the 8 Bowie albums again. 4/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I remember listening to this with others while working in the gen X veal pens back in the go-go dotcom doc martin days. Man - 1993 was a revolution of new music - all kinds of subgenres bursting back then. As for this one, Cannonball was all over the radio and MTV. It's far better than any Pixies album (which is where they splintered off from) - mostly since Black Francis isn't singing - and there's definitely a nostalgic aspect of it for me. And although the sound sucks in that *almost* early 90s lo-fi way I loathe, yeah it was a fun re-listen. You might have had to be there, though. 5/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I feel like I'm almost always turned off by overly-wordy/lyrically dense music but goddamn if this record doesn't bring back some massive childhood flashbacks. Something about Al's rather twee voice (very Pet Shop Boys...?) makes it weirdly less-annoying for me (also it just fits the material perfectly) so as to be able to focus on the lush music behind it. Always loved that they saved the killer title track for the end. Not much to say about that one other than it's perfection and one of the true classic pop/rock songs of all-time; grew up as a little kid hearing that (long!) song on the radio constantly. I do love this album - it plays out like a movie and really needs to be heard all at once. Killer production/mix, too (Alan Parsons!). Caveat: I'm not sure how well this does/will translate to younger/unfamiliar listeners though; I'm definitely listening a lot through a nostalgic lens and objectively even if I do love it it is pretty old-timey in song construction. Anyways for me it's a perfect addition; couldn't believe it wasn't in the original 1001. 9/10 5 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? hell Yes.

So. It's The Greg Kihn Band at Halloween. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just that after having read about this before listening, it was nothing like what I'd expected. Written years before from inside a mental hospital...lyrics snuck out bit by bit until his eventual release... where's the insanity dammit! So honestly I was kinda disappointed (hey I know "I Walked With A Zombie"!) - I wanted this to be utterly and completely unhinged musically but it's really a decent-enough late 70s basic rock band. It's not bad - just not....nuts, or even that out of the ordinary. (Definitely better than his previous band 13th Floor Elevators.) 5/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

After reading a little about this/him, he's taking on a quasi-fictional character as a failed musician? Great - how does this add to or explain the music which is really all that matters (unless you're watching a performance, or Spinal Tap)... and all I hear musically sounds like cheesy 80s music from the latest Andrew McCarthy movie which I had no interest in seeing. Feels like if you have to explain it that hard, it doesn't stand on its own ... and holy hell it does not. In fact the longer this goes on it goes from "come on" to "this is aggressively terrible" This whole schtick about "oh see he's just *pretending* to be this loser and everything comes from that perspective" is just a thin cover for terrible songs - utter and complete bullshit. And finally but perhaps most egregiously: these lyrics are in the running for most-idiotic i've heard in my life, at least since David Coverdale wrote "Slide It In" - and at least he wasn't pretending. Sage words from an elder: there's a fine line between clever and stupid. 1/10 1 star. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Definitely *far* outside what I'd normally listen to, so it's hard to get a full appreciation of a genre I don't like, but just in this first track when I was getting irritated by the mechanical drums and guitar uber-distortion ... the orchestra came in to add a little something ok ok ... and then the voice. That feeling when I'm steeling yourself for cookie monster vocals and a quick *nope* yet instead comes a lovely soft voice countering the aggression ... unexpected and very nice. A perfect compliment and got me listening to the entire album a bit more closely. Overall this doesn't hit me much on a personal level - more than a little too chunky and loud - but props for the contrast of light and dark and the added orchestra really does add a dimension. Not for me but well done for what it is. 6/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I find myself being distracted by everything while listening to this. It's not that it's just mellow - half of my likes/loves are as chill in some ways as this - but here it's done in a way that never ever grabs my attention. And closely approaches *almost* slacker-90s-IDGAF in the way I truly hate but there's (almost) enough earnestness that that doesn't completely fit... I recall not loving "Beautiful Freak" primarily due to the vocals. Here he sounds like Kurt Cobain trying to be Beck. Or vice versa. But all along he's being so careful to give that GenX *I'm not trying that hard* which is the part that grates on me. It doesn't work at all and I suspect that's a lot of my negative or just...nothing...reaction to it. But also even without paying attention to the lyrics there's something about them that's cloying. Annoying in a simplistic way; it might be the meter - i.e. the obvious rhyme that you see coming every time. It's a bit colour by numbers for me and I think Eels just isn't my particular spirit animal at all. 4/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I acknowledge my prejudice against the twangy accent. Was ready to hate this and honestly didn't love it at all at first but I will admit that after 6 or 7 songs I realized I was still listening - better than I'd expected; peaceful even. Maybe he just wore me down! I feel like I would appreciate this more being in the front row seeing/hearing someone sing these songs in a personal setting; not an album I'm going to ever put on again but if you like the close mic folk country americana you're gonna love this. 5/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Wikipedia lists them as folk They're as folk as Jethro Tull was heavy metal. Swedish...but this vocalist sings with an almost Indian flair? those peculiar vocal quarter-tones are pretty unique. Music is like this foreboding *slightly* folky trip-hop mixture and I don't know whether I like it or not but it's sure damn unique and not one of 27 Bowie/Young/Costellos so I have to give it props - something I've never heard before. 6/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Haven't listened to this one in too long - strong modern P-Funk vibes which might be too on-the-nose for some but who cares - nobody else is doing it (or at least doing it well) and I'll take it. Feels like it takes a lot to stand out of late especially with music that's either in homage/tribute/knockoff whatever and this did/does - I love every bit of this. Stay woke... 9/10 5 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

I remember listening to Joan quite a bit about 10-15 years ago, but I don't think I'd heard this one.... My memory has me liking her a lot more back then. Hmm - wondering if I've changed, or if it's just this album because this is a drag. I recognize her style for sure but nothing grabs, nothing compels. Also Anohni's voice grates my brain more than maybe any other vocalist I can think of - not a good guest spot. I do like that lead guitar on Christobel - would really have liked more of that energy not necessarily everywhere but ffs, people who claim Radiohead is wrist-slitting-inducing, I offer up this platter. I badly need some cheer after this goodgod. 4/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

If you'd told me this was a new or remastered Siouxsie and the Banshees record I 100% would have believed it. Savages are new to me and I'm a little surprised at some of the harsh reviews - I really liked this. Siouxsie/Banshees for sure without quite the Juju-period guitar work but a nice dollop of my favourite aspects of Joy Division and honestly overall more accessible songs than each of them. All wrapped up in a relatively recent recording that both sounds good/clear and "old" (I'm especially thinking of that vocal reverb sound and the endless slow pick slides on "Waiting for a Sign" - like they recorded this in a dank basement which I want to believe is true). Negative is that it kinda falls apart a bit at/near the end; willing to concede that maybe I just have like a 30 minute timer on these guys as well... If there's any genre I elevated my interest in after the 1001+ it's post-punk so maybe 5 years ago I wouldn't have been as receptive but today I apply the eyeliner, turn the room lights off, light some candles, and crank this up. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I can't believe there was no Phish on the original list. Quite the musicians, these guys - extended live quasi-happy jam sessions over smiley major chord progressions. I never liked Phish. 4/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? ....probably yes.

Movement 1 - I kept pausing and taking my headphones off...looking around to find who was making that sound ... until I realized it was the piano pedal being released after each repeating note phrase. I love hearing the actual ambient room where a/the recording is made, especially in something pleasantly mysterious like this. I feel like I should have known about Pharoah Sanders (ahh ok he was in Coltrane's band) - so going in with a completely blank slate and coming out with a new keeper album is always a treasure. Not a "for every mood" album (i.e. probably not great on a solo night long highway drive...ooo unless you're bussing overnight staring out at the passing landscape) and I'm sure some might be annoyed by it but for work or just a calming influence I absolutely loved it from start to finish; haven't had something ambient like this in years (harkening back to Eno's "Music for Airports"). 8/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

A personal favourite from someone? :) I remember my roommate buying this CD and seeing that damn LED light blinking all night in the common room for like 6 months. Not a critique - it's fine. I'll happily listen to a little* David Gilmour, especially Shine On You Crazy Diamond so maybe I should have cut it off after the first track? I did/do like this version of Astronomy Domine maybe better than the original, hmm... Nice to hear a few of the old tracks on here, but I was never much a fan of the 80s output (especially Division Bell: snoozer.) and no cuts from Animals is a huge negative. I've also never understood the need for this live album just a few years after....their previous live album. Not sure I could tell the difference even now. And this may sound anathema to the entire experience but even with the talent shown here I really almost always prefer studio tracks - especially with a band like Floyd, even if it truly sounds great. Something about the mystery within these songs gets lost. It gets boring once you're into the "newer" tracks on disc 1. I feel like this plays more or best as a really fine basic sampler for someone unfamiliar with Floyd which again is fine, just not something I'd really reach for. *2.5 hours though? - wayyy too damn long...yikes. 5/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

<checks wiki page before listening> genre: "Comedy hip-hop" ... c'mon SPOSE - SPRISE ME. You might have even served me ice cream at that overpriced lobster shack you worked at 20 years ago. Tough to truly rate since this kind of hybrid rock-rap is something I usually actively dislike .... but I'll say it's better than I'd expected. The music does work pretty well (+1 for organic instrumentation) and his rapping/speaking/semi-singing is just different enough - keeping it lowkey actually made me pay a bit more attention. I think I was expecting Limp Biskit but it's (thankfully) nothing like them. Not sure I'd agree with the comedy hip-hop label but maybe that applies to his earlier work - not intrigued nearly enough to explore the progression of Spose. Anyways after damning with faint praise it's still not something I'm gonna listen to again. Also ~35-40 minutes is enough; 3x that length is woooof. 5/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

This album cover is meta-1993. Song one finishes...song two starts...with the same tempo and feel. Eh I get nothing out of this / feel nothing. Rote high-tempo punk-ish vibes with a non-abrasive voice is all ok, but it ended and I don't remember anything. 4/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Very dreamlike, with the album title actually giving a fairly accurate representation of the music. Has a real 80s vibe, although points deducted for too many forced-retro aspects that make it feel a bit much at times (overused scratch effects). The limited vocals get old after a while [see note below about album length!], but I do love the deep synths which fortunately are more of what I noticed / hung my hat on. I've been expecting a lot less out of the user-submitted albums of late and this was no exception ... until it was. I don't know if I'd personally call this a keeper but it was nice to work to; found myself subtly bopping to it from time to time. It's too freaking long though - this is a legit commentary on modern "music" (really the presentation rather than the music). Keeping albums to a digestible length has more of an impact than a lot of acts realize. blahblah anyways I enjoyed it outside the Kate Bush cover which was alternately not different enough synth-wise to cover up the weaker voice - best forgotten. 6/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Ahh heck yeah - now this is an album that definitely should have been on the 1001 list. Album with an iconic single... a band that was influential on/to so many artists in different genres...hell, they opened for the freaking Stones and The Who. Starting with that all-time classic leadoff single brings back memories of being a little kid and hearing it all the time on AM radio in the parents' station wagon. The rest of the album grooves as well - the band (Meters!) and particularly the rhythm section propel each song. Serious props to that BASS (George Porter) on every song. Easy keeper and absolutely should have been in the book. 8/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Wow I really hated this during/after the first song. Was pretty sure I wasn't going to get by the squeaky/precious/modern-up-to-the-microphone pop vocals. But.... by the second song ("Killing Time") ....am I kinda digging this...? There's a bit of Cardigans, a bit of 80s synth goodness, and the bass gives it all a groove. Glad I've been giving this a chance - her voice is what it is and yet as it goes on it's less-grating; I think I'm both used to it after a while and it fits the songs perfectly. Also not mixed too high, thankfully. The music in "Death & Romance" is another great one. This was a definite surprise - after being ready to judge and slaughter this one down to a 2 or 1 after that first song, there was a LOT more here. It's not my favourite, I still think it feels overly-dense in a lot of places but the composition is really good. Too many mid songs to raise over a 3 but the best cuts are ones I'll listen to again. 6/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Overly faux-clever and frankly fucking annoying right from the start which rapidly descends into a near self-parody of full-impact cringe. Well-recorded, at least. Yeah - I do not like this at all, no need to go on about it. Next, please. 2/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Marc Bolan + melodic noise (i may have made that up but it sorta fits) It's not bad - just not really anything I'm interested in or clicked with, but I get why ppl could really dig this. giving a cowardly mid 2.4ish and moving on 5/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Well I don't like this album cover one bit, no thank you. As for the music... how about "holy shit...?" I imagine this is what it sounds like being trapped in a nightmare revolving around a demented circus/carnival. ?? What in the hell IS this? After I was 3 songs through ... I honestly couldn't tell if I hated or was/am fascinated by it. The swirling tempos in "Dog like Sparky" are completely unsettling yet I can't turn away. And if I'd thought things would "even out" after that - hahaha. No. OK...nearly breathless as I'm done listening - I have absolutely no idea what this was and very few comparisons to make. I now think that's objectively kind of awesome - even if I'm still not sure how much I liked it? This is *utterly and categorically unique* in the rock (or any) realm. I'll go with: Blur on LSD meets Roger Manning while on a runaway high-speed circus train locked in the caboose by Madness with a sadistic Mr Rogers ... I can't imagine listening to this under any sort of affected state, but I'm also intrigued by the idea. One reviewer in here wrote "requires active listening" - understatement. I have to give this props even if I'm not sure how much I can listen again; I'd also not fault any rating given for this one, but I have to give a 4 because I would say yeah - everyone *needs* to hear this. You might hate it, but give at least half of it a try. Actually half of it would have been better - the biggest negative is that it's too long - it's overwhelming after *3* songs let alone a double album's worth. They absolutely should have Use Your Illusion'd this with 2 separate releases because after a while it's impossible to distinguish songs from one another - they jam ten ideas into *each* song so getting through >20 tracks is a tall task. I've rarely been more confused-yet-intrigued by an album. I suppose for that - rather than just another unknown low-rent selection - huge props for/to whomever submitted this. Please let me know where to send my impending psych bill. And in retrospect...the album cover absolutely does fit. 8/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

This is the perfect example of poncey fluff I despised when I was younger and just trying to work out the coolest hammer-ons, pull-offs, artificial harmonics, and power chords of whatever the latest spandex-laden "metal" band just released. Now I just think it's quaint and mildly fun. Definitely more a historical musical artifact seeing how the lovely lads started out, they got way better over the decade; a negative would be that it sounds incredibly dated but that's also admittedly part of the fun. I still say it's fluffy, but that probably says more about me. A fine-enough listen. 5/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

My initial (i.e. first 10-15) minutes reminded me a little of Ian Dury and Bon Scott but a little less fun. Like... maybe you had to be there? I know Alex was a big influence on a lot of artists I enjoy but 50 years later it comes across as fine guitar-based rock... ...until the ridiculous "Tale of the Giant Stoneater" and "Ribs and Balls" - the former is just weird enough to make me notice and the latter really drives home the Ian Dury comparisons for me. I don't know how/why but this grew on me - previous SAHB listens/albums I've hated his vocals but maybe it was the Fish (Marillion) sound-alike (yes I know AH was ages before) on this one combined with the general weirdness that hooked me a bit more. Not at all prepared to give this a 4... yet? Feels like depending on the (my) mood I could either really love this or throw it in the trash. Hence my gutless 3, but I think I may give it another shot. 7/10 3 stars (also funny to me that half of this band ended up as most of the Michael Schenker Group) IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Expected worse, wanted better. Industrial music is almost never anything I'm interested in. This one dragged down by lousy university-level over-effort Tom Waits like vocals and dated drum and keyboard sounds. Really just a hard pass for me, Milton. 4/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

More of an overall comment - and apologies to whomever submitted this, it's not personal... I was perhaps selfishly hoping/expecting these user-submitted albums would be entries that people thought were egregious omissions from the original book, i.e. albums/artists I missed out on for decades and get to discover for the first time (even if I hated them/it). Not just little K-tel pet novelty projects like this. Mashups? nah. It just feels throwaway and tiktok-ish, especially that I had to go to youtube to find it. Hardest pass for me. 1 star. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Yeah now *here's* a worthy submission - an album that made more than a bit of noise out in the world back then, with even a few bars here and there played on the "Lost" island [get Hurley some more batteries]. For a mostly-acoustic album many/most of these songs have a tremendous build; well-written and constructed songs with perfect instrumentation and arrangements. In particular I love how the strings are used - not too much, but the perfect lead or simple accompaniment. I usually get a bit or quickly bored by albums of/in this genre; the sensitive solo singer-songwriter but something about this album has always hit me the right way. Love it. Very solid 9/10 5 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

First cut is relatively nice/dreamlike - not a style I usually listen to but I'm thinking very nice melodies... ok I'm semi-interested... Then Ponyboy hits. That was ... different. Yeah this kind of jarring chaotic glitchy noise construction is definitively and categorically something I dislike. It's not all glitchy after that but the grand sum including the squeaky hedgehog vocals (track 5) .... this album is not for me. 2/10 1 star. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Here's something I'd likely never have been exposed to - I feel like I definitely would have to be in the mood for it (i.e. maybe not commuting music) but then again on a rainy Monday morning it's hitting kind of perfectly. Over the past few years I'm finding that I enjoy non-English singing quite a bit, which shouldn't have been surprising in that I often don't focus on the lyrics anyways. Black and white cover fits (see again: rainy morning) the music - hard to "rate" in any sort of personal pecking order since I doubt I'll often go back to this but in the end... I like it. 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Honestly didn't think I was gonna like this - sometimes it's not a good idea to read about it beforehand, bc "dub" threw me off - but this was actually really cool to work to. I'm not a big reggae fan overall (hence the personal semi-mediocre 3 stars) but I could listen to this again. 7/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Definitely fits right into that early 90s GenX sound - what a time machine. Can almost feel getting the Doc Martins and flannels out of the closet which would be such a cliché if not true. One of those bands that revolved around me back in the day but I don't remember explicitly listening to a full album. It's nice in that throwback kinda way and actually quite a bit better than the standard Flavor of the Month back then. fave cut: "Definite Door" Yeah I don't know if this is super special but I'm digging it more than I'd expected. Holds up from that era for sure. 7/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Now this is a personal throwback - I actually played a gig with these guys in Cambridge MA about 1000 years ago. I absolutely appreciate how good they were/are much more now but I remember them killing it live. Great/fun/perfect length album. Not sure which is my fave, good variety even within the funk umbrella - although completely unexpectedly "Tug Boat" has a weird Zappa vibe ("let me go...down with the ship") This was and is a blast - love it - high five to whomever rec'd this! 8/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Started off hating it, then minutes later was in a trance. It's weird AF and low-fi but low-fi 70s Krautrock electronica is infinitely cooler than low-fi 90s emo rock garbage. Not sure it's entirely repeat-listenable yet ("Rote Riki" is a tough one) as by the end a lot comes off as a bit of either a demo reel or "look what i can do!" with early electronica but the best of this is cool and considering this came out in '74 it's pretty nuts. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

I never understand the screaming. Ever. Goddamn stupid shame because the music is pretty good, but the absurdity of the screaming absolutely kills and wastes any aspect of this or any music. 2/10 1 star. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

In some moments, this is reminding me of John Martyn's "Solid Air" which I like very much .... unfortunately there aren't many of those moments. I think what bugs me most about this is how much it sounds like it was recorded in his/a basement, and yes that is meant as criticism. e.g. his voice is annoyingly loud in the mix, so distracting as to make it frustrating. And that cello man - somebody dampen/compress that. The atmospheric aspect of it is really interesting - or could have been more so - but I'm too-often put off from track to track. Points for occasionally "nice/melodic" weirdness and I could absolutely see *parts* of these being utilized in the construction of better *songs*/music but not sure it's a good "album" - there's no flow to it. 5/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Somehow had never been familiar with Harmonium. It's got that dry 70s progressive sound that is kinda like a warm blanket - clarity and variety in instrumentation, not a ton of resolve but not out there like an absurd King Crimson or ELP epic - not even much like much more accessible Genesis or Yes. Just kind of a lovely sound, one I'd probably put mostly outside of rock/pop; actually maybe even like a progressive Al Stewart kind of sound. Negatives include the falsetto vocals kind of grate after a while (not a long while, either). And even though the music isn't "out there" as I'd mentioned, there aren't many super-hooky songs either, which in and of itself isn't bad but perhaps ironically without the songs being overly-adventurous it may be a weird dichotomy that there *isn't* a big hook anywhere. Anyways, glad to have heard this - quite enjoyable, but almost a touch too smooth for me overall. 7/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I had no idea this band was still around - I honestly think the only cut I knew was the classic "Under the Milky Way" This is really good - again I've been unfamiliar with their work since the 80s but it still retains that ghostly/ethereal sound while still sounding modern. I think my only critique is similar to so many modern records: it's just way too long. Keeping this at a tidy ~45 minutes or so would have been amazing. Still - I've really enjoyed it, like a childhood flashback in ways and I'll definitely listen again. 8/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Actually....listening to this after the Jays lose in one of the most heartbreaking World Series ever I don't know whether to bathe in this or jump over the falls. I remember these shoegazers - pretty and ethereal, completely washed under layers and layers of reverb to the point where you barely tell what instrument is playing. It's not bad, just a little too.... rounded? Won't ever be found under the "I can play this album anytime" file since it's so moody and emo but I do like it. Mostly. 7/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

It's not ... *bad* per se in terms of talent ...but it kinda sucks, know what I mean? All sorts of flashbacks going through my head....Georgia Satellites meet Badlands meet BulletBoys...wait is this 1989 all over again? I did this once. Exhausting. 3/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

When/if I don't pay attention to the lyrics I can hear this as a catchy platter of modern simple pop/rock. It's not like the lyrics are terrible, but... file under the entire 21st century Swifty teenage+ myopia which there's absolutely nothing wrong with, just that it's one of those albums/artists that if/when I notice the lyrics it makes it cringey. I'm not the market. As for the music, it's not revolutionary or adventurous in any way at all - it's a safe modern vocal-forward marketing album which are dime a dozen these days (and if I'm REALLY cynical I could say there are AI algorithms that can and will nail this exact sound and will we really tell the difference?) but less-grumpily there's good variety here which helps propel it and keep it above the water line; overall that was surprising to me as a first-time listener. Her voice gets a little typically-modern-young-female after a while; i.e. her obvious influences are bleeding off her (Lorde, Halsey, Swift, etc etc) which makes it all a little lost in the soup for me, but taken as an individual unit ... it's a good enough album. 6/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I'd unfortunately never heard of them - this is uniquely weird in an accessible way. Those swirly seasick sounds can go either way (I never particularly loved the MBV version...) but the chill ambient dark lounge-jazz vibes this gives off is perfect. Of particular note is the bass <chef's kiss> - love the way it propels the album overall - but each instrument is so creative and never overplayed, but offers just enough in each song to colour everything. Only criticism: it's far too long. I'm a big fan of keeping albums under 50 minutes - maybe a relic of/from the vinyl era but it's scientifically proven* that the right length of an album is around 45 minutes, +/- 3. Great addition, I'll definitely be seeking others from their catalog - merci boucoup! *science still awaiting verification 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Love the intro - bring back those analogue-sounding synths! I'm not crazy about Starburster - seems a little too Arctic Monkeys for me so I wasn't thrilled with the potential direction, but the album and sound really grew on me as it went on. "In The Modern World" has a vibe of very early Coldplay with <something else familiar yet I can't quite put my finger on> to it. Had heard of these guys but never heard before today - not sure if I'm ready to elevate to a 4 since I didn't quite get *that* feeling but seems like it could have staying potential if (when?) I give it a few more listens - good entry. 6/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

More cliched and soulless than a mall painting of a soft-focused wolf howling in front of a flag. This might be the most AI-sounding auto-tuned generic music on the list. Quasi-emo-punk slop that sounds fake and completely inhuman and yet not in any fun electronic way. If you told ChatGPT to make an album of this genre it would do better which should terrify anyone. TL;DR: I do not care for it. 1/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

OK! Finally an album that's actually important to the history and story of music in here - these kinds of "missing from the list" albums are what I want to see (hear). Crucial: this is most definitely NOT John Zorn's interpretation of Ornette in case anyone is triggered from that original entry. It's some hilariously high-test bullshit that THAT goddamn album (Spy v Spy if you want to wound yourselves again) was in the 1001 and this was not.... what the actual living f.... an egregious miss!! The start of free jazz right here - throwing away conventional form and previous assumptions on modality and melodic structure - even Coleman's contemporaries were like "dude, wtf..." with this. Funny in retrospect since to modern ears it's not all that outlandish at all. 1959 tho. Whether you like jazz (and I do but this can be a challenging one especially for early jazz) or not this IS an album you should hear before you die. 8/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Look - I get it, your pal's band is very talented - they've got a bunch of theatrical personalities who really give their all on this. Honest - no sarcasm. Emulating Tom Waits but better, crossing a bunch of genres, how do you characterize it? It might be fun to hear a minute or 2 in some dusty movie across Utah... I just don't like it at all. 4/10 2 stars. For my own arrogance/edification and for nothing else (because who tf reads these anyway) - like it or not: should this have been in the book? no.

I mean this kindly - Jack Johnson is fine and nice in the most unthreatening-approaching-boring way possible. I will never not associate him with Curious George and I think that's probably the best summary I can come up with - can't say a bad word about him because of the memories of my kids dancing to Upside Down [which is not on this album but honestly what's the difference] and that's worth something positive. (Honestly the ~middle 4 songs on this album are pretty good, more than I'd expected) 6/10 3 stars IMO: like it or not: should this have been in the original book [which should be called: 1001 Albums That Helped to Shape Music History]? maybe.

Hoping Milo took English and voice classes. Nice lyrics, loser. This is stupid. Take it for whatever but it's the hardest no from me. I don't like punk so this had little to no shot and the lyrics? I noticed them - get fucked. Something nice: some of the music (and the bass lines) definitely show some talent. At least it was mercifully short. 3/10 1 star. IMO: like it or not: should this have been in the original book [which should be called: 1001 Albums That Helped to Shape Music History]? no idea.

Because we need *more* Talking Heads-adjacent albums on the list?? Look, I'm not necessarily against The Talking Heads but 4 in the original list were probably 2 too many [for almost anyone] - I swear if someone puts a Bowie album in here I'm giving it a 1 on principle. Apparently my user album #68 is where I have lost my patience and turn grumpy and instead offer a list of grievances that are completely unimportant in/to the real world. NEVERTHELESS... I hate guest-vocalist albums. My reasons are mine alone and valid, dammit. Live were/are a bunch of wankers and especially Ed Kowalczyk so up yours with a rusty Iron City bottle, Ed. At least it's not e.g. the 3rd homemade/lowfi album from Portland's trendiest hip underground indie skatepunkmopenoise band that influenced 3 NO! 4! Pitchfork writers in 1994 to declare a musical revolution that *really resonated* for 9 people in a drum circle at Cannon Beach for one hour at twilight that time has thankfully since forgotten. Yay for that, I guess. TL;DR: Fine - it's not terrible but I'll never listen again. 4/10 2 stars. IMO: like it or not: should this have been in the original book [which should be called: 1001 Albums That Helped to Shape Music History]? ...come on. NO.

You people are failing the assignment. 5 BJORK PLUS ONE FROM SUGARCUBES - SHE IS ALREADY WELL OVER HER ALLOTMENT. I get it - Bjork is important - ... and I *like* Bjork. I own physical media from her and Sugarcubes so I'm not dismissing from some personal vendetta (which I'm also ok with - I love the vitriolic reviews). I want to hear what was missing from the 1001/1089 that we should acknowledge was a glaring omission - either album or artist wise - in terms of influencing musical history or the culture at large. Q: Who or what deserves that nomination for those people out here that maybe haven't heard X/Y and are missing an important component of music history...?? A: Not some low rent indie band that nobody knew at the time and has made little-to-no impact on musical history and *certainly not SIX albums* from this or any non-Liverpudlian artist (again: I'm done if someone submits another gd Bowie album). ...oh man this is a pointless rant that's far too late...apologies. I haven't even had food nor my coffee yet today, I suspect that's the reason. Although I'm sure I am going to be cut/pasting this a lot judging by the choices thus far. .... Do I give this a petulance ranking or a real one.... ah I see someone has taken the hit and submitted the petulance ranking already, thankyouthankyou. --- RIGHT - the actual album?? Oh yeah, it's great. A keeper. 8/10 4 stars IMO: like it or not: should this have been in the original book [which should be called: 1001 Albums That Helped to Shape Music History]? ...come on. see: above rant. ...on the other hand .... taking my rant away: YES. But, I would have put Debut and this album as the *only* Bjork albums on the list so my answer is: +it's complicated+

Wow I hated Sublime. Just hated them. Decades pass, I mellow out, haven't heard them since the 90s.... <sigh> the music isn't what I'm into ...but it's actually not bad but these lyrics are just stupid. I'll just politely pass. (but yes this album should have been in the book, so my ranking - as none are - is not subjective) 3/10 2 stars. IMO: like it or not: should this have been in the original book [which should be called: 1001 Albums That Helped to Shape Music History]? yes.

I'm not a Tool fan but how the hell were they not in the 1001 book? Just realizing this now. Massively influential and popular to this day - seems almost a willful omission. Having said that... Tool theoretically should be a band I love: weird time signatures, mysterious/threatening without approaching thrash/scream/noise. This is my first time hearing this record and yeah it seems "very Tool" - meaning I can take almost *any* 2 minute stretch and nod my head (out of time) while being super impressed with and by the creativity and musicianship. Amazing and unique! But - and everyone I know has a big but (ht: peewee) - none of them are good *songs* .... ehh that's an arrogant statement so maybe I should just say I'm not left with anything in my head in terms of a hook or chills or anything I can even recall. It's/they're unique and maybe that anti-structure is exactly what the draw is for many people which I can respect but for me it's a collection of cool riffs and segments put together haphazardly. And endlessly. (also their records or at least this album are/is just way over-compressed and I'm not a fan of the guitar tones.) Actually the song "Pneuma" is the perfect microcosm of how/why I can't connect with Tool. Starting again today (I remember this song) - that lead riff is so damn cool; highly complex timing and starts to draw me in but I think I get bored of it after a bit. Then the creepy (aren't they all) middle part comes in and that's a neat diversion but after whoknowshowlong my mind is drifting again. How can this band be so ... goddamn boring. Its frustrating. Like they find a groove for 2 minutes then stay on that chord for the next 8 or 9, occasionally switching from a pedestrian 7/8 to 25/11 or whatever. It'd be fun in a rehearsal room but man give me a gd chorus maybe. Idk, I keep trying and failing - a few years ago I watched that amazing video of the drum-camera shot on Danny Carey in the Larry Bird jersey playing "Pneuma" (absolutely worth at least one viewing) - I'm a musician and can't even understand how they and he even compute that song - it's fascinating to watch and I probably will again, but still - it's not a song or band I can carry with me I guess. I bet this is a band that could transform me by seeing them live, but who can afford that in this economy TL;DR: One of the most unique and talented bands of all-time, even if they're not for everyone. 5/10 3 stars. IMO: like it or not: should this have been in the original book [which should be called: 1001 Albums That Helped to Shape Music History]? Yes ... at least the band, maybe their debut instead?

This kind of hiphop is [almost always...] just not something I like (and usually something I can't stand) - aggressive spewing of so(too)manylyrics that aren't necessarily rhythmic at all; almost completely detached from the music - although I'll say I can't conceive of how difficult it is to rap like this. I heard the word "cuneiform" in here somewhere, so early points for that. I'll give it up for the music which ranges from interesting to "that's really cool" when I'm not distracted but this is (obviously) a super vocal-heavy/front album, a style I mostly can't connect with ... although funny thing...this really started to grow on me as it went on - I swear 90% of professional reviews of albums that praise "incredible lyrical ability" are bunk but there's definitely something to it here; it's not all about the lyrics/flow - this music is kind of the perfect backdrop. Am I starting to like this? What the hell is happening? TL; DR: Props to the talent involved overall here - I don't know if I'll listen again but this is kind of a perfect example of why we do this; if I'd bailed after a song I'd have given a 1 but there's a lot that's unique here - of all the holyhelltoomanywords hiphop albums this is the first I could get through without rolling my eyes and by the end I was grooving. Huh. 6/10 3 stars. IMO: like it or not: should this have been in the original book [which should be called: 1001 Albums That Helped to Shape Music History]? yes.

Can't figure out what I remember this band from, but as it turns out it's not for good music. Ok snarky, but my god it starts off as a washing-over-me kind of album that rapidly gets worse from there. Hard to keep this from a 1 but I'll save that for Norwegian cookie monster vocals and terrible autotuned pop. They're probably talented but wow I really don't like this at all. 3/10 2 stars. IMO: like it or not: should this have been in the original book [which should be called: 1001 Albums That Helped to Shape Music History]? no.

Comin' straight outta the 80s into your modern ears - I was not familiar with Future Islands, and this was an unexpected mostly-pleasant listen; liked it more than I'd thought I would. The singer's voice I'm not sold on - there are times where it's just so goddamn over the top (e.g. Light House) with an affected accent that I wonder if I actually hate this, but that might be me just being a dick and hating vocals in general (which a. I'm mostly not and b. I really do). Also the occasional/sporadic/shocking brief forays into cookie monster what the absolute why? However, I can also make the case that his voice kinda makes the band unique as well so I'll stay generous on this Monday morning and pretend he's actually from Kentish Town instead of North Carolina; grading on the best 6 or 7 songs which I'd definitely be good with listening to again. 7/10 4 stars. IMO: like it or not: should this have been in the original book [which should be called: 1001 Albums That Helped to Shape Music History]? yes.

An album that is incredibly well-done; well-produced and conceived. Love a concept album! Just on a personal level the music is not something I like at all - not a fan of "Bon Iver" nor most of the other singers as it turns out... and being that this album is very vocal-centric I'm just not jiving with it at all, but can definitely see how/why people love it. Polite pass. 4/10 2 stars. IMO: like it or not: should this have been in the original book [which should be called: 1001 Albums That Helped to Shape Music History]? probably/yes.

Me listening for a few minutes and thinking ehh it's ok then THAT SONG hits - which obviously I've heard for like 40 freaking years in the movie but apparently never had the curiousity to seek out the origin. Honestly the album is more interesting than I'd thought it would be, especially for the time period. Not gonna call it a favourite but it was a fun listen. 5/10 3 stars. IMO: like it or not: should this have been in the original book [which should be called: 1001 Albums That Helped to Shape Music History]? for THAT SONG alone - yeah.

I think out of the original 1089 I couldn't make it through maybe 5 or 6 total. Have no such reservations about cutting the cord early on the user submissions and as such this one absolutely set a personal record at under 10 seconds. I'm open to just about all genres but not this one. Scream over jackhammers at someone else, bud - not on my watch. 1/10 1 star IMO: like it or not: should this have been in the original book [which should be called: 1001 Albums That Helped to Shape Music History]? No.

I will say it is a nice treat to get exposed to music - and especially straight-up pop/rock - from well-outside the traditional/usual North America/UK axis; obviously speaking personally I have almost never been exposed to these artists. Whoever was on guitar could definitely play in the parlance of the time, especially with that series of 80s Rockman guitar tones. :) The album would (did?) fit right in amongst popular safe rock acts like the Hooters, Bryan Adams, etc. Not knowing the language actually accentuated the album, and may be the only distinguishing aspect for me. I suppose this could be the kind of album you listen to now only for nostalgic purposes - and acknowledging what I've read up on him, his lyrics were apparently pretty controversial in terms of countering or critiquing the Argentinian government - but overall just as someone listening in 2025, it's coming across as "just an 80s pop rock album" - that's not *necessarily* a slam, this probably could/would have been a hit in English-speaking countries at the time. But man, saxophones in rock did not age well. 5/10 3 stars. IMO: like it or not: should this have been in the original book [which should be called: 1001 Albums That Helped to Shape Music History]? Yes.

She really (talk-)sings a lot of lyrics over these songs, doesn't she. A lot. Good god man. Ok it's fine at best but honestly dangerously approaches being too slacker-ish. I'd wondered if her "style" of singing was grating on me a little because of the accent but after a few songs I realize it might be the only thing that's making it unique for me - if she were different she'd sound like Liz Phair which thank god for unintended consequences I guess. Overall nothing that really sticks out for me, kind of a mid-level dry rock album. 5/10 2 stars. IMO: like it or not: should this have been in the original book [which should be called: 1001 Albums That Helped to Shape Music History]? No.

OMG I AM SAVED jk I *will* agree with everyone who has said to not judge this by the cover (I had the same obvious initial reactions) - almost complete opposite of what I'd thought it would sound like. And honestly, the music is an impressive effort - no sarcasm. Having said that I would rather listen to an ill-conceived tale of a deaf dumb and blind pinball cult figure any day. OK - trying to be serious for a moment (not my default) I don't think it makes a difference to me whether this is entirely serious or a bit tongue-in-cheek (although I highly doubt an entire complex record would be written/recorded on something unserious...?) but I'll simply state that if/when I occasionally am dialed back into the lyrics my mind drifts, I couldn't have less interest ...but have been thinking all along that an instrumental full post-rock rendering of maybe 2/3 of this album might have been a 4 star... hmm. 6/10 3 stars IMO: like it or not: should this have been in the original book [which should be called: 1001 Albums That Helped to Shape Music History]? goddammit [pun] maybe.

This album was huge and a turning point for the band - definitely a glaring omission from the book. I just personally don't like this version of them - idk if it was Michael's clarity in singing as opposed to the more mysterious older period...but I loved the next album "Automatic..." ... so maybe it was just the songs? The mandolin? The guest singers? Shiny happy annoyance? R.E.M. trying to be a typical "rock band" mostly never works for me - distortion, power chords...they had no swing or groove whatsoever. Felt like they lost their lane here but wtactualf do I know, they sold like 8 billion copies and it was everywhere so maybe I'll sit this one out. I do love "Texarkana" though, hadn't heard that one in a while - best song by a mile here. TL;DR: Yeah - great choice that everyone should know but probably my least-favourite REM record. 4/10 2 stars IMO: like it or not: should this have been in the original book [which should be called: 1001 Albums That Helped to Shape Music History]? Yes.

Inserting some sort of pun on "Refused" like I'm sure others have... Yeah sorry I agree this is all about exposure and I'm all for it but I've been exposed to enough cookie monster vocals to know I couldn't/can't get through it. Nobody should care enough why but it's just a massive/immediate turn off so let's just agree to see other albums mkay? Reading the wiki entry was interesting though so...yay! 3/10 1 star

I should try to be more objective but honestly who cares. Ok, the music is fairly good - maybe a little over the pop/punk line for my tastes but like a touch of The Hold Steady meets a dollup of Dropkick Murphys and mixed with a bad approximation of The Replacements especially in the horrible vocals... Speaking of which - and it just dominates my ears - this all probably could have been fairly decent but this singer is a goddamn idiot. Makes it unlistenable. Get tf off my lawn. Look I just don't love it and that's ok. /Stuart Smalley 5/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes. sure. fk it.

Well I shouldn't like this at all ... but... 😜 hey, ok it's not bad at all. Punk is one of my least-fave genres full stop, but the band is pretty tight here and it's not lofi shit either. Honestly I'm probably only good for about 5 or 6 songs but it's mostly pretty catchy; I'll take the punk parts over the dips into double time hardcore (i.e. Choices) please and then of course the vocals kinda catch up with you after a while know what I mean? Still this is an unexpected good time - surprised, I am. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Ambient music is....the ultimate example of background music? I'm not even trying to be facetious or witty, I think it is? And so while I like quite a bit of ambient this is tough to take and impossible to relax or zone out to which is (...see above); this album feels like the loops repeat in such a way that's jarring - too many times I hear it every few seconds like a record skipping. Triggering. Yeah this is a big swing and miss for me. 2/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Not familiar with this band but after just a few songs it was coming across as bland middle of the road over-produced fine but utterly forgettable early 21st century WB-series theme music. Upon completion... still tracks. I think my most disturbing takeaway from the reviews here is that it's insanity to me that there were/are actually large groups of people who "allow" or "don't allow" their kids/congregations/whatevers to listen to certain music genres or groups. Hey, believe what you want I guess but that's some next-level bullshit pushing that mentality to kids. 4/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Music is pretty cool. Until it gets a bit much after about 8 songs. Unfortunately the singer sounds like he's constantly trying to not throw up. And he's too high in the mix anyways. Honestly it's nice to have a non-English rock album again in here, even if I don't really like it. 5/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I've heard of this album but it's possible the only Procol Harum I'm familiar with is Whiter Shade of Pale. This first (title) track really echoes very early Peter Gabriel/Genesis in terms of voice and style - we just need a little more mellotron. Honestly this wouldn't have been too out of place on PG's first solo record. Overall - this is the kind of entry I really look forward to - something mostly overlooked in history. An interesting and mostly excellent throwback (not perfect; the lowfi straight blues number "Juicy John Pink" seems weirdly out of place and threw me out of the vibe) - glad to have heard this! 7/10 4 stars. IMO - Belonged in the book? Yes.

The songs are ok; definitely a fair pastiche of mid-60s Britpop if that term had existed at the time. Yes yes Rolling Stones lite, which is redundant when referring to their early period anyways. More like very-lite. I am, however, questioning how good these boys actually are at tuning - or maybe even playing - their instruments. Actually....not harsh enough: listening to this guy rusty-axe-bludgeon his way through a "guitar solo" is like me listening to myself hack around on my first guitar when I was 14. Keep that hidden away for the sake of the children, my god. Snark aside (sincere as it is...) it's not necessarily objectionable in any way, but not something that holds my interest at all and the longer it went on the more annoyed I was at the playing. 5/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Great nomination - not anything like the usual fare, but rather cinematic / mysterious / almost un-categorizable. Another good example of a/the correct album cover: really gives a fair insight into "describing" what you're going to hear. Not on streaming and/but I'd forgotten all about this band.... remembering back in the early "download days" I'd been given a copy of this album and was able to dig it out of my still-existing massive mp3 external hard drive this morning :P Yeah it's probably best as background music but not in an ambient way - more like a "close your eyes for an hour on the couch on a rainy afternoon way" - glad I was able to resurrect this and I'll probably buy a copy 25 years late :P 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Well, it's definitely an interesting choice... obscure early 60 garage rock curio from the Netherlands? ok! Not sure what it brings to the table though - I mean, compliments on them sounding like they'd have fit in (or did fit in?) perfectly with the nascent rock movement of the time? Just didn't age super well and the mono recording even detracts from my discovering anything exciting about it. 4/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Stop fucking screaming at me. 1/10 1 star. IMO: Belonged in the book? JFC No.

I still have an old VHS tape from the mid80s I made which consists of 2 hours of me flipping channels. On the rare occasions I have to load that up again, at least I get to watch some old hockey highlights and Spinal Tap excerpts. from wiki: "Mallsoft (also known as mallwave) is a vaporwave subgenre centered around shopping malls." <............> seriously wtf are we even doing here 1/10 1 star. IMO: Belonged in the book? ....do I really have to say it?

Album is solid - fullstop. Could have used a touch more variety in sound, e.g. track 7 "Collect Call" is a great curveball starting with that haunting keyboard+guitar interplay - might have been better moving up in the lineup a little bit? I feel like I hear them a few times a week on the radio and I always enjoy what I hear....but over a longer haul if there's anything that gets tiring the sound/songs get a little "samey" after a while - both the swirling synths and even the vocals after a while. Emily's voice isn't bad at all - in fact not even annoying - but there's a sameness to her lack of emotion which I think I like more in small doses than over a 40 minute span? Not me complaining about vocals again but for vocals I actually kind of like, idk, ok stop nitpicking this is pretty good. Definitely know "Gimme Sympathy" (I could probably spend the morning flipping around the radio and find it playing today) and the lead track "Help I'm Alive" Anyways it's quite a good album - not necessarily spectacular, but has made a serious impact and definitely could have been a worthy book entry. 7/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Short version: this guy was an A-list superstar and as popular as anyone for a decade and should have at least one entry in the book as much as any other artist - fullstop - but is possibly super mid/boring at this point and may not have aged well. Long version: Well ok now some actual "how was ___ not in the book?" entries coming along this week. I'm not a big Seger fan partly because horses are fucking weird and terrifying and all over his album covers, but this one just shows...uh....Bob...so it's better by default, I guess. I know for a fact that younger gens don't know how goddamn massive Seger was in the 70s and 80s especially, like this dude's music was EVERYWHERE. Too much, holy hell. I remember like 10 years ago actually hearing him somewhere and it seemed like a time capsule - like, where the hell has he been since I was a kid? - and a quick internet wormhole proved it: there was an article that showed how his music was played on the radio (in the 80s maybe?) as much as Zeppelin, Springsteen, and Queen but his management never released his catalogue for streaming until relatively recently and he.... kinda disappeared. blahblahblah background... he was huge; I would conservatively say 5 of these songs were heard on heavy rotation in my childhood. Still not a huge fan but his hits are pretty good for meat n potatoes 70s classic rock and musically on par with The Boss. Yeah this is something you'd need to hear to understand North American rock history at least. Quality addition. 7/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes; will definitely prove to be one of the more egregious omissions.

Somehow I knew of Chet Baker but not sure if I've listened to an album but it's quite nice. Not the most adventurous or edgy but is the perfect mellow jazz combo for a weekend morning, Christmas Eve with coffee staring out the window, etc... I'm now ready for my noon nap and I mean that in the most complimentary way possible. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Hell yes. As it turns out the fam and I had already listened to this twice this (Xmas) morning before I refreshed this page. For a North American kid at least there can't be any more nostalgic album of good vibes. Straight 10/10 5 stars - all time album. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Primus sucks. okok I'm sure I'm not the only one to write that, and some even with sincerity behind it. I've never been sure how to feel about them. Musicianship is crazy - the structure is bananas in a fun way, and I can't understand Les Claypool's bass technique - he's truly a one-of-one. I've just never been able to sustain any listening with/to them for more than a song or two, let alone an album. But I'll say this was fun (weird) to try to fall asleep to (not necessarily recommended for all...). Eh I'm gonna shoot this up the middle and also note Primus isn't even close to being for everyone - probably not even me - but innovative and unique in a way a lot of the original "1001" were not so points and yeah this was a good submission. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

A third John Martyn album....? Eh ok - I loved Solid Air and was so so on the other one (One World) but I'm hoping this will lean more positive - how can it not with good old Phil Collins behind the drums (actually serious....and now that I think of it I'm hoping someone has put Brand X in the submissions...) Blahblahblah... ok it's not Solid Air, not as ...airy, but being 1980 I was expecting less air and a bit more cheese. Which maybe this has but I like it - Martyn has a weird affectation in singing that I think I'm just finally used to. TL;DR: I do love that keyboard (Rhodes?) sound and any song that he features it boosts the album even more. There's a mysterious feel to the record that I enjoy and hell I could listen to this again, even if I'm not sure overall we need 3 of his albums on the list? Eh what do I care, I'm glad this is here and I might pick this one up on vinyl. 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? probably no, but I'd have put this in the book over One World.

My first thought after a song or 3 was why are all the vocals on quarter or eighth notes? It sounded childishly stilted at times and was distracting... But it gets better, and I do like when the second vocalist enters. Overall an interesting blend of dramatic scandinavian almost-symphonic melodies with a dollop of Celtic shanties ... Honestly not sure how I feel about this but it's just different enough while definitely still being accessible ... i.e. it might not be my favourite thing but I can appreciate it 6/10 3 stars IMO: should be in the book? Maybe

Funky rhythmic hip-hop flow with great music with a strong jazz and funk background...this adds up to an almost perfect hiphop album with standout tracks like "Cool Like Dat" and "Pacifics" Just feels a touch long so I might have cut ~3 songs just to keep the interest (having said that I wouldn't be able to pick the 3) but this is a definite keeper that I'll go back to. Great pick! 8/10 4 stars IMO: should be in the book? Yes

Simple review: should have been so much better. Glitchy cut and paste slop ruined what were some potentially nice progressions underneath - as if each song has ADD and can't help itself from freaking TF out. It's distracting and jarring and I had a real hard time getting thru some of the more spastic songs. Needed more like "Welcome to the Times " - disappointing for me knowing what could have been. 3/10 2 stars IMO: should be in the book? No

I always wondered why Frank's voice was mixed at least 50% louder than it needed to be over this entire album... Zappa has 923 albums to choose from so my relative disappointment at this one isn't necessarily reflective of him overall; e.g. I could probably pick out a good chunk of 4-5 star FZ albums and this one falls just a little short. Here he's entering my favourite FZ period but this one does get annoying with the distracting lyrics which are "funny" until they're ...a distraction. Yeahyeah that's standard for him but most of the time "humorous music" gets old incredibly quickly and this is no exception - I don't know why this album always bugs me more than some of his others. That vocal mix maybe - feels like a hammer over the head to guide the listener far more to the lyrics than the music. It would be a far better instrumental album (see also: the instrumental title track which grooves). Weirdly I don't love his lead guitar tone on this either. Keeping it positive-ish, it's still a very worthy listen - the musicians are A+ elite and some of the progressions and runs are jaw dropping. Indicative of a lot of his 1970s material which I like-to-love but I would start with One Size Fits All over everything else 70s and proceed from there. 7/10 3 stars IMO: should be in the book? hard to say, I'll say no to this one (...but he absolutely needed representation from his jazz fusion era so that's tentative; hoping someone else added one).

This would be more enjoyable/listenable for me with a different vocalist. Which I suppose is the point of this artist/album so.... I guess Mac is just not my thing at all; I really can't get through this vocal style - hard pass. 3/10 2 stars.

eh. When these guys hit a friend of mine was ecstatic about them and I ... sort of get it? For me they're a novelty act that is "funny" (ish) for a song ("Chaise Longue") or two but over a longer span - not to mention an entire album - it just falls flat. So I'm the sourpuss here - I'm just not a fan of "cheeky" music. Lyrics/vocals are an instrument at best for me as a part of the whole and so when it's the overpowering focus like...what are we even doing here. I know - again, it's me - but "ooo hahaha lyrics" - eh it's not just the Pitchfork Wet Dream acts (ok it's a catchy song but even before the 2 minute song is done I'm tired of it) like Wet Leg, but e.g. it's also what takes me out of too many Frank Zappa albums and I love that guy's music. I know a lot of ppl love them - great - and they seem like they're having fun / not taking themselves too seriously. And that's the exact aspect I don't like, weirdly. I just don't have much interest in low-level (effort?) close-vocals; i.e. I almost feel like I'd have this as a strong 4 with different vocals but there you go... TL;DR: definitely will be a hit for many, just not my bag, baby. I do like "Convincing" quite a bit, tho. 5/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No. A good user suggestion but too recent for any consideration.

As a youngster I thought I "didn't get these guys" but they (and maybe to a larger extent Danny Elfman) were still somewhat of an influence, even if either unwittingly or just in the subconscious. From 80s soundtrack cuts I heard a thousand times to The Simpsons theme song they were spreading around more than I'd realized in my guitar-hero haze phase. A few years later a new friend B mentioned that Oingo Boingo was his favourite band growing up so I figured I'd missed something; there had to be more than just novelty to them and yeah: this is a great album - and way more accessible than I'd have given credit back upon release. Sure it's "weird/unorthodox" but also...not really - an excellent representation of the best of the new sounds coming out of the mid-80s right around when the general/mainstream sounds were entering a horrible few years. Honestly every track is catchy [and the "big" single "Weird Science" is probably the worst one] and at a crisp and standard-for-the-time 42 minutes it almost leaves you wanting more (no, it's a perfect length). 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes

JFC. We need a SIXTH goddamn Iggy Pop like we needed a fifth Sonic Youth like I need a public enema. I unapologetically hate this guy. "Hey buddy! Give it a chance!" said the spritely little goody-two-shoes shit on my left shoulder whom I proceeded to grind to a pulp with my bare hands and crush under my steel boot. Stupid fucker. "Have *you* even listened to this dogshit?" I said as his tiny life of personal service was squelched out - "I just started it and this is unquestionably the worst / shittiest *sounding* live album I've heard in at least 30 years since I took that ridiculous 72 hour drive with C to Atlantic City and he insisted on playing obscure homemade live Dead tapes from some idiot's Panasonic cassette recorder...at least that wasn't officially released as an album.... I literally have better-sounding high school gigs on TDK tapes in my attic that I will never play for anyone, even you...." but he didn't hear it as my right shoulder sprite screamed down at him "YOU NEVER EVEN CARED ABOUT US!" Poor little guy he just tried to serve me but his time was up. I fed him to the dogs as Iggy Pop started screaming YEAHH YEAAAAAAH at the end of the first terrible track which might have been the best of the turd soup. TL;DR: no thank you I don't care for it. 1/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? quoting Marvin Dorfler from the classic Midnight Run: "take a wild guess..."

I don't know if I'd ever heard of Nic Jones - perusing his wiki page I don't know how I hadn't, even if it's a little outside my frame of reference. Seemed/seems to have had a big influence so let's see how this goes... Very traditional-sounding which I suppose tracks since most of these are - as wiki says - traditional folk covers. That's some seriously impressive-yet-accessible guitar playing - there's a real percussive aspect to it and some interesting melodies (which another wiki check sees that he used a lot of alternate tunings which definitely gives unique voicings). If you're not dialed into English folk (me) it ... does take some getting used to the vocals but it really does fit and by the ~3rd song it does just become part of the sound. Album feels a little longer than it is and I'll probably chalk that up to not being as big a fan of the genre. Ranking isn't necessarily/exactly a personal one since I don't know how often I'd listen again but for what it is it's really tremendous - his guitar playing makes me feel like I've been wearing mittens playing acoustic. Thanks, asshole. jkjk. Anyways this album makes me feel like I'm sitting out looking into the foggy sea on the coast somewhere in the UK which sounds like an absolutely wonderful thing. 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Definite yes.

What a throwback - this album was massive in elementary school. My buddy D's older sister seemingly overnight went from her Genesis/Yes albums to LOUDLY playing him nonstop whenever we tried to get a good old Dungeons & Dragons campaign going at his house goddammit, so it was emblazoned in my mind even if at least 4 of the songs are playing somewhere on classic radio in the nearby vicinity right now. I did eventually cave and buy it on cassette because duh - but haven't listened to this in over 30 years (RIP: cassette; probably in a floating sewage island somewhere mid-Atlantic ocean). Honestly it's pretty great -it may sound a little trite now but this guy could craft the perfect rock song for the times - appealed to the heavier minded faux-tough crowd wearing denim but also had the perfect amount of catchy-AF melodies to win over a good chunk of the lighter pop tastes. Listening with older ears for the first time, I do like that it's not over-produced at all; just a solid rock album and definitely was worthy of its elevated status at the time; even if not that complex it stood (stands) above most other 4/5 piece rock bands/music of the time - I can't believe I didn't even think of it (I guess he's been resigned to the "where are they now?" file since about 1985...) - I'm wavering between 4 and 5 here; I don't listen to much music like this at all anymore but grading it for the era and giving an extra nod for nostalgia it feels worthy and absolutely 100% should have been in the book - ffs if you want to know rock history this album is a no-brainer. Fave cut: "Lonely Is the Night" 9/10 4 stars IMO belonged in the book? Yes.

I may have ADD but I'm not sure I'm ADD enough to enjoy 17 songs in 37 minutes. Although it feels a lot longer. It's not necessarily what I'd expected musically ... but the voice IS kinda what I'd expected and do not like at all. It's a choice: that shout/punk sing/yelling accompanied by gang vocals - I'm just never gonna like this, just sounds like a bratty kid and his buddies yelling at me from a basement university bookstore. Can definitely see the appeal for power punk fans and I'm completely down with the apparent message/s within but this music is just not ever gonna be my thing. 5/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

More than a little too laid back folksy sleepy seaside for me and most importantly not much tempo, energy, or mood change at all. Gave it a full shot, but I'm gonna respectfully chalk this up to different tastes and move on. 4/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

It's the yelling and the gang vocals that make me feel like the guy on the cover. Music is alright; nothing too cutting-edge or different but I do appreciate the melodic release on occasion. Overall: no thank you. 4/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No

A joke? I'm quite sure an album released *5 months ago* does not belong in a "you need to hear before you die" - give it a little time, like... 3 seasons even? Who am I kidding - it wouldn't matter: this machine-gun double replacement-kickdrum quantized fake cut and paste dreck combined with vocals that are half tuned-cartoon-voice and half horrible screaming (redundant) is just about the worst mix of sounds I could come up with. Just comically - and I use that word literally - terrible. Bottom of the barrel. 1/10 1 star only because that's as low as the scale goes. IMO: Belonged in the book? LOL.

2 DAYS IN A ROW OF THIS ACT hahaha no nope. playtime is over, kiddies. 🪠🧻 0 anythings - I feel like I've been pranked. You had one entry, kid, and you blew it.

This band is/was unknown to me so zero expectations - that first track sounded like a poorly-extended one note attempt at Rush's YYZ ... until everything kicked in, and it suddenly got pretty damn catchy. Can't be a coincidence how much the vocals are a close-cousin of Ben Gibbard from Death Cab (i.e. homage v imitation?). The biggest downside by far is the too-modern-rock production for me and I'm not able to get by that; there's no breathing room at all in any of these songs - goddammit I hate this sound, it kills modern music. Where are the dynamics? I'm not blaming the band, blaming GGGarth on production here. i.e. heavy AF compression so it gets tiring too quickly / immediately. Shame because the music is pretty good - might actually check out their other albums (or live?). 6/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? ... I'll say yes since this band seems like they've had quite an impact in the UK.

Reading some of the other reviews gives a better picture than I can - how much of a "Kenny Wayne Shepherd" album is this? Not that it really matters I suppose - especially with this being a soundtrack to a live show. I'd say I'm almost actively not a fan of tribute/cover albums so I wasn't excited or interested in this. But - but - overall it was better than I'd expected. Excellent sound (live) helps for sure. Just that blues albums have to be something really different/special for me to sustain interest. I honestly don't know what that would be...? Oddly for me, the varied singers *do* make this album stretch a bit longer than it would have for me - straight blues really is about attitude bc it sure as shit isn't much beyond I-IV-V if even that. Anyways blahblah it was nice to hear, there's that similarity to too many songs especially in the middle (Chapel Hill Boogie / Tear Come Rollin') that slows it all down (although the Knoxville Rag was a nice change of pace), so it'll never be a favourite, I'll take something like Muddy Waters' "Hard Again" as a good example of a blues album that sustained for me as after ~11 songs I was all set here. 6/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

To enjoy Sufjan's music it feels like you have to get by his vocal style (or...um, enjoy it i suppose :P). If you've listened you know; it's not that he's not a good singer it's just that his being *rightupcloseandintimate* with the mic and overtly-gentle wears very thin after a few songs for me. I find I always have to just dial my focus away from the vocals - something I usually do anyways, but it's hard when it's so upfront. Anyways the music is quite precious and I mostly mean that in a complimentary way :) - there's always a delicate aspect to his music and it seems accentuated on this album... Feels like if you're a lyrics-focused listener you might love this. If you're not (me) then it suffers from being way over the top - no disrespect intended, knowing the topic/subject/theme of the album - and a bit distracting. I've always liked *parts* of his albums but they go onnnnnn (Illinoise a perfect example) so this was nice to keep it a relatively tidy 44 minutes. It's a worthy listen and while I don't know that it's book-worthy, it's a nice addition here and I'm glad to have heard it. Could listen to parts of it again. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No

I'll shallowly admit that the lousy album cover gave me certain...low expectations... but did not prepare me for the wild explosion of sounds within. This first track ("To the Blade") has so many elements of bands that are on the tip of my mind (Radiohead? TV On The Radio? Interpol?) yet remains unique. The music is punchy and catchy and yet not remotely predictable, which applies to the entire album. One negative is that the falsetto vocals occasionally get tiring but generally work well and amazingly are NOT mixed too high especially for a 21st century album. I don't love all of it; even the second track ("Distant Past") is too disjointed - not just the structure (80s new wave disco rap?) but the vocal editing is either sloppy or I just don't like the style - no difference, really. I don't want to risk minutely nitpicking when overall this album really is something different and if I'm grading on a scale it's a lot better than most of the more-recent additions to the original book. 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

How in hot hell was Louis Armstrong not in the book yet we had bullshit like Lou Reed's secret colonoscopy tapes Versions 1-4. Yeah it's beyond oldtimey and probably not something I'm gonna really put on again but this IS something you have to hear before you die. Guy was beyond a certifiable legend, he was one of the biggest music stars and indulgences of all-time. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Love the timing of this selection and every sentiment within these lyrics. Can't believe it wasn't written in the past 5 years but hey - keep that myth rolling! Just not a fan of the music - while it is tight and adventurous and especially good for the genre, it's far too frenetic/whiny. Just not my taste. Although I do like that Steve Harris-esque bass run around 3:07... 5/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

This album is all about the shiny production - not slagging on that, it's a massive if not the most massive part of pop albums today - but it's hard to determine whether I actually like the music or not. I can definitively state that these are some of the worst lyrics on this list :D holy hell. An impressive music release in no shortage of ways, but I'm finding this as soulless as a Christina Aguilera or modern Madonna album. 3/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

First band meeting: "Guys - remember Madness? Let's be like them but less-subtle and pick up the pace to Fishbone levels, then yell-whine even more than Green Day!" ...and here we are. Honestly ...ok, they're pretty gd talented, but I really don't like it - hey I gave it a shot. Eliminating the vocalist would - as ever - bump it up at least a half-star or more but ska-punk is still nothing I ever like. 3/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Energetic if not occasionally frenetic ... through no fault of their own it suffers from that period's "sound" which after all this time just sounds stale and bland. As for the music - I actually prefer not understanding the lyrics, makes it easier to flow as an instrument. Overall though it's just not something I connect with or even remembered much of soon after it finished - I could see it being fun for a lot of listeners but just not my personal pref. 5/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

First immediate thought: we do not need *another* Talking Heads album on the list. And I generally don't really love live albums... But... this album is THE correct pick for the band and was a no-brainer for the original book - should have replaced ~two of their others with this one; it became a bit of a cultural touchstone at least in some parts, being the soundtrack to one of the more/most well-known concert films of all-time (although honestly how large is that list anyways...). My critiques of this band are the same - too often they seem stilted/stiff, but that's also their sound and they really lean into that sound - you know a Talking Heads song when you hear it, even before David Byrne's vocals kick in. So ok - I like them. LIKE, Dotty. Like. That's it. But this live set kind of reverses a lot of that (with some help from guests to be sure) - this is a great sounding album and actually does swing; most of these are actually better than their studio versions (e.g. "Life During Wartime" "This Must Be the Place") - I hadn't heard it in ages and am glad it's here - great call / pick (notable exception: the horrible Tom Tom Club insertion). 8/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Absolute rubbish. Had to go thru the reviews to see what ppl like about this and the supposed variety of genres was mentioned by more than a few of you. More fake than the Lucky Charms cereal I had this morning. Just throwing different colour freeze dried marshmallows together doesn't give you automatic points for diversity. e.g. An accordion does not automatically define or change the genre. How about "this album sounds like shit" - over compressed OCD absurdity that adding a harpsichord on a song or two will not cover up the fact that there's just a fkng guy endlessly screaming like a tweaker outside my city apartment at 3am. 1/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

University days I spent countless hours/days/weeks playing a card game we called three fingered monkey (pitch) and every game always started with this album. Doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the quality of it...but actually yeah it definitely does. This is probably a top 30 album all-time for me. I'd recommend not being too distracted listening to it, and it might take a while to wash over you but for me it represents the perfect mix of all Floyd's best qualities - vocals from both Gilmour and Waters, hypnotic keys and crazy guitar lines (e.g. harmonies on "Dogs" and that bizarre triple lead harmony in particular around 13:55); cynical angry lyrics without being so distant and cold (e.g. The Wall) and masterful production tying it all together make it mandatory to digest in one sitting. TL;DR: Their best album and right before it all sorta fell apart for them (sure sure The Wall was beyond massive but there was a marked shift with that work that changed everything and not for the better). 10/10 5 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

OK a 3rd Portishead album - I loved the debut, was so-so on their third, so how does this fit in... It's fine - it's definitely *Portishead* which has to be the ultimate goal for an artist; having a sound that is definitively yours. Ok calling it fine isn't fair, it's quite good, but I'm not sure how much different it is than the others? TL;DR: Enjoyable listen for their uniqueness, wouldn't necessarily put it about the others I've heard from them. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the original book? No - already 2 albums so are well-represented. This is good but not sure how much it advanced the cause so to speak...

This was an unexpectedly nice listen. My favourite tracks incorporate some synth/electronica/sequencer instrumentation; the purely organic ones sound a little dated and a bit more dull. Would have been better at around 45 minutes overall. Probably wouldn't be a favourite but as background/work music I could put this on again - with my ignorance of the language it works even better in Quebecois :P and makes it easier to just enjoy the overall music. 6/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the original book? No.

This is kind of all over the place, and - I'll admit it - I definitely (mis)judged by the album cover. First few tracks sounds like we're being launched into a musical, then track 3 sounds... *exactly* how I'd expect based on the cover (and that one is kind of annoying). Not sure what to think - it's ambitious and impressive on a musical level but from big theater-style music to bedroom soft/fey vocal harmonies on an acoustic that was probably recorded on a 4 track, I can't get a handle on it. I don't dislike it, but not sure I like it all that much either ... an absolute equivocation on my part. Throwing it right up the middle - there's a lot of talent here but might have been better off as said-unwritten(?)-musical. Also the little vocal...tics? or uncut spoken "aww bollocks..." things I usually like when kept in songs but it all sounds so forced and almost planned that it takes me right out of it all. I'm probably being harsh here because there's a lot here but it's just not for me. 5/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

This is pretty much awesome - I'd never heard of Calibro 35 before and seeing them described as an "Italian cinematic funk band" I figured ... this could really go either way. I vastly prefer their instrumentals - not super down with the 2 rap interludes/songs; nothing inherently wrong with them but they just took me out of the album flow. Reminded me of a funkier and slightly more-gritty version of Air's excellent "Virgin Suicides" soundtrack. Yeah keeper for me and I might have loved to have this in the book, I think the uniqueness of it makes it worthy. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes

I don't think I was in the right frame of mind for this one, or might ever be. Detuned sorta-majestic almost-kinda-soundtrack music for a 2nd-rate orc battle or medieval nordic warrior movements? It's a formidable project and I know and respect how much work would go into this. I just don't vibe with this sound - it's like if My Bloody Valentine got more evil, layered even more guitars with heavier distortion, tuned it all down, and was all painted over with some opaque sheen that makes it all sound fuzzy. It's unique but messy as hell. The lack of distinction of any sounds whatsoever is to me not a feature but a very severe bug. The only saving grace of the rotten sound is that they've thankfully fingerpainted over all the scream-vocals, making them *almost* sound just like....shitty emo-style over-processed guitars - otherwise I'd have shut it off much earlier. Not my thing. 3/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

OK - this was my submission and tribute - done less than a week after he passed. I feel like you either submit an album that's not well-known and you want more people to hear or one you felt was egregiously left off the original list - I went with the latter here, and was truly surprised it didn't make the original 1001+... My reasoning on including this is NOT that it's my favourite album not in the book [Rheostatics' "Whale Music", a ~178 degree turn from Ozzy - please listen!] - it's that it is mostly (completely?) about Randy fking Rhodes on guitar and the album's influence is or was almost immeasurable. I know this music isn't everyone's cup of tea (and for god's sake as great as the song is ... or was... nobody needs to hear Crazy Train ever again, and as a sports fan I really know it - my apologies) but this album was actually not supposed to be released as a solo album but rather as a band. The Blizzard of Ozz. Blame Sharon for that one of course. Anyways, I digress - and I bring it up because this album was a - if not THE - massive influence on guitar players everywhere for the early 80s. Generated the first legitimate "wait, is this guy as good/impactful as Eddie??" conversions. Anyways TL;DR: if you're focusing on Ozzy I'd politely guide you to the fact that while he may have been the vehicle the driver was Randy; his introduction of classical forms to flashy guitar and in a tasteful and melodic way (looking squarely at you, Yngwie...), and goddamn what a tragedy that we only had him for 2 great albums. Anyways this album kicks fucking ass with memorable melodic heavy rock and much like Van Halen before them, they can't at all be held responsible for the 96% awful shit/hair metal bands they spawned. Nothing was like the original, and this was and remains the shit. 10/10 5 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes!

Pffft...come on, that is so pretentious ... calling your album Latin Ma..... wait what the fuck this is ACTUALLY IN LATIN??? Yup. This is actually a real down home Catholic Mass sung over deep old school German prog rock .... in Latin. Ok then. It's honestly like a better and MUCH freakier In-A-Gadda-Da-Vita. IDK maybe it was the gummy I took while listening to it but this is completely trippy and I don't know if I'll listen again or have the same experience but damn... I liked it 🤪. Screw it, this one took some balls. 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? ...I usually only put yes if there's some known/quantifiable influence on at least some subset of musicians or public but I have no idea who they were or if there was any impact at all but this is so goddamn weird and unique I'm saying YES.

It's at least a little bit cute reading how the singer and supposed spokesperson for the group goes off about how much he hates being called a rock band [*i aM wRiTiNg pOp rEcOrDs!!!*], hates prog and double albums and self-indulgence... ...then heads up literally one of the more pretentious and inorganic packages of fiddley-twaddle of the new century. That's right: this is all gewgaws and gimcrackery! I may have considered a (very) low 2 but reading that load of codswallop and then having to actually get through this absurdly and hilariously over-manufactured fake tuned/quantized and worst of all boring AF *POP* (singer's request) music .... poppycock. GONG. This is bombastic pompous tommyrot. 1/10 1 star. IMO: Belonged in the book? no.

I'm a fan of The Cure and sure it was pretty exciting getting a new album after a few decades but I think you have let an album breathe for at least 5 years - even 2? - before anything goes on this list... Anyways yeah it's really good - a little less-classically-Cure-reverby than the bulk of their catalog but then again, that was 40 (!) years ago so change is a good thing. Also another great thing about this modern album? Only 49 minutes long! Just because you *can* put 18 songs on what's considered an album these days doesn't mean you should. I love how they have no sense (I mean this in a positive way) of getting to a hook or making anything immediately catchy - "Alone" takes 3:30 of runtime before any vocals start - love it. Anyways 8 excellent songs comprising a far-better-than-solid album from a band that's been around nearly 50 years is crazy - my only complaint is the usual with modern albums, not enough dynamics but with The Cure it doesn't seem quite as bad - well done and surprising effort. 8/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

This is one I really have to look at objectively. I remember really disliking 311 but agreed that they probably should have some representation - they were one of the first to hit it big with this genre... ...but as I'm listening for the first time in 30 years... wait, am I kind of liking this now :D what the hell is happening. These guys were much more chill/mellow than I remember and I'm not nearly as annoyed (or closed-minded?) about this as I was when it came out. Something about the almost-simplicity of it; not overly-earnest (e.g. the easily-delivered vocals as opposed to how this genre seemed to evolve into more shouting) and over some interesting/creative melodies and rhythms, yeah it's getting to me in a good way. TL;DR: Will never be a favourite genre but honestly glad to re-appraise this in my mind and definitely a worthy suggestion. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Cake always felt like a one trick pony to me. Perhaps a cool pony but, as opposed to ponies - who grow up and change - Cake just sorta stays the same all the time. I like one or 2 guided rides around the parking lot amusement park but after a few minutes I'm bored and ready for something else. <...weak analogy is unclear....> I almost always like a Cake song ("a" as in "one") when I hear it but whenever someone tries to play an album of theirs by the 3rd song I'm ready to rip my ears off. Not saying I don't understand all the 5 star reviews but I think one has to be more dialed-in to lyrics than I am; cheeky irreverence in music gets old real fast and here it's just as much that "eh I'm not that good but I'm also not trying all that hard because ... come on dude" vocal style for me - oy, this album is so 90s goddamn GenX it hurts. Objectively, they definitely do have their own sound - dry as it may be and even if I don't love it - and probably would have been a smart addition to the book. Give me "The Distance" which is legit fun/great and I'll move on. 5/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

I wasn't familiar with Mustafa and a short (24 minutes!) selection / EP isn't a bad intro. The music is nice - melodic and spacious, modern while keeping some roots in older folk. There are hints of a more mellow Michael Kiwanuka who I'm a big fan of. Not a fan of his voice, though, with some of those vocal inflections...I guess that's the modern pop style but I can't unhear it .... and as soon as I thought of Bon Iver having a similar feel it lost me a bit. Actually felt a little longer than 24 minutes; I think the one (slow) paced uber-gentleness of the EP got to me after a while. There's definitely a lot of talent here but this might just not be my vibe. Still, an interesting choice, glad I heard it. 5/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No

2 hours?? GTFO I'm absolutely of the mindset that you've got to keep an album at *least* close to an hour - tops - unless there's some unquestionable theme or motif. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement of short attention span, but an album is a document right? A statement from the artist/s at a point in time. (please don't ruin my analogy by referencing Infinite Jest or Ulysses, etc, i'm on a roll) Not to mention this came out last year. OH the music? It's fine...ish, to a point - sort of a Beach Boys + Animal Collective lofi experience with far worse mix/production; really really would have lent itself to a 40 minute set max. More than a bit too laconic. Honestly, after being annoyed at about 30 minutes I tried to just relax and let this wash over me as so many others have...which didn't work. Don't really love it at all. 5/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I might be outside of the age group for this one but ffs, it's cringingly not funny and the music is terrible. Moving tf on. 1/10 1 star. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Whatever you consider/label this genre it's not really my favourite, but for the most part these guys do it quite well. Even the very country-infused tracks (e.g. "January Wedding") just sound very nice. On a personal level I just can't get any emotional attachment to any of the songs, and although I started out feeling like nothing was truly bad, I eventually got to "Kick Drum Heart" which is dreadful and just a weird outlier even of style - as if written for a bad Nickelodeon cartoon? And then afterwards the album immediately drops back into their slow deliberate acoustic Americana ... this is where they lost me. But even if I wouldn't play this for myself this is something to keep in the back pocket if the vibe demands it... although that's a party I'd excuse myself from rather early, pick up some good takeaway and go home. 5/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged on the list? ...probably yes, they've made a pretty big impact.

Definitely "of the era" in construction and sound - feels like it takes a little effort or...non-effort (just let it wash over you) to get into it. Very dynamic, and by that I mean it gets *really really quiet* sometimes, in a way that you definitely do not hear on anything post-70s. It's certainly progressive rock in all of its glory - or excess, if you lean that way - which means it often feels a lot longer than the extremely reasonable 45 minute runtime. I'll say it: I love flute in pop/rock music. Of particular note -> the bass playing (Peter Giles) on this is fantastic - that dry in-your-face sound and mixed up nice and high. Love it. TL;DR: these guys broke off from King Crimson and I like this a lot more. More than a bit more pastoral and melodic; not necessarily *catchy* but always enjoyable. I'll listen again. 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Not easy for me to connect with overly-tuned modern constructions. On the other hand there are a lot of undeniably catchy melodies here - at first glance. This guy may be young but he 1980s pretty well (or let's be honest - his "producers" do); the synth sounds carry that analog throwback that ... ah fk, they know what they're doing here and it works in that sense. That sound is the only thing I like about this, though, and as it goes on and on it gets worse with a one-song exception. When I try to pay attention the lyrics range from [at best] cookie-cutter low-effort to embarrassingly and laughably terrible. The production is of course screwed down tighter than Leon Draisaitl's jaw while Germany is getting waxed by Slovakia in the Olympics; it's all just too fake or stupid. Even as the tuned/robotic vocals are something I hate and distract me.... "Blinding Lights" is just a great song, which was a massive hit. And knowing that song I expected more from this album but woof - that song was/is all that's worthy here - I can't stand the rest of this album. Having said that, it's hard to deny the modern influence this has had so even as I would only listen to the one track - which was a fucking HARD SLOG to make it that far ffs - it's a valid addition/submission. 3/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Goddammit... sampling Bring the Noise (and more Public Enemy) right out of the block and doing it pretty well .... <sigh> ok: you have my attention and interest, Freestylers. I don't love all the vocal parts and overall it's definitely faaarrrr too long, but this is a good listen in parts - organic samples were so much better than the 808 ticky-tack garbage dominating the 21st century. Not sure I rank this high as an album overall ... more like a <no pun intended> sample pack for late 20th century break beats and I probably won't ever put the full album on but I liked it enough to listen through, even with the length. Actually it's pretty great to do mindless work to - as evidenced by my last hour+... 7/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

It was weird how even just before the web age (which ruined all of our lives) there were ideas or opinions that somehow passed all over the place, for instance... why did seemingly "everyone" hate Adam Duritz (lead singer)? Was it just because of the unorthodox/weird way he danced in their videos [I'm gonna say for GenX the "music video age" lasted until/through the mid 90s]? In retrospect it might have been that Counting Crows somehow got big at the same time the sneering grunge DGAF attitude really became prevalent. I don't say "somehow" in a sarcastic manner; they're good/talented/worthy but their sincerity/earnestness - i'm sure called false in some corners - was in stark contrast to the Nirvana movement (fuck Nirvana btw; there was a lot of great grunge. I digress.). 1992/3 really was an awesome/fascinating time in music - you have the heavy guitar feedback of Pearl Jam/Nirvana/STP/Pumpkins etc that was massive and then at the same time you have this softer melodic introspective kind of rock (e.g. this, Dave Matthews). It was all pretty awesome tbh ... CAN'T WE ALL GET ALONG. Man us young GenXers could be such assholes back then. Anyways this album was everywhere for a long time - "Round Here" is a great song, great leadoff track - wow I don't think I'd heard this since the 90s. "Mr Jones" is the one that persists but the opening cut is my favourite. Overall this album holds up really well more than 30 (FUUUUUCK) years later; much more-so than a lot of others of the era. Good songs throughout even if it seems to drag us to the end jusssst a little bit. Simple production - almost minimalist but still with a very full sound - lets every instrument breathe. I feel like I'm enjoying this more now than I did when it came out (see: early 90s sneering GenXer...) and honestly this was one of the major omissions from the original book - absolutely should be in there. Great pick. 8/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Copying/pasting this segment from my previous Daft Punk review: While many of the songs ("songs") have something in it that sounds awesome ... none of the songs go anywhere. And yeah that might be the point and it might be cool listening to this as background while i'm working on something that weirdly requires concentration because even as some tracks are abrasive as hell....it's oddly not memorable. ..but in this case/album it's much worse - even longer and more repetitive... and what's the point of an EDM live album without visuals? Oooo I can almost hear them turning the resonance filter dials! Hard pass. 2/10 1 star. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Like Sparks... but less gay, less catchy, and less fun. Holy hell is this ponderous and too clever by half, e.g. The Past is a Grotesque Animal felt longer than the most interminable Tarkus-like epic from any of the early prog rock noodlings. It's not terrible as a whole and required some obvious talent but something about it constantly grates at me, and it's probably the self-reverential "ooo ain't I clever?!" aspect of the saccharine 5 part harmonies all over this. Didn't connect. 4/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Of significant import: that first "Monkey Wrench" riff is a direct ripoff of the Goo Goo Dolls cover of The Incredible Lance Diamond's cover of Prince's song "Never Take The Place of Your Man." Got that? So there. A step up in sound and vision from their first album - less a great-sounding demo and more of the power pop they're known for. It's typically Foo though with the "Foo Fraction" in significant effect, meaning that the singles are a big draw but the rest of it tends to disappoint a bit. Also not a fan of scream-vocals and Grohl starts to stretch that out here - any is too much, no thank you. They're truly a Greatest Hits band for me - "My Hero" and "Everlong" are definitely the best cuts here. TL;DR: It's a fun listen in parts but as seems to be the case with all Foo albums, the singles are by far the best songs. 5/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Nice to get some old rock outside of the standard UK/North American vortex - I had never heard of The Sports so no preconceived notions, although (and not a critique but) you can immediately place them into the late-70s. New wave rock along the lines of Elvis Costello meets Shoes meets Joe Jackson all with a little more slick production sheen. Easy enough to jump into - sounds a little dated as one would expect - outside of my potential ignorance [wait here's a legit cool fact - they opened up for Thin Lizzy at their classic Sydney Opera House show] there's nothing I would call historic or groundbreaking but definitely a fun listen, I could do this again. 7/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I definitely don't usually listen to much bluegrass/Americana and could accurately state that I don't much like the genres at all ... but I have to say this is quite good and not fully what I'd expected - there's some good variety from song to song. By the third song I had settled in, finding it excellent to work to. I'm more-partial to the non-vocal songs/parts - probably why it started clicking with the instrumental "Escanaba" - but the next few songs have such a different feel to them, e.g. "Stratosphere Blues / I Believe in You" that I found I was really coming around to this album. It is FAR too long, though. Probably should have ended after say 11 songs - not that the latter half is necessarily worse but again...74 minutes of this (or most albums, tbh) is probably twice what it needed to be. Still, this was a pleasant surprise for me - I definitely have a little bias against bluegrass vocals that I have to get by but this is probably one of the better examples I can remember. Nice addition that I would never have otherwise listened to. 7/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? too recent - no, but will be interesting to see where this sits in a decade.

Synthy dance pop isn't my fave so the cover kinda gives an impression on my mood upon reading the quick description this morning. It's pretty catchy though. Song-wise. I do have a real hard time getting by the production: e.g. that artificially-octaved-up voice that runs through so much of it would have been better off used on like...2 songs? rather than all of them; the occasional annoying dips into noise generation and glitchy bullshit ("dullscythe" makes me want to punch my speakers); and especially the side-chain pumping (overtly-noticeable (grating) on "Get Your Wish") - but I begrudgingly admit that it all sort of fits the genre. But fr wtf omg lol ... is all of this a symptom of this/our short-attention-span generation? I'm thinking too much about this, clearly, but jeeze - let a song breathe without having to concoct some Ableton effect nonsense. Holy hell it's distracting. Ok say something nice: even if the style and production isn't what I'd ordinarily (or ever) go for, the song composition and structures are actually good - full stop. It's just that all the <everything> is - again - super distracting as a listener. Which almost makes it more frustrating. I really do could see how ppl would like this, but for me these nice songs are way overdone and often ruined - they don't need the glitches and artificially pitched vocals. e.g. something like "Blossom" near the end of the (long) album would have been nice with just that acoustic guitar and a normal voice. 5/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Do the Welsh have something about odd band names? I definitely had a preconceived notion that has since been forgotten after 4 or 5 songs... I tried avoiding the geographic comparison but I really can't not hear a lot of Super Furry Animals as I'm listening to this album, and I....might like these guys more. This is great - melodic and dreamy with an undefinable touch of mystery; maybe that dreamlike quality in each song without going down too deep of any overly-emo/mbv route. As much as I've occasionally been annoyed by mostly-obscure one-offs in the user suggestions (I've harboured this perhaps unfair desire to have these albums primarily be glaring omissions from the original book and/or impactful in music history) I have to admit I've discovered more than a few that I'm surprised by - and will put <checks band name for the 3rd time> Boy Azooga near the top. The album drifts a little at the end but not enough to spoil a good listen. This is the kind of band I'd have liked to be part of - currently residing in the where-are-they-now file? I need more! I'll absolutely be listening to this one again. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Imagine spending 3+ years listening to some of the greatest art ever produced by the human race and then with merely one chance ... submitting this. 0/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? get out.

A band I'd heard of but I don't believe I've ever listened to an album; this was a long overdue undertaking. Rising/soaring melodies like the best of early Pumpkins, yet with an endless undercurrent of impending or approaching disaster...all without Billy Corgan's - or anyone's - voice. Bonus! I love it. Dynamics, and not in a lazy soft/loud/soft way but creative building and layering. The best parts are the quiet ones because of the anticipation. Have listened twice today already - not ready to give a 5 off the bat but I'm close, and I might revisit for a boost. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? for post rock importance - Yes.

I would never even call myself a Springsteen fan and definitely not much of a live album fan either so hopes weren't high....but I can't believe how much I'm loving this album. I would absolutely have removed 3 of the 5 (sheesh) albums of his from the original 1001 and put this on instead; I grew up being annoyed hearing about how "oh Bruce etc puts on a great show for 4 hours!" blah blah. Seemed interminable to me (actually still does), but after hearing this clear and powerful show I'm wondering how wrong I was. Plus it really does feel like a proper documentation of a show rather than a live album with bits and pieces from different shows, fade ins/outs, etc. Loaded with his better earlier-career material, it definitely feels like you're *there* and honestly one of the better live albums I've heard anywhere. 9/10 5 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes. Proper documentation of an act that made their reputation for live performances, why not this rather than his boring later career albums.

Couldn't get a handle on it. If you said it's joyful and melodic and inventive I couldn't argue. But if you also said it somehow doesn't stick in the brain and teeters dangerously on ... and then over ... the precipice of indie-whiny turn of the century Pitchfork slobbering-while-twirling-one's-thumb-in-their-own-ass bitchy rock you'd also be correct. The only true shocker perhaps is that they are Swedish and not from, say, Omaha, Nebraska. 4/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? In no way at all. No

This was a slow build for me; after 30 seconds I felt like this was going to be a boring slog and while I can't put my finger on what - if anything at all - changed after that, the general feel kinda hit. Obviously couldn't be more of-the-time in terms of sound, feel, and production, but maybe I had to dial into it and let it wash over me for a bit. Calling it "blues rock" doesn't really do it justice in any way at all as there's a lot more complexity and nuance behind these tunes. Good old Martin Birch behind the board on this one - that name brings back memories of my high school record collection :P Not sure how much I'd come back to it but it's a record you (I) could put on with the right company to set the proper chill beer drinking mood. :) 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Whoever said you can't judge a <> by its cover was clearly an idiot. This one is perfect. Oh! Would the user who submitted this please send me their address, I have something for you that I'll just quickly leave on your front porch - just make sure to wear your best shoes to the porch when the bell rings! JFC - you all have lost the plot. 0/10 IMO: Belonged in the book? gtfo

Why?? From the throwaway album cover to the annoying-overly-tuned vocals, this is a tough slog. To be fair, I've been a lot more open getting introduced to modern pop the last few years so I wasn't opposed to hearing this in theory. But man, this is just another boring and almost hilariously generic manufactured pop record that I will forget by the time I click Save below.... and I wrote that after 3 songs hoping I'd change my mind. Which I did: it got worse - wait, is this actually bad? Yes I think it is. Seems unfair to put this on the same level as misogynist and obnoxious tripe like Eminem, Limp Bisquit, Korn, Kid Rock etc but for me it's just as unlistenable. Wait wtf did you REALLY JUST COVER AN EDDIE MURPHY SONG hahahahaha. I'm absolutely knocking points off for it being a mass-produced construction with like 40 people on the credits. These albums are a dime a dozen and end up all sounding like whatever this is. No creativity whatsoever. *Yet again - the concept is completely lost by picking this album - like what you like but this belongs nowhere near a list of albums you must hear.* Back to the cover: that carpet does look comfortable, tho. 2/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

To be fair, these guys are really good at what they do and I'm familiar with a few of these cuts. I just really dislike virtually every aspect of it. No point in nitpicking and trying to convince the 3 people that read this why I don't like it, just that most of this entire genre is just eye-rolling to me even if this was so big it really should be in the book. 4/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? yes.

"Yeah baby - yeahhh!" An absolute slam-dunk for the original book that I am slightly put out that I'd personally forgotten about (in my only thinking within the pop/rock realm) but am honestly stunned it wasn't in there - absolute madness! This should be in a top 400 at worst of what everyone should hear at least once. Outstanding pick, fellow 1001er, and completely in line with the project. 9/10 5 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Absolutely yes.

The accordion is a vastly underrated badass instrument. I hadn't heard "Birdhouse In Your Soul" in a thousand years (yes I travel through time) and had forgotten the existence of this song - I like it infinitely more than I used to. An album packed with clever melodies that are at the same time both easily-accessible and complex - that's a tough trick to pull off well and they do; I think part of it is keeping the songs tight and short. I have to think Barenaked Ladies were totally influenced by this, especially on "Snacktime" - shut up it's awesome. I was definitely interested to hear this today as back when it was released I was *very much* not into this kind of music (but either way how was no TMBG album in the book??), but again I used to be stupid. Excellent work and a worthy addition. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Definitively the structure of jazz combo I enjoy, but am generally not as much a fan of jazz vocals. I'm getting there (thanks in part to the 1001+) so my grade would probably have been a full star less maybe 5 years ago but it still pulls this way back for me. The best part of this album is hearing the space - old recordings like this are so well-done and thought out that you really can hear the room and get a visualization of the group playing - so much more than albums with more instrumentation, technology, etc. Not that there's anything wrong with it at all - on the contrary it becomes a very refreshing (ironic, being that this is >60 years old) listen. Glad I heard this - I will say that I wrote that first paragraph after the first cut and it's interesting how the vocals [even though I still don't love or even like them :/ - if/when I start/stop the album I'm taken out of the trance so to speak] mostly sort of wash over me after a while and become just another instrument. Damn, I am getting old. TL;DR: Good enough album, although I would have liked it more as fully instrumental [apologies to Johnny Hartman, it's just still too schmalzy for me - maybe give me another 10 years and I'll be there] and it is a little more mellow/smooth than I usually like, but enjoyable and very peaceful to work to in the morning especially. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Maybe sounding like a more aggressive version of The Alarm with a dose of late 80s goth and all swimming in that 1989 rock sound? It took me a while to get into this but I liked it enough as it went on. Oddly unfamiliar with them, I feel like I would have given this more than a shot back when it was new and while I liked it and never had any moments of "ok that's enough" there was something dated about the sound that while it didn't deter me it also makes it not likely I'll return to it. Fave song: "225" Good album, very quality for/at the time, not opposed to hearing it again. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

First off - this one should have been in the book, probably over Black Holes and Revelations (ok both). It's where Muse becomes Muse. I've always been conflicted about this band: do I like them based on my long-ago prog/arena rock origins - i.e. loving the multiple shifting instruments/dynamics/tempos and theatrical majesty or are they just so dense and over the top ridiculous that I somewhat ironically adopt the critique I used to hate and feel like this is eye-rolling bloated bullshit? A bit of both. The vocals are so intrinsically a vital component of this band's sound that to criticize them is almost a close-the-book end point in trying to enjoy the music. Having said that... they really can approach being completely over the top. Fortunately they're not mixed too high and the worst of his excesses can (mostly) be ignored. Mostly ("Micro Cuts" is unlistenable to me due entirely to vocals). Enough critique - the riffs and complexity while still somewhat establishing a cool modern groove are definitely unique, right from the first cut. And as any band would want, they are definitively themselves (yeah there was always a Radiohead comparison but I think that's more Bellamy's vocals being akin to early Thom Yorke more than the music). I've written too much as usual - I think I should admit that while I sorta like this/them, I always want to like Muse more than I actually do and I think that desire slips a bit year by year. Each song usually has something that catches my ear but they've never had a perfect song start to finish; something along the way just makes me lose focus or something. Probably 10-15 years ago I liked them more than I do now. Hell, I don't know...3 stars and I'll probably think about this more than I should. 7/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Good on anyone and everyone that likes this - truly. Songs written by committee are not in and of themselves any less than any others but for me they always - always - end up pandering to a mass audience. This vocal processing (as a choice!?) sounds like a series of computer errors - it's hilarious. Also did this not just come out? I keep talking to myself here but I don't get why you spend 4-5 years listening to nearly a century of some of the best of what humans have created for fun and art and submit something that was released 20 minutes ago. No thank you to one of the more inorganic albums I've heard lately - terribly unlistenable and moving on quickly. 2/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Glad I stuck with this one - I didn't like the ticky-tack drum sounds right from the start which (to its credit) did not entirely disclose the diversity of sound to come. Instead of what I wrongly-judged might have been a banal and straightforward cookie-cutter pop/r&b type album went in a hundred different directions - soothing vocals and excellent melodies quickly grabbed my attention with jazz progressions I hadn't expected, and a lot of restraint in the compositions rather than exploding at any point. Overall a very nice surprise and someone I was unfamiliar with - I will definitely listen again. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No (too recent, again)

Gimmicky to the point of annoying me back in the day but when you (I) just listen to it [which, yes I understand is the entire point (is it?)] .... yeah it still sounds gimmicky somehow. I guess I'm not much a fan of mass-collaboration type albums. It's definitely a step up from their debut as the best songs ("Feel Good" "El Mañana") are quite worthy and elevate it overall, but the rest range from ok to boring to kind of shit. Feels way longer than the actual 50 minute runtime - I kept having to check how much longer I had. TL;DR: Give me 4 or 5 songs and then GTFO 5/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes - in place of the debut which made no sense.

OK while I don't like Jimmy Buffett's music I was thinking maybe you can't really tell the story of 20th century popular music and not at least mention the guy, right? Really should be given some notice in the book even if I don't know more than a few songs. And while I can see how some ppl would jive with this it is still not my thing. It's fine! Not offensive at all, just ... it's Buffett and not anything I didn't expect. Honestly that album cover kinda tells the story. Whether this is the album of his to put in the book or not is not a call I'm (ever) prepared to make but I'll make the assumption this is the one. 4/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes, sure.

I always missed out on Porcupine Tree - probably being in a transitional musical taste period after I'd stopped discovering longform space/progressive bands and had gotten more into synth/moody types etc so I'd always resisted the "oh since you liked these 70s prog bands you'll like <X>" recommendations (I still do). But this is nice - not perfect, as it's all just a little smooth for me to fully love it (parts are reminding me of 2nd-stage (or "safe") Marillion which zzzz) and it all ends up feeling a little too long an album for this overall style, but there's a huge sense of melody and occasional sonic nods to Pink Floyd that made this an enjoyable listen. I even (especially?) like Tinto Brass with its flute solos, despite all you freaks who disparage it. Flutes rock! 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Well - this was a choice. OK I wrote that only after glancing at the wiki page to discover this is a video game soundtrack [and I'm not at all familiar with this game - I've been staring at the cover, trying to figure out if there's any correlation at all - "giant objects smashed into some small gravitational field?" is best I can do...] what fresh hell could this sound like...putting sarcasm aside for a moment... ...and I kind of can't believe this wasn't an annoying listen. At all. In parts it was actually quite fun; there's some whimsical upbeat joy in here. After a while I'm just not sure how cohesive this is as an album and whether I'd be interested in actually listening beyond the curiosity factor again. Might be something that players of the game can really connect with more - I can only assume this game has a big audience. Overall I don't know...based on me reading what this album was before I started playing it I was ready to deliver some double-barrel snark but honestly it's not bad - give it a chance. Just not convinced in any way it's a mandatory listen but I can't believe I'm putting an easy 3 stars down for this! :D. 7/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No

I love the instrumentation used on this album - Rhodes keys, clear/clean guitar lines, organic-sounding drums/percussion - all of this matters and contributes to (or perhaps simply makes) the overall feel. The composition is done with tons of restraint; keeping the downtempo/chill mood throughout. Great balance of instrumental and vocals - I usually don't like guest vocals all over an album (I *really* don't like it - the question is why, I suppose - and perhaps because it never feels like a cohesive album but more a greatest hits / compilation type of collection) but I suppose it's something that I haven't noticed it as a negative thing here at all. The album overall delivers a perfect chill/calming ambience - I listened while working which works but could also see this either as soundtrack on/for a long drive or a Sunday morning coffee. While it wasn't enough for me to give a 5 as it kind of slows pace by the end, it's a definite keeper and one I'll be coming back to. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Professing complete ignorance in the impact of the group, I'll still say YES - this is one of the better-sounding examples of the genre I've heard.

On one hand I hate the slacker-rock sound and vibe, with drums sounding like they're recorded in a closet and the "i just woke up" style of vocals. I can/will almost never get by that vibe from an artist/album. On the other hand there's a lot that's catchy about this and I think much of it is due to the melodic and creative guitar playing/parts. Kinda different from the idea of the "guitar album" I was into in the 80s but just as impressive in some ways. Some head-turning chord progressions in what otherwise could have been simple tunes definitely keep this one moving forward. Never will be a favourite and ends atrociously with the coyote-howling "Still Together" jfc and I'm quite sure hearing just one or two of these in a mix would annoy me, but over the long haul (and it's not that long, clocking in at just over half an hour which is the right length for this) it was kinda catchy. Kinda. 5/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Bon Iver meets the Vocoder. I think most of what I hate around Bon Iver is the descriptions of his (their?) music; take this syrup of ipecac substitute from Apple Music: "...like the fire flickering inside the hearth of some rustic cabin..." GTFOandstoprightthere. Cannot deny the craft and care that goes into a project like this. But I never could get by his vocals at all when the music was of a simpler construction and so adding massive effects could have taken this either way for me; it went south and stayed there. Not happening. 3/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Ehh. I remember these guys and not sure whether I liked them or not but it sure sounds dated now. Hard to escape those late-80s sounds, and these drum sounds just dampen any vibe for me. I get and appreciate that they were an early influence in genre-melding but the industrial overload becomes monotonous to me in a hurry, and I'm not sure how good it actually is. Experimental but for a listening experience overall and even song to song it's not easy to get through. 4/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Holy hell this is fkd up. I remember "Spinal Meningitis" oh my god fever dream. Not sure I can "rank" this on/in a similar scale or vein to almost anyone else - Ween are so unique and weird and just their own thing. A goofier Zappa? I didn't know how to feel about the few songs I'd heard from them 30 years ago and it's almost more weird (and disturbing?) now. This...doesn't mean I don't like it though. In fact I might kind of love this? I was listening to "A Tear For Eddie" w/o looking at the title and thought "man this tone/vibe sounds a lot like Eddie Hazel and look at that - they nailed that one. I'm not sure it's fair to call this a novelty album because there was obviously a ton of thought and creativity put into it, but it's at least "novelty-adjacent" - I usually am put off by a humour-in-music type of act or album but the music is just too good here to ignore, virtually every song. Took me long enough but I finally get the hype of this album. 8/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Both the original and (thus far) user lists are severely lacking in Canadian content. A 2nd AOF album was not what I'd had in mind. I know for a fact that many people - I know some! - love the shout vocals, but call it a blind (or deaf <rimshot>) spot as it's an immediate 100% turn-off here. Awful. AOF has talent, as evidenced at least by the 2 (god not more please) albums on this list and if it were a fully-instrumental album I could have seen this as a 3 but there's just no fucking way. When will the lambs stop screaming ffs. 3/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I don't know what I expected, but it was not this. "This" being pretty damn awesome. For a non-Spanish speaker (me) I think it actually enhances the music that I have no idea what they're singing; the vocals just become an instrument which is how I prefer it anyways. There are a few points where the sounds are a bit dated and I feel this weird dichotomy of taste ... i.e. some of these guitar lines are killer, but then again it borrows too much from slightly cheesy 80s guitar histrionics. Not that there's anything wrong with that... see I'm going back and forth even now. The horn parts I don't like at all. Nitpicking - overall this was something I'd never heard of and was a fun and powerful (and *short* - a positive) rock album for the morning. 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Can't truly explain why but I could/can not get into this. There are echoes of some of the cooler 80s alternative bands and even other 21st century melodic freak-folk acts (hints of Animal Collective, occasional Fleet Foxes in harmony) but I couldn't latch onto any of these songs, even though there's nothing I actively disliked. Kind of washes over me. With slightly closer analysis, maybe it's that the entire composition (as a whole, but also per song) is akin to the Arcade Fire syndrome - no individual parts stick out, which makes it lose any sense of excitement or brooding or danger or fun. It's all just there in a cloudy wet mix. Blurry. Again, not "bad" but I'm left not even remembering what I just listened to. Lame review but not connecting. Chalking it up to not my thing. 5/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

The music and vocals are completely disconnected from each other, as if he's not even paying attention to the backing track. No sense of rhythm, completely disjointed.... in no way is this the kind of hip-hop I like. 1/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

This user list is starting to become 1001 Albums That Will Kill You. Version 312 of Singers Ruin Everything, although to be fair not sure anything could rescue this abortion. (we could, however, spare/rescue the guitar player; get him out, put him through a 5 step rock detox, and get him a songwriting team to work with but it won't be easy) jfc. 2/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? are you kidding

It would be easy to overthink this and try to analyze...except it's not. I'm starting to hate all of you. 💩🪠🚽🏴‍☠️ 1 dim star.

Being only familiar with "Electric Feel" I suppose I was anticipating something slightly different, but the first proper track ("Mother Nature") here gave me Elliot Smith meets old Kinks vibes - melodic and wistful, well-composed. Felt like that vibe carried on throughout the album (also coming in at a perfect running time of 45 minutes) and was both more relaxing and engaging than I'd expected. It's far too-recent to put a 2024 album in this [what i'd hoped would be a "more albums that have proved to be important to the history of popular music" but too-often ends up either a) hey i just like this random album or b) someone clearly taking the piss] list, but even-so I'm glad to have heard it. I don't know how revolutionary, unique, or influential anyone can yet say this is but in the end it's a nice and safe - and I mean that as a compliment - listen. 7/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Ha - nice try, mom. 1/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? Already subjected to one cookie-monster-diarrhea/vomit entry from them so clearly a No here.

Man these Welsh bands can get it. Just from memory: The Alarm, Super Furry Animals, Manic Street Preachers, and now finally Stereophonics who I somehow have mostly missed out on over the years. Giving strongest melodies of prime Manics but maybe a bit more accessible (not necessarily better...Everything Must Go is an all-time top 20 album for me). Hints of the Bends with elements of Oasis (but far better-sounding). I don't know if I'll go out of my way to call this revolutionary and there are a few points where the vocals get a little irritating (e.g. "Check My Eyelids for Holes") but this is a really good rock album. With The Bends getting all the press it did this should have gotten as much - especially being their debut. 8/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

A bit over my tolerance level for modern-ish metal; the thrash/aural-assault aspects of it are just not my taste. I'll give it up for great musicianship and there are some parts that catch my ear - some nods to heavy melodic prog and a bit of NWOBHM now and again. Made it through based on the mostly-not-screaming aspect of the vocals (early cookie monster would have had me hitting stop pretty quickly, they kindly held off for the most part until track 6...). Recognizing the skill and creativity but it's just not my thing at all, and/but probably something that would have been worthy of note in the book. 5/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

I don't know... I have this album, had a bit of a buzz and I tried to *really* like it for a while. Hints of Death Cab for Cutie in the vocals, pretty energetic melodic music without ever being overbearing, there's nothing I disliked. But I never came close to loving this - I suppose there's nothing wrong with that? They're just kind of.... Weezerish. Meh. I just never get any overwhelming (or underwhelming) sense of mystery, danger, emotion, or that indefinable magic that I'm looking for in my favourite music. It's a great "we're at a party" melodic rock album that I'll never reject but it's just sorta there. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

How the hell did this band not get an album in the book? Absolutely egregious ...I won't even call an oversight since they were huge and known everywhere, it's an overt omission. Now I 100% will take...almost any INXS album over this one - but especially Listen Like Thieves (their A+ work) and Shabooh Shoobah - without thinking twice but ok ok. This is the one that took them from known to superstardom so yeah it fits all the qualities for the book (seriously what the hell...?). Although to be honest I hated this album when it came out - off the heels of Listen Like Thieves this was too...dancey? Less of the rock (and dance, be honest) sound that got me into them originally. Now? I get it - it's a hit-factory of an album; "New Sensation" is definitely one that could have fit on the previous album (Listen Like Thieves). I still don't love it but I can enjoy it much more these days for sure; a lot of what I don't love is the *very* late 80s production which was really hard to avoid for any pop-rock artist then. It definitely brings this album down (seriously, listen to the album before this one - 5/5 banger). Found it a little difficult to rate; being my least-favourite from the band to that point my instinct was a 3...but it's really weird they never made the book and feels like I should be generous and give a legacy rating. Again, I would put any of their 3 previous albums over this in any sort of band ranking but you cannot tell the story of 80s music without this album - fullstop. Rounding up... Thank you unknown user for being one of the few this far to get the assignment right. 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes, emphatically.

Completely unfamiliar with this band - I *am* intrigued by the descriptions or progressive pop/rock and art rock. Also regarding the cover: is that a TARDIS? Seems a lot to uncover on there... Which also applies to the music - a few tracks in and I'm a little baffled. Not necessarily in a bad way, but these songs are partially accessible and melodic and yet all over the place - are there any choruses on these? Wild tempo and mood changes that bring Cardiacs to mind? Random thoughts: Vocals trending slightly towards a Mike Patton meets Billy Corgan...? "Fall Out" is a mashup of Muse, Tchaikovsky, Bowie, NIN, and TRex?? The guitar tones on "Legacy" remind me of The Outfield. Elements of The Mars Volta elsewhere. OK - I need a breath after this one. The biggest negative for me is that it's too long - no album that's not an explicit concept/story or in some way purposeful (soundtrack?) should hit the hour mark. Another is that the last song (maybe 2?) seems wildly out of place with the rest of the album - could/should have ended after track 11 to tighten it up (and see? Another problem solved -> 15 minutes shaved off the running time). But this is a bit of a holy shit record - active listening absolutely required. All I could do was try to lamely compare to other artists which in the moment seemed to fit but fell apart quickly as another turn in the music was always just around the corner. I'm gonna give this at least another listen and I reserve the right to revise things here if it doesn't hit me the same way but damn - this was so compelling that I have to give this high marks for creativity while still remaining more-than-listenable - this might be a keeper. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No

Not quite as bad as I wanted it to be but still remarkably, dramatically, and impressively terrible. 3/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I do like this cover. Why is this singer - who is from New Jersey - affecting a fake possibly-British accent? Ok this is all actually fine. I went in with not the best attitude after reading the description and honestly as it goes on it is better than I'd expected. There are some cool guitar riffs; more of which I'd have rather heard in an instrumental interlude, i.e. sans British-by-way-of-Rutgers vocals (jk jk to be fair the vocals aren't bad at all - I'd just like to have heard the music breathe a bit more). I can see the appeal; I appreciate mostly (mostly) steering away from low-fi punk and focusing on the melodies; there was a sameness to a bit of it overall although my interest actually perked up later in the album. My favourite was "Triumph" - those guys rocked (no, this song was great - I actually appreciate an album's flow much more if/when the 2nd half is elevated a bit). 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Easily one of my ~10 favourite albums of all-time which is probably conservative. I don't have to listen to the album (for the 200th time) to write this review, although I'll use it as an easy excuse to put it on yet again. Everything I love about music is encapsulated in this "too talented to hit it big / survive" album/band. Melody, harmony, dynamics, varied instrumentation, songwriting, give-you-chills choruses that blast in earlier than you'd expect (e.g. "Ghost At Number One"), absolutely pristine production and mixing and somehow all a fun listen. They learned from their influences which are *obvious* (Queen, Beach Boys, Beatles, Cheap Trick, etc) but to my ears have their own sound and copped very little (although yes the "ahhhHHHH!" in "All Is Forgiven" is a direct Queen ripo...er, homage, I love it.) Yeah one of the greatest albums ever that most people have likely not heard, but an album that influenced countless musicians (and engineers) afterwards, me included. This one changed everything for me - thanks to SM out there somewhere who introduced me to them. Favourite song/s: all of them. To the user who submitted this: this was my first choice album for putting on the list, so thank you for being out there as we all need validation. 10/10 5 stars Belonged in the book: hell yes.

So glad for you that you went through 3+ years of mostly history-defining music to put some youtuber's 15 minute EP of unserious "comedy" cringe fake power-emopop on here. 1/10 anything IMO: Belonged in the book? stop it.

Always a bit of a mystery that I really like this band/album when so many comparable acts make me roll my eyes with no shortage of arrogant scorn. Honestly these guys put together great musical progressions/melodies that truly hit. e.g. the song "Trasatlanticism" in particular is nice enough then that 2nd guitar chord hits in I suppose what passes for a chorus and bam I'm sold. If there's any potential negative it's that Ben Gibbard's voice gets old so quickly to me but weirdly the longer I listen to it it all comes back around again and I end up not even noticing. i.e. DC4C never worked for me in small/mix/playlist doses but I do love this album; precious lyrics/vocals and all. "Expo '86" and "Tiny Vessels" a few other standouts. I was ready to give this an easy 4 before settling in but I hadn't listened to it in a while and being the rare album that I'm almost not ready for it to end (not really, 45 minutes is plenty) with every song hitting on some different level, damn I'm realizing this is actually an easy 5 for me. 9/10 5 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Did they really not have an entry? wtf - YES to their best album.

I feel like I shouldn't like this - and I'm not yet sure if I do or not - but I certainly don't *not* like it (how's that for commitment). There are a lot of micro aspects that I usually don't like in a band...the laconic and almost-flat vocals, the simplicity of the clean guitar and progressions that almost echo a sonic youth or nirvana - two bands I loathe - and a bit of a sonic palette that hints at my bloody valentine (yet less seasick inducing) but then ....there is a Belle and Sebastian meets Neil Young vibe to some of it... and once I settle in there is something quite lovely about the overall sound, even if I'm still not a fan of the vocals. In the end I'd say that even though it is too long (keep it tight and 50 minutes max, people) this record is greater than the sum of its parts and that's a nice thing to say about an album . Giving a strong 3. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Almost annoyingly quirky; like a Spanish Moxy Fruvous shockingly with worse vocals but far less sexual harassment. Music was quite impressive in a way that still didn't connect with me at all although I somewhat appreciated the quarter-assed Spirit of Radio shout-out in "El Borrego" TL;DR: Diverse to a fault with Cartman-like vocals on many of the songs. 4/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes - based on its widespread appeal and impact.

Oh yeah I like this right away - somehow either don't remember or had never heard of them but right away there's a cool almost positive post-punk sound here, think an edgier <no pun intended, honest) early U2, Echo, or Alarm. While we've heard a lot of good early post-punk out of the UK throughout the book and beyond there's also been a lot of filler - this is as good as 90% of them. Strong 4 here for me - no skips on the album and will be a keeper. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Interesting choice - this came right on the heels of my listening to some heavier stuff today so this didn't hit me at all at first but as it went on it became a bit undeniable - I found it easy to let the gentle music and voice take over. If you'd told me this was released in 1970 I'd have believed it, other than the fact that it sounded so clear. I love the instrumentation [woodwinds and piano? in this day and age??] and the production - minimal but still delivering a large sound when needed. Her voice reminds me a little of Joanna Newsom without those harsh/piercing tones. Yeah this was a grower - really liked it much more than I'd have thought after the first few minutes. I'll listen again for sure. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

It's not my favourite style - a little repetitive for my liking - so it takes me a while to sort of warm up to it. I found myself getting much more into the instrumental jams (most of it) and honestly it's a nice chill overall piece to quietly work to. OK it grew on me a bit, but the samey-nature of it (e.g. end of track 4 into track 5 felt like "...is this the same song?") Not sure how often I'd put it on but wouldn't kick it out of the room, either. How's that for a non-committal review. 5/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Mixed bag at best for me - I like some of the music, most pointedly the smooth jazz influence early on. But at the risk of getting too in-the-weeds, I'm not really sure how best to describe this but I know it was a "feature" of a lot of late 90s gangsta rap but there's a lot of way behind the beat aspect to some of the songs. e.g. the first 2 minutes of "Walkin" - the percussion especially feels (IS) late. I know it's by design but why - I hate it. Also gets into trap type beats which bzzzzz nope. Idk, as a rapper he's pretty good - for the most part his rhythmic style is what I like, but I just don't love it. Also so many guests/features - yeah not my thing in any way. 4/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I almost actively-dislike modern country music. And I know the name Zach Bryan without (I don't think) having heard him; so yes: I pull this today and in conjunction with the lame cover I was petulantly ready to pre-judge it. But .... well. This isn't at all what I'd expected, whatever that was. Much more in the line of heartland / mellower Bruce Springsteen vibe. (I also almost reflexively reject guest vocals / features etc but I do love Kacey Musgraves) Broke a lot of stereotypes for me here - nothing seems overproduced, instrumentation is carefully arranged, dynamics used creatively. Not sure how much I will ever voluntarily play this again but I have to push against my biases and admit this was a pretty good album. Too long; would have been a bigger impact as a ~10 song set but props and this is a good example (for me) of giving everything a chance. Cover still sucks, though. 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? fk. I never think something new should be in there but probably Yes based on his impact.

... slandering the great sport of ping pong with this nonsense...smh... ok honestly this was not nearly the catastrophe I'd expected after reading the comments 😂. I mean some of you out there claim to like Limp Bizkit, Lou Reed, or Slipknot. I hope there are cures for that. Yeah this is a lot of noodly nonsense in a way but surprisingly to me this became a fun accompaniment to a long morning walk. Yeah the "songs" aren't so ...concise or well constructed. I don't know maybe I really was expecting a travesty but the playing was enjoyable. It's a different kind of experience. Sure this isn't the kind of album I'm really ever gonna put on - didn't like the whimsical parts but liked the music more than maybe I should have; seems like a very good band you'd hear at college springfest, sitting in a park. 6/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

(ugh - lost my entire boring 4 paragraph review twice...) sum: disco far too mechanized and silly to love but crafty-enough to appreciate. 5/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Definitely not much like Kimono My House - a surprise find for me from the original 1001+ list - this disco-synth collection didn't (doesn't?) hit me at all the same way, and for a bit treaded dangerously close to annoying territory. It's the vocals which obviously are the same as on the previously-mentioned album but whereas they seemed humorously campy there, here they distract. I will say on a very positive note that some of these synth lines/sounds are tremendous and very 1979 in the best possible way. What drags this to the dreaded boring level is the rhythm, in/on every song. The same repetitive disco beat without any variance or creativity. I might have liked more with organic and human drums/percussion but I guess that wasnt what they were going for. Ironically sounds like they were belatedly following trends here. Unfortunate pass. 3/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I don't know...sometimes it's really really hard to not be glib about stuff like this ... hell, it might objectively be interesting to watch ppl recreate these sounds/tracks live ("live") but putting it on an album to listen to at home/car/whatever and additionally having the audacity to take your one shot and put it on a list like this is a few steps over the biggest cliff for me. TL; DR: Noise. Dumb. 1/10 1 star. IMO: Belonged in the book? Count Basie, Paul McCartney, and Stevie Wonder are in the book. These hacks? GTFO.

The music kicks with that 90s guitar emphasis - hearing a lot of influences; almost a little Maidenesque melody but with some thrashy double-kicks (not my favourite but it's used sparingly) wrapped in a punk wrapper? What bugged me most wasn't necessarily the vocals themselves but the mix - completely raw/dry which immediately came off as too jarring. Although after about 4 songs I got a bit more used to it, I'd still have lowered them in the mix a touch and added the hintiest hint of delay on them. Interesting to be sure - had never heard of these guys and reading up on the album's topics makes them even more interesting. Felt a bit longer than the actual overall runtime, that might be on me. Feels like a band that I'd enjoy live - good musicianship and you can tell they've gathered influences from a lot of genres. Terrible cover tho - like...what?? :P 7/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

According to the BBC, as of 2005 Status Quo had more charting singles in the UK than any other band in history. ....? The 10th best selling group of all-time on the UK charts - what?? Coming from a North American perspective I don't know if I can name anything from them other than Pictures of Matchstick Men which for my generation probably got a lot more play from the Camper Van Beethoven version. Not slagging on them in any way; it's just an interesting thing how an act can be massive in UK and a trivia question in another. So before even listening and hearing that this was the album that started a run of *29* straight albums on the charts (!), I'm thinking this was a weird omission from the (UK-based/biased!) book - marking as a "should've been in it" before even listening... Well... I guess you have to listen thru the lens of the early 70s. My primary issue is that the singer is not good. And I'm not a big boogie-rock fan. OK track 3 "A Year" is kinda nice; good and welcomed change of pace. "Big Fat Mama?" huhhuh <insert Beavis and Butthead here> and yikes. In the 70s we just didn't pay attention to this I guess? (cue: Fat Bottomed Girls). To be fair, the music isn't terrible on that *yeeeesh* song and the next few songs were a little more diverse - definitely needed. I enjoyed the guitar lines on "All The Reasons" well-enough. That Roadhouse Blues cover is egregious, tho. Woof. And I don't even like The Doors. Sure it's meat (not exactly Kobe Beef either) and potatoes and I'm not sure this ages well in many (any?) ways, but someone had to start this back then and in 1972 it probably worked. I'm never gonna throw this on again, don't really like it all that much, but some credit for apparently connecting with an absolute shit-tonne of people in the UK. 3/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yeah, I mean....they needed some representation in the book even if they're meh.

Yeah I remember this album - immediately these slacker vocals are gonna be a huge problem. Only lying a rung or 2 below cookie monster vocals for most annoying turn-off for modern music. And in the end yeah - this would have been far better as a post-rock instrumental delivering. I almost even love this music but these vocals are killing me; if it doesn't bug you or you're even into it this could be a top album for you, but it's a stopper for me. Giving credit but not sure I could listen to this again. 5/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Goddamn I adore this album. One of those rare records I can put on and immediately brings me back to an easier time. Man this band were enjoyable and this album is such a nice debut - and even though I became even more of a fan of their second album ("Blind"), I think in retrospect Blind may have had higher peaks but this was the more consistently-listenable album. Such a short career; Harriet Wheeler had (has?) the perfect voice for these songs and I always wondered why they packed it in. Their 3rd album was pretty mid as they drifted away from this sound. I guess how much more can you do with the heavy chorus-laden clean guitar arpeggios of the first two albums... Excellent interplay between shimmering guitars and upper register bass playing; not sure if it was a happy accident or outstanding preproduction but they all matched perfectly together. Digress...digress... what a great pick, one of my favourites of the era, and a rare album/band where not only do I tolerate the vocals they are the best part of a nice package. Nothing but great memories and things to say about it. 9/10 5 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

The perfect soundtrack for solo urban hiking. More of a vibe than anything - repetitive yet compelling over the long haul. 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I remember this release being a big deal as a kid but being far too preoccupied with Rush's new album to pay it any attention, barring snickers at the cover in mall record stores. I probably haven't heard this in decades and didn't remember much, but one positive note could be this could have turned out as a better final (full) Floyd album than The Final Cut. I can't say I tried too hard to follow any of the lyrics, but as usual with Waters it's too much twaddle. Music mostly fine but of course I would always prefer Gilmour over Clapton in every sense (a. not a fan of his playing also b. these two twats were/are perfect for each other). At any rate when it gets going it rarely has a chance to breathe what with Waters taking on multiple characters, etc. Slightly hypocritical from me as I love (the idea of) a concept album now and again but was it too much to ask for even an overture? I think in the end there's a comfort in some of the Floyd-like familiarity (you can absolutely hear which parts were written in the same period as The Wall) which makes it a relatively easy play, but not much is memorable and by mid-album it has become ponderous. Again, I'll blame Clapton. Seems like a straight up-the-middle 3. 5/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Great call - this one got a ton of play in our house on release. I don't even know if I can pinpoint exactly why I loved this particular album of theirs; from memory it wasn't that much different from other Shins albums I heard but I never connected with them. Probably just as simple as *these songs are far better*. Album is recorded simply and yet really well - everything clear and almost shimmering. Headphones reveal a few subtle things I had never heard (e.g. ukulele in "Australia"). Excellent mix of instruments / i.e. great production, some accessible yet unexpected chords, melodies, and progressions. Good diversity in mood/tempo/feel between songs. AND all coming in at a crisp 41 minutes. This was a pretty big INDIE (annoying) deal for a few years as well as crossing over beyond the usual bullshit Pitchfork pandering. I had almost forgotten about this album to my detriment and am kind of surprised it wasn't in later book editions - I think quite worthy aside from the fact that I love it. Brings back good memories too. Fave song: Sea Legs. 9/10 5 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

I'm gonna play "100% Spin" for my 90 year old aunt. I can't be the only one who expected something 180º away from what this actually sounded like. His voice is really rough and is the obvious potential (or real) turn-off - I actually think he might(?) have a decent voice, he's just obviously going for a punk sound/edge which probably works much better in a live setting. I just don't know how much it actually matches the singular acoustic here. Speaking of which, that's some seriously nimble finger picking on the guitar here. Impressive. Overall, there's something here - I don't really like it, but he might turn my head in a bar. 5/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Greatest hits albums are cheating. 3-4 hour greatest hits albums are the ultimate in trolling. I got through a little bit of this - these vocals are terrible. The music was fine but pretty rudimentary. Was up for something new/different, but aside from this just going against the idea of the albums... it's fairly lame. Not the worst music I've heard but for purposes of ranking in the 5 star system here, it's not really an album. 1 it is. 3/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Summer 1994: immediately after a show my band had finished I recall talking with some people and this girl walked over and with no introduction immediately started talking about "Sunny Day" - just that: Sunny Day. Over and over. I'm not sure I said a word as she kept on about them like she was a Gentleman of Verona and as I had no idea what she was talking about I kept thinking "hey yeah um you know we just played a show right here..." but Sunny Day ad infinitum it was to be. She was one of those people that looked at you with wide eyes and stared at some phantom spot roughly 3cm above your eyebrows. Definitely best to just gently smile and nod, giving no personal information while interjecting nothing above a low-level positive affirmation. Not a week later in another town far away I finally saw the album cover and connected the autistic dots. Always harboured some blame towards the band for that weird evening - with good reason, I thought. OK I hadn't listened to this in ages - "picking up the mantle from Nirvana" is an annoying tag in and of itself and furthermore not something I'd ever have been interested in hearing, but SUNNY DAY were definitely leaps above. I hate the (infrequent) screaming parts but the dynamics and melody mostly carry the day here. Strong Pumpkins vibe on the guitar sounds - from thick to gentle within a measure. Even though it feels even longer than its runtime (this would have been a perfect ~42 minute album) I enjoyed this far more than I did 30 years ago. Embracing my emo-self moving through middle age... 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

This one was actually always such a disappointment for me. Their debut was and is one of my very favourite albums of the era (if not ever), and I was so excited for this release.... but it was mostly just disjointed and inaccessible. The musicianship is still there, and maybe even more so. It's the songs. They definitely carry more of their thrash/hardcore tendencies into this one and I just never thought it translated into decent (enough) songs, at least nowhere like their perfect debut. Notable exception is "Type" which is exactly how I would have loved this entire album to head towards. Hard for me to give a "bad" mark to this band because I love their (funny) vibe and there are parts of each song that are interesting to listen to but outside the great "Type" and maybe a handful of others (mostly in the much better second half of a too-long album, which maybe should have just released the second half? Start at Type and you've got a tight second album!) it's mostly not that memorable, certainly a step down from "Vivid." 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

This album makes me happy. It's not necessarily beyond description - cinematic, grandiose, majestic, joyous all apply. There's such a strong 80s influence overall to say the least but with better sound. Killer melodies throughout, all while retaining a (happy?) dreamlike state. The album sounds huge yet intimate which seems impossible. The biggest negative is it's just far too long. I know there's a (loose at best) concept or theme running through it but for me to give a 5 I'm needing like a Quadrophenia / Lamb Lies Down concept and more of a musical path/variety. Should have cut into 2 albums (not necessarily dropped anything because I don't know if there was a track I didn't enjoy) and dropped 9 months apart. (also some of the cheaper drum machine/synthed drums stick out in a less-great way since the drums sound great on many other songs. Minor nitpicks admittedly.) Overall a definite keeper for me. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes but with a side-eye at the length.

Not sure how influential or impactful this was but it was a good listen. The album title is spot-on - I love the jazzy soul music and laid-back raps/vocals. Feels like I write this for the majority of albums in the CD age but it's just too long - 40-45 minutes here would have been ideal, especially in/for this genre. Sum: still this is a great mood record and fantastic morning/work album, I'll definitely listen again. 7/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Jesus, this is rubbish. Oh look who helped out: it's edgelord Steve Albini what a shocker - hope he's eating his own shit in hell, which is exactly what this album sounds like. 2/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? lol no.

I have never uttered anything remotely close to: "this song is so much better because of these bagpipes" nor will I. Based on the description of this album I was hoping for something a lot better. However.... there's a lot to be said for slogging through some of the shit (insert some sort of Shawshank Redemption prison escape reference here....). The first two tracks were absolutely dreadful but I'll admit the 3rd ["Cacophony No. A"] brought *something* to the table when I was ready to give up. "Autocade" is just nice - maybe the vocals need to stick with the woman and they should have kicked the other one to the curb. Overall though - unspectacular and at times irritating as hell but with some actual almost-gems within. Boosted my rating from a low 1 to "ehh." 5/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Fraudulent cover alert: that's a western/BC mountain up there you can't fool me just dropping a peak into Ontario... ;P I know I listened to some Hayden years ago but either I've changed a lot or this wasn't it, because I feel like I'd have remembered being aggravated by these vocals. I legitimately like the gentle acoustic playing - actually does seem appropriate for a Northern Ontario cottage but.... man...the mumble-singing is overpowering. 4/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Ohhhh shit - I remember leading my Legions into this Hall and while using my +3 long sword against this so-called Mountain King on the cover I rolled a 19 on my d20, cleaving his skull right through his crown and I smote him down right then and there on that throne, earning 500 experience points and all the sweet sweet treasure.... I bellowed out heavy metal screams that could be heard Beyond the Doors of the Dark. ...but I got cocky. My fatal mistake and now-obvious Prelude to Madness was my dumping all the gold in that chest on the marble floor and reveling/rolling around in it when suddenly that fucking dwarf cleric who I had TRUSTED to GET US INTO THE HALL a mere 24 Hrs Ago took that axe right there and cleaved me in the goddamn back figuratively and literally and stole it all for himself. As he was running away and my blood and hit points were rapidly spilling away I feebly crawled to the open spell-book, and in a desperate gasp I read aloud the only thing I could see before my eyes blackened. As he and my brief treasure were quickly borne away on the Strange Wings of the King's White Witch, I pitifully and lamely realized I had turned myself into a lonely gelatinous cube. Knowing this was my Last Dawn, my campaign and life were over. Such is The Price You Pay being chaotic evil. TL;DR: Devastation. 5/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes - we probably needed more 80s metal in the book due to influence.

Yeah I hated this. Hip-hop that's so detached from the rhythm of the music/songs always frustrates the hell out of me. And I didn't even like the music. Hell, I don't even think he has a good voice either. Sure I can appreciate he is able to do these verbal gymnastics, something I 100% cannot do, but it loses all ties to the music when you're just spitting out words. See also: Eminem. I know somehow this got great reviews and was on all these lists blah blah but ... it's more than just kinda dumb? Skits suck. I'll never listen again. 2/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? I don't get it but sure, yes.

Upon first opening I thought this was literally going to be a campy Bert Lancaster album from the 50s. I would have enjoyed it more. Ehh. Maybe this is a nostalgic pick for whomever which I would understand in theory. But for your one selection...? Why? Maybe there's a history that I don't know, although the wiki page is rudimentary at best so I'm doubting it. Truly unremarkable by-the-numbers 4 piece jangle ska-ish rock from the 80s that sounds more like a 4 track demo than any sort of major release. 3/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

User album 225 and the THIRD from this precious soul?? No. Aside: whomever writes the Apple Music summaries/descriptions of his albums is like Mel from Flight of the Conchords. I don't care who got their choice in first, 3 is an assault and I will not stand for it. It's his vocals. I'm not gonna get basic and scream "he sucks!" because obviously it's all subjective and he does not suck, but I don't like him [I've no idea maybe he's a wonderful guy I don't care] or his music. Ok the music can approach being nice and creative - although jeez it quickly becomes too dense. Ah I don't know, I'm not writing this again - OR MAYBE I AM if one of you fuckers tortures me with another sad milquetoast coffee album of his why don't you just force another goddamn Lou Reed or Leonard Cohen on me and pour lemon juice in my eyes and stab my ears with q-tips dipped in tabasco sauce while you're at it, hell go all the way - I listened through, got frustrated, did and do not like. 3/10 2 stars. Saved from a 1 in that it was relatively short. IMO: Belonged in the book? No, one [I'd reluctantly say his first could go] would be more than enough for this guy. Stop.

I saw Marillion back in the Fish days, one of my first concerts - weird as hell, cool touches of prog while being melodically accessible. Loved 'em. Then Fish left and the new guy came in and I bought the first album Seasons End and was bored. I know they've had a shockingly long career since and I had friends who insisted that "H" (come on, get a proper name like the old fella) brought more to the band but I didn't hear it and gave up on them while still keeping all the original Marillion albums. Older and willing to re-evaluate [but only going with the original album of 8 songs...]... And it's nice. Just that - nice. I'm just pretty sure I don't like it all that much - there are many melodic smooth touches, more than a few should-be-fun odd time signatures early on, always loved Steve Rothery's guitar tone.... I just don't really connect with any of it. This is exactly how I remembered feeling about Seasons End. It's neither proggy nor pop - it becomes ponderous and just ... there. Perhaps it's unfair to compare a band/act/etc to their own previous incarnation, especially for this band that has lasted decades longer than in their original form but it's hard not to, even if the band's music was/is essentially completely different from the first era. What I (mostly) enjoyed about original Marillion was the danger and very thinly-veiled madness of Fish which all came out in the songs. Gimme Misplaced Childhood or parts of Clutching at Straws any day. Here it's just ... safe. I really want to like this more than I do - I wouldn't be mad hearing any of this, but wouldn't go out of my way for it either. 5/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

What is truly Unthinkable is having 3 albums by The Fall on the list alone and having the sheer brass balls thinking oh no we need more of this rubbish. Fine, you sadist, I listened. Shocking: it is terrible in the exact way every single other thing I've heard from them is. Some riff or 4 bar phrase, repeat for 3.5 minutes, stuff a sock in Mark Smith's gob after he's black-out drunk, and press record. We have Lou Reed and Iggy Pop at home and they both suck so why the curbside version which is actually much worse? 2/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Tightly-played at a frenetic pace... I just have no love whatsoever for this music. 4/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I honestly thought I was going to simply hate this, but I actually underrated how impactful this was going to be... Taking nearly every single micro aspect of music that I loathe and mashing them together within 30 seconds is actually something I should perversely give credit to. Uninspired and soulless techno, fake cannon-sounding drums, everything quantized, compressed to bits, and cookie monster screaming for mommy over the top to give it that *edge* all in one package! Easily in my 10 worst albums in the 1089+200odd user picks. Unlistenable. 0/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Any comparison to Rage Against the Machine is weak at best. Artificial shitty canned production, screaming for the sake of screaming. I don't give a shit how much I might agree with "the message" - unlistenable. 0/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I like it - not sure I'd heard this one, being released while I was in my prog metal youth so I absolutely would have kicked it at the time. There's a pervasive mysterious gloom throughout the album that really hits me now. Feels like a full piece of music rather than individual songs. A little long but again it feels right to sit this one through in one go. Preferably in a darkened room. Definitely coming back to this one. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Not sure we needed another D Mode album in the book so no.

First impressions: the music draws me in but the vocals might take some getting used to. She's not bad at all - in fact, quite decent - but there's that modern style of so-called "cursive singing" that takes me a few songs before I'm dialled-in and can then ignore it (see also: Noah Kahan, Lana del Rey, Lorde, etc). OK what I like about this overall are gentle melodies, piano focused, nice harmonies, smooth production without ever going over the top. Her voice doesn't take that affectation as heavily as I'd feared, it's just a little too precious and low-key for the duration which makes it feel a bit longer than it actually is (just 45 minutes? felt almost 2x that - maybe it's the 14 songs?). TL;DR: it's nice - I see the appeal and you could do a lot worse in modern music, she has serious talent. Wouldn't reject it, but not necessarily a favourite. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Well it's different, I'll give you that. I liked it quite a bit until the screaming - honestly what the fuck. Thankfully it doesn't last long [edit: AT FIRST. fuuuk...stop] but would have preferred it near the back end of the record - gave me a bad taste off the bat for no reason. Like sprinkling durian flakes on top of a delicious Reese's Blizzard. The best of this is honestly pretty cool. Some post-rock vibes giving me a Slint vibe with jazz elements sprinkled all over. There are mood it drifts between that give this a great true album feel. But the screaming... 5/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I was just struggling with the modern "cursive singing" a few albums ago and this might be the most immediately cringey version of it I've heard. Wish I could link to it but kudos to the fellow reviewer who said his vocals sound like he's caught in an electric fence and constantly getting zapped. Ok fine it's a style, he went for it and got it. As for the overall package it's more than a bit overdone for me. Tiring. Firm pass. 3/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? ?????? FOR AT LEAST THE 200TH TIME: The vast majority of you either didn't understand or are actively ignoring the assignment. In the great and nearly unlimited work of musical art produced by humanity over the past *100 years* and with so much of it having a massive impact on society .... how do we choose small personal-favourite albums as our one singular "you must hear this before you die" selection that you felt was missing from the original list. I don't understand. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul. (Ok, ok, of course it's just 40 minutes out of my life. A simple "No" would probably do here.) NO.

I've heard about Steven Wilson for years but never really got into his work at all; growing up on old prog is/was a big deal for me but I find nearly all attempts at modern prog to be overwrought, overproduced, all technical and flat-out boring [related: Brass Camel is a notable modern awesome prog-adjacent band - my current fave live act]. The Apple Music description of making comparisons to a modern-day 2112 or The Wall is bold. This one has something for sure - dense but fascinating. Musically I do hear echoes of The Wall without the anger; more the delicate touches. The story is interesting where/when I follow it [nice to step away from fantastical ideas in prog and offer a very real human story] but the music is always more important to me. If I'm nitpicking I do wish there were more of a musical motif/theme at times, that catchy hook, but that's also not really the point of this work. Not yet ready to give this a 5 as it's a lot to work through for a first listen but it's pretty damn great and special note for the final track "Happy Returns" - holy hell: a very powerful and worthy end to this work - gave me chills. I will definitely give this repeat listens. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes. Feels like Steven Wilson should have been represented and this is a good example of how a modern progressive rock album could or should be.

I don't like most pop-punk - it's mostly the bitchy-whiny vocals that are the biggest turn off but also the too-huge compressed wall of sound and forced aggressive tempos that don't seem to match the melodic nature of it all. And that there is the frustrating part - there is a lot of melody inherent in the genre so the best of it I'll enjoy on occasion or usually just one off songs [...although honestly very early Goo Goo Dolls is ... wait, is there not a Goo album on this list what the actual ffff?? - anyways GGDs albums like Hold Me Up and especially Superstar Car Wash are amazing and on the pop punk edge without either whiny vox (ok Robbie's vox are def whiny) or shitty production. Serious digression... but seriously that's an absurd omission...]. blahblah - belaboured point that only I will read but there *are* excellent melodies on this album. I only/mostly feel like I would have liked nearly every one of these songs a lot more if recorded by someone else. Ok - take the song "Twentythree" - this is just manic for the sake of being manic - is that bad songwriting or more likely bad production? I don't know - the melodies are good but the absolutely frenetic double time not only isn't necessary it completely detracts from the song - it sounds like the drummer is pranking the band and it's terrible. But.... then you have that chorus on the title track which is really really good - just explodes in the best way - but I still can't get all the way there to loving it. So do I hate this? Do I like it?? I don't even know. I'll cop out. Feels like if you like pop-punk you'll love this record. 5/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Sorta hardcore, sorta pop punk adjacent...sigh. A few moments of interest (the terribly-named UNDERWATER BOI is - despite itself - quite nice. more of that!), but mostly filled with overproduced and compressed chunked guitars as nearly all modern rock seems to be. Not catching my ears. And shut the fuk up with scream vocals already. I could never have expected so many user submissions to "feature" this. Shoot me. TL;DR: it's not the worst I've heard, but this user submission list is also giving me a giant cesspool to choose from. My disappointment continues on... 4/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Eh. Would bet on them being quite fun live. The album doesn't completely do it for me though. It's ok but the vocals are immediately tiring and it doesn't get any better. Any sort of variety there would have boosted this but it's too much for me. 5/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

These old Newfies. I can definitely appreciate them more now than when they started out. They may not still be to my exact tastes but I can appreciate how well they dialed into their heritage - i.e. if you've never heard them you can easily get some ideas where they're from (i.e. you're probably not writing a good sea shanty from Saskatchewan...). Feel-good music that wears a little on me but still kinda feels authentic. It won't ever be a favourite of mine but they were sufficiently huge and this album definitely put them onto most people's (Canada/N America) radar that it would/should have been a very worthy addition to the book. 7/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

I went back to read my long-ago (4 years!) review of his debut which I have down as a strong 3. Because this album confuses me - I had a similar confusion as to whether I liked/tolerated/hated that one but clearly steered towards the higher end. Not feeling it here. The hyper-affected vocals and autotuned "regular" voice right in the first few minutes aren't just nitpicking - they affect (and *are*) the music. Done by design and I can appreciate that, I just don't like it. The music gets better after those first 2 cuts though, and a bit less of the vocal manipulation which was distracting...but the lyrics become stupid distracting. The music "Solo" is really nice. Or should be, but these lyrics are just... come on. And the rest of the album is like that.... dammit, this gets maddening. Praise for this album seems like pandering - do you really identify with the lyrics? I feel like I write this once a week but if/when I'm noticing lyrics most of the time it's because they're ridiculous. These are patently ridiculous. I don't know, I feel like I'm making stupid real-time excuses for something I don't really like much and don't have to. It's frustrating because there are some nice melodies in almost every song here but it all feels incomplete "SMOKE!" sorry i just Tourettes'd that in there "HAZE!" sorry sorry again. Most of the songs feel unfinished and by the time I'm near the end (BUT I'M NOT this album feels longer than it is, which is already too long) I'm fed up. Mumble-vocals on the last song is the last straw. yeah I do not like this at all. 3/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Doesn't need 2 in the book so no.

I can't believe I'm saying this but the bass is mixed way way too loud. I love - cherish, even :P - bass. I eventually got used to it, I guess, but it was/is initially overwhelming here. On the whole, though, it's nice to hear a jazz combo just being a jazz combo. I'm nowhere near intelligent/knowledgeable enough to comment on any of the detailed forms within but I just know i like this and will definitely listen again, although maybe while EQing those low frequencies a bit :P [personal unimportant note -> my first reaction was thank fk for at least one day away from the seemingly nonstop prattle of pop-punk and precious indie artists from the last decade. Which is unfair but it's been a month of this - yeesh - and likely this had a positive effect on my rating here...] 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

meh. 4/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

First verse in the first song I swear I thought they sounded like ABBA - <looks at wikipedia page> well look at that: Swedish. ABBA meets the Go-Gos with a dash of country vocal melodies. It's not really super unique or groundbreaking but doesn't have to be. This would have fit right into the early 80s, kind of a simple/easy/nice throwback sound that's not too complicated. Favourite song: "Neon Lights" 7/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Wild. My initial thoughts are at either extreme: they sound like a modern version of classic Gong <applause> but also this album sounds like dogshit processed through a cheese grater. Took me about 12 minutes to figure out I wasn't still on the first song - the entire album is a loop which is a cool concept in theory [years ago my band tried this live at a gig; had an 8 song set and composed transitions for everything so it was one continuous ~40 minute set. We broke up soon after.]. Honestly it gets a little exhausting ... mostly because the tempo rarely varies over the first 4 songs and there isn't much difference at all between songs. Finally once we get to "Mr. Beat" it changes up *a little*... Why is the sound so bad on this album dammit. Impressive to be sure - love the talent / creativity and I'd been looking for a way into this band but I'm not yet sure this was it for me. I honestly think the mix tires my ears and in conjunction with the endless frenetic pace puts it just over my threshold. I bet this is great live, though. I'll try another of theirs. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

This old racist? Hell nah. 3/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

LOL - this album cover is something else. I know this isn't gonna be for everyone and it might not always be for me, but I was in the right mood - I liked (most of) it. Progressive jazz rock coming out of the 60s - love the flute! Actually all of the instrumentation made it stand out; lack of guitars and focus on piano and harmonies to carry the tunes - odd timings galore. I'm not sure it's exactly catchy but I still was engaged for most of the 36 minutes. Track 2 is giving me strong Blood Sweat and Tears vibes. Obviously a long long ago throwback, but harkens to a different time in popular music (aside: was this popular? I'm not familiar with Hungarian charts...). Wavering between 3 and 4 but it's unique enough amongst the latest wave of pop punk and compressed loud nonsense - boosting to a 4. 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Yeah I am not a B-52s fan. It's all about the vocals - there has rarely been a more annoying sound in pop history than hearing Fred Schneider yelling in your ears. The only saving grace here is that Rock Lobster is *not* on this album and it was only 34 minutes out of my life. Some cool guitar in here, shame it was wasted in this group. 4/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Interesting and cool to listen to, just not that memorable for me. I can always sincerely appreciate the talent of every version of King Crimson - these 3 (Fripp/Bruford/Wetton) in particular have cemented their legacies across countless bands and even genres. I've heard this album before, it probably has a better chance of bearing fruit (or driving one nuts, depending on your taste) upon repeated listens, but it kind of tires me out. I can definitely see the appeal, but I think a lot comes down to the fact that I just wish I liked this band more or that they had written better songs, rather than a ton of cool parts. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Screaming and garbage-sounding replacement cannon-sounding double kick-drums. That sounds like a 1 to me. Wait, he stopped screaming and is trying to sing. I almost miss the screaming. 2/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Songs are interesting and melodic and while it's certainly a unique choice to pair with noise/glitch/at-times brutal electronic distortion, I don't particularly like it. It's a bit frustrating in that I feel like I could have loved an alternate-world version of this where it is almost a dream pop album. Definitely see the appeal for noise enthusiasts with an ear for melody and harmonies, but it's a tough sled here. 5/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

It couldn't come at a better time. Easily one of the most egregious oversights in the book [I was set on submitting this myself]; the band practically have their own industry in Canada and it all exploded with this one. Nearly every song has been heard on radio for the past 35 (!!) years, and are still in regular rotation. I could go on and on about buying this upon release at Sam the Record Man and the various phases of life where or when these songs would have some weird correlation for me. Top 5 favourite album of all-time here in terms of impact and how often it's been played (although it's a tossup between this and Day For Night in their catalogue). 10/10 5 stars no further notes. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes

On a Tuesday in 1993 I waited in line before midnight at Tower Records to buy this album (and Rush's Counterparts) on day-of-release. Yeah the good old days really was quite fun - a social gathering of young GenXers all congregating for a common interest while looking suspiciously at one another. I miss those days. This album delivered - kicks ass and with the highest highs even exceeded their debut. I think I like it even better today. The band were never the same for me after this one but that's ok [they were so much better than Nirvana - death does wonders for a reputation...], and even if this album didn't necessarily push the genre to different places it's still a most enjoyable throwback listen. And 2 all-time great albums to start a career is a rare feat indeed. Best track: Rearviewmirror. 10/10 5 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

This is an eclectic one - it took me a few songs to kind of dial into her voice which is unique but it works well enough for her music. Cross of a lot of genres yet at the same time is cohesive. A few points where it sounds grating - not necessarily on her but maybe the mix (that guitar sound in the title track is a choice, and a terrible one. "give me the buzzing bee sound....") which makes it not the smoothest start-to-finish. Nitpicking to be sure and she has a great talent for bringing what sound like old songs (all but one an original, and that cover is really good "Trials, Troubles, Tribulations") into the present day. Personal rating notwithstanding, this would be a worthy addition to the book. 7/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

I've never really liked Weezer but what the hell - this was an overt omission from the book, come on. The album was bigger than huge and had an immediate impact, especially on most of GenX. We were still watching music videos back in '94 ffs. I've probably softened a little on them over the years and they definitely have a knack for catchy melodies, plus they (and/or their engineering crew) got the thick perfectly multi-layered guitar sound down pat. I just don't like it all that much. The constant chug-chug on the eighth-notes with slacker-adjacent unimaginative vocals is a style; it works great, just not something I choose to listen to and I get bored by the end of every song of theirs. I always wanted more layers or even a touch more complexity (syncopation??) to the sound - I suppose it says something that my favourite thing I've ever heard from these guys was/is their cover of Toto's Africa... Was a brief enjoyable retro trip, though I'd much rather just watch the Buddy Holly video than listen to the album. 5/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Stripping away the massive studio efforts and production at its heart this is a collection of ballads - with some pointless screaming at random times. Credit for being ambitious and cinematic, I can appreciate the effort by all involved especially on a first album while still pretty much hating it. What does this "band" even truly sound like? Nothing wrong with studio techniques [I do love creative studio wizardry] but taking pop ballads and making them "hard" doesn't stop it from being boring AF. Almost exactly what I'd expect if there was an AI prompt for "make me a soundtrack for a clichéd big-budget Tom Cruise space movie." Ended up walking away from it with maybe 5 songs left as it just all sounded the same. 3/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

One of the better aspects of this 1089+++ challenge is that over the past 5 years I'll occasionally get an album from a group that I'd almost completely forgotten about. There's just so much music out there that I can be into someone and years later forget they even existed. Case in point: Stars. I saw this band in concert about 15 years ago after their "Five Ghosts" album. I don't remember much about this album - released a few years before Ghosts. It follows that usual Stars pattern with the duelling vocalists who are so different yet complement each other very well. Good if not very dramatic melodic "indie rock" (hate that phrase and docking myself a point for using it) that's good for a drive. The band always runs the risk of getting a little precious after a while and I to be fair I don't love this as much as some of their later work as this feels a bit longer than it should be but it's still a good easy listen. Bordering between 3 and 4 but rounding up for Canada. 7/10 4 stars 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦 IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

The submitter had to realize this was the easiest review setup in the world. It fits on a few levels. Maybe it's me, and I just have trouble accepting that. But in my weaker moments - which are not coincidentally while struggling AF to get through this terrible album this is yet another user who has to be trolling. Enjoy whatever you like, obviously, but this submission is not only *not remotely* an omission from the book but just a platter of shitty tongue-in-cheek haha aren't we funny/sly/clever snickersnicker ... no you're just annoying dickheads. I'm fairly sure I finished all but maybe 5? of the 1089 albums in the book and certainly didn't like a lot of them but am feeling no qualms about getting to, say, a few minutes into the 2nd stupid embarrassing track on this album and saying GTFO. I skipped and tried at least parts of maybe 5 more songs, this is not only one of the worst albums I've heard but just profoundly unserious. Man I am empathizing with the user who dipped out upon opening this entry.... I know, it's me. I'm taking this too seriously. It's just music. Most of the time... 0/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? stop.

Wasn't familiar with them, and I mean this in a sincere way: this is a very safe and easy rock record. Not stuck on 3 chords thankfully but also absolutely no strange turns or jump scares in dynamics, time signatures, or mood - it just plays. Doesn't *quite* get to boredom status but the moments where they made me think of the milquetoast "Train" were a few more than I'd have liked. A bit passionless in the vocals which definitely contributed to the feel of sameness. I'm glad to have heard it; it's nice to get a little more world representation (Australia) and yet might have had more impact on me had I grown up on the record/band. As it is, it wasn't a bad 45 minutes but by the end it felt like 55... 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No

Upon putting this on I found myself kinda digging the first cut...? Surprised me probably because I'd set the bar so low because I was honestly ready to rip on this. Mostly because I deeply hated "You Don't Know How It Feels" when it came out and Petty's later-career-stage voice was always grating to me. And outside his first 3 or 4 mostly excellent albums with The Heatbreakers I found him painfully dull in general. Ok here comes the aforementioned single which I still don't like at all (brainless V-IV-I with unimaginative instrumental accompaniment) but in context I can let it wash by as opposed to yet another safe mid-tempo classic rock radio track. Overall the music was a little better than I'd expected, but not much - the general lameness of his voice or recording of his voice is not doing any favours here. Makes me think of mid to late Bono; there's no breathing room, he's singing right up on the mic, with no space or room noise - it's just personally disconcerting to listen to. Like it's completely detached from the music. I thought Rick Rubin was a genius?? Anyways there's little here that would approach me calling it objectionable, but yeah it's dreadfully boring and so goddamn long for an album with this little pace or sonic variance. I don't hate it, but I'm never wanting to hear any of these songs again, and if I want to listen to Petty...give me the original Heartbreakers. 4/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Can this really be an album by "Rachel Stevens" if each/every song is written by a completely new batch of 800 writers and producers? Not the worst thing I'd ever heard but I've already forgotten it 5 minutes after finishing. Saccharine. 3/10 2 stars 🧀👧🏼🧀. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Trying to think who her voice is reminding me of, but I like it and it's never too much. I mostly get annoyed with "quirky" lyrics but "The Bug Collector" is quite good, my fave on the album. Overall very nice; very low-key and appropriately short but seemed to lose a bit of momentum after 4 or 5 songs - maybe this style doesn't lend itself to record over the (not so) long haul? Talented for sure, and sounds like she'd be great to see live on a mellow evening. 7/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Random memory from early 1986: as a kid I was running through the arena because we were late and the show had already started, I got my first (and only) cigarette burn on my hand seeing this concert - thanks random loser adult. Got to my seat not knowing who this opening band was and "wait i know this..." they were just launching into "Kayleigh" which had been all over the radio. "Is he wearing grease paint...what the hell who are these freaks? ... I think I love this..." Fine, I'll listen to this album for the ~150th time. One of the more puzzling and egregious omissions from the book especially them having been a relatively big UK act (the album hit #1 immediately) ... it almost seems intentional. Weird yet accessible proggy pop rock; yes the obvious Genesis connections were made ad nauseum fine fine but it was really mostly Fish's vocals (and visuals to be sure) - at least they were excellent at what they did and could really come around to a great hook. Perfect instrumental blend, and of particular note I've always loved the guitar work on this album. Perfect song arrangement/placement, it's a true album (especially that the songs flow into one another, competing whatever the concept/theme is) and at the right length. A personal family favourite, the rating was predestined here. 10/10 5 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

This was wild. I can't really say I liked it - vocals are a bit much (more than a bit, actually - they actively detract and distract from some imaginative prog) and I feel like I would have boosted this a full star if there were more instrumental-only passages. But it's certainly something incredibly creative and weird (often the same thing?) - I do like the early-70s production; there's a warmth and clarity you just don't hear anymore for a million reasons, and it's not too far off from a bunch of jazz-rock-prog-fusion albums/acts I do like. YMMV for sure on this one and honestly after I settled in I ended up appreciating it more as it went on, except for those ridiculous vocals wtf. Kinda made it tough. Probably could have been in the book, though; this album was a bit of a weird-ass breakthrough somehow and the book needed a few more non-English albums anyways. --------- Couldn't find on Apple Music - found on youtube here: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTspHdkHn6DmES8V0l9lbUuEzp80linxB&si=gnfPJcA81K9R8Hgx -------- 5/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Dental office on-hold music. 3/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? in no universe, ever.

WHOMEVER SUBMITTED THIS IS MY HERO. Please give this album the time it deserves. I bought it soon after release based on a bit of buzz and...I just didn't get it at first. Overwhelming which led to me thinking it was boring? Confusing? I remember feeling bad but putting it aside and after giving it a week or two I tried again....and something clicked and holy shit.... every new spin revealed something new. The songwriting, the musicianship, the guitar playing, 3 lead vocalists which never kept things too stale. It still feels fresh to me 30+ (!!!) years later. This has to be among my 5 most-played albums ever and it IS a proper album meaning I've tried to put tracks on mix tapes (yes cassettes) and early mix CDs but individual songs lost something. The sum is greater than its parts etc etc. This band has meant a ton to me over the decades and I believe in an alternate universe Rheostatics would be a parallel to the Beatles in terms of diversity and influence; but this was their magnum opus. Plus NEIL FKNG PEART plays on it. 10/10 5 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Parts of this are potentially intriguing - mood shifting, the often-annoying-yet-also-creative and intentional mood swings of the vocals, simplistic keyboard melodies over industrial "guitar" wall of sound... Alas I just don't connect with this at all. The song structures end up boring me and honestly that absurdly processed massive wall of guitar is really not my thing / too much. Points for a unique take on image/style and I kinda love their overall purple motif/artwork. 5/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Definitely an oversight not including some work from one of the most well-known guitar players of the 20th century - I never appreciated flamenco until I was older but this is *the* guy to go. I enjoyed this album a lot which somehow I'd never heard; some of these quick little speed runs are seemingly impossible - how he/anyone could play that fast and clean - but what makes this enjoyable for me was how he doesn't overdo it by keeping those runs very tasteful and part of the overall composition/s. Excellent selection although listening to him gives me complete imposter syndrome and make me wish I'd played the recorder instead. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

I thought "Really...why the hell is there a *2nd* Ween album in here..." and then I listened and I understood. This first track could 100% be a Motorhead tune. Which sounds nothing like the rest of the album, which is also something that can be said about each of these songs. From speed metal to rock to pop to whatthefuck is "Zoloft" or "So Many People In The Neighbourhood" and it all sounds awesome. "Hey There Fancypants" is indefinable. n.b. check the story of Dean Ween *temporarily stealing* Carlos Santana's guitar/amp from a warehouse to get one shot at recording the solo in "Transdermal Celebration" Goddamn I'm sorry for my initial grumbling - I love this fucked up album. 9/10 5 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

I've never really been into Zevon but how did he not have an entry in the book, and specifically this one. It probably should have made a top 501 list, considering this one contains his only "radio hits." Having said that, he's still not necessarily my favourite listen (and honestly I've always kinda disliked "Werewolves..." - V-VI-I for 3.5 minutes straight, oy...) but the deeper cuts are the best here - I had a few 'holy shit' moments when I suddenly heard the lyrics ("Excitable Boy" especially - wtf) - and the run time of 31 minutes actually makes it a quality and worthy listen; seems the right length. Well-crafted, and there's something to be said about this kind of mid-late 70s production for a "basic" rock combo that has a sound that is just warm and pleasing to the ears. Recommended and an excellent choice. 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

I really like this guy's story (read the Wikipedia link) - there's hope for me yet... Well-recorded music [literally in his attic!] and while I know he criticizes himself for "not being able to sing" and sure maybe that's true, that's not the part that irritates me a bit - it's how dry the vocal is. Throw a touch of space in there and it would make it feel a little less like he's sitting right in my head. Not my language so I have no idea what the lyrics are but that's often (mostly) a bonus and I can just hear the holistic compositions. Impressive outside of the vocal recording occasionally distracting me - just a personal thing I guess. Probably not a favourite but an interesting listen and I found myself lost in it in a great way a few times. And if Oor magazine says this is the best album from the Netherlands this century that's good enough for me. 7/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

It's truly impressive how different the aesthetic of the album cover is from the actual mutant contents within. I wouldn't have minded it were it instrumental, understanding it as a metal+emo wall of sound guitar project - not my thing but there's some strong melodic content here. But honestly what the fuck. Adding the death screams of someone being run over repeatedly by a steamroller slaughters it for me immediately. It's infinitely more frustrating than the usual screaming lunacy bc this could have been something more - a lot more. Reading about the literary aspects of this combined with the melodic music...I don't understand the choice to shit all over it with whatever is happening to the vocalist. I have a friend who loves this kind of music which cracks me up but I'm never going to be convinced that this nonstop screaming isn't idiotic and just stupid. Oy, never again. 2/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Unique - not at all too surprising this wasn't a hit [not a critique!] as this is nothing like what I remember them being beforehand. Almost the opposite of synthy pop-hits, this being more like a soundscape of analogue instrumentation with vocals almost just woven in as a distant accompaniment. Kind of hard to fully digest to be honest - I liked it but feel like it needs like 3 or 4 listens (which is a pretty cool accomplishment). Putting it as a 3 but very much need more time with it and might upgrade... 7/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Maybe (TBD)

First 30 minutes are/were a nice hot summer walk soundtrack - i.e. this started out great, then it got just a little too dubby for me, then I just got annoyed. I'll just cut this one down the middle overall. Some good soundscapes, interesting to listen to (something I never would have given a second glance to at the time) for the most part and probably ahead of its time, idk... 5/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I think simply this genre / this band is not my speed at all. It's all too *press play then stay frenetic* at the same(ish) pace and volume. Also I really don't like the vocals - probably not necessarily a specific "this singer sucks" thing but this style (emo pop-punk?) just pushes me away pretty quickly and it's hard to not get distracted by it. It's all too much - not a lot of breathing room here. 3/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Very immediate reaction/s are a. this could be alright after hearing a few guitar lines and then b. the vocal processing is wayyyy too much holy hell. Is it too much to let a modern rock album to just breathe a bit?? Jeeez - we can have even just *a little* bit of human pitch variation; does everything have to be tuned to perfection? Terrible - it's far too noticeable and makes it sound like he's singing through a fan. That's a big negative off the hop - I was thinking this was going to be a mostly averagely-decent listen; i.e. modern alt-rock (virtually meaningless label, admittedly) with a few catchy tunes until holy hell...the ballad "Cradled In Love" is utterly laughably goddamn terrible; so bad it feels like parody - as in: I would play this for people who want to hear an example of an over-the-top awful rock ballad. I'm not saying it's the worst song I've heard, but not eliminating from the competition either. Made me think of Kiss' "Great Expectations" from Destroyer in terms of mockability. It threw me off for the rest of the album and maybe peeled the top layer off. "Skin" isn't much better. I should have stopped early on - it's not that it necessarily got *worse*, but if I had only heard the first 2 songs I'd have had a higher or neutral opinion - discounting the absurd ballads, it just gets very samey. And although it's nowhere near as devastating as some of these reviews are telling (holy hell people LOL) honestly I won't want to remember much in an hour either. 3/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Feels like the beginning could legitimately make for cool music for/in a film - some sort of dirty/dark desert peyote-infused quasi-adventure... ...but as we move on... good god. As a single album to focus on and listen to it is challenging at best and shitty at worst. Holy hell. "Bring the Sun...." etc - 34 minutes? This is some Tales from Soporific Bullshit right here. But it's prog that's overblown. Ok. "Some Things We Do" is ... something. 2 hours of this is unconscionable. It's not *just* that it's 2 hours, but when about 10 minutes would have done fine I can't recommend to any of my non-psychotic friends. For the rest of you - enjoy it, you freaks - while I'm over here left looking like the kid on the cover. 3/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Feel like I'm gonna get slaughtered on this one - I figure I'm way in the minority as this has been everywhere for a decade but I hate everything about this album; not remotely because it's a musical but because I simply don't like any of the music, the non-stop lyrics and quasi-raps, the cheeky and simple yay america aspects and ultimately Lin Manuel just kinda annoys me and ok I'll stop being bitter, just give it a polite 2 and move on. 3/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes, maybe

Forgot about this and apparently so did the editors of the book - 100% should have been in there, how the hell was this missing. "Beds Are Burning" was everywhere for years - you still hear it on radio - it's a great single and the best track on the album, having it lead off the album was actually a great move. I'd never heard the entire album before, just a good flow - Peter Garrett's voice gets a little abrasive at times but it's a fine line, as it's that attack that delivers the force/passion behind it too. An album that sounds good - clearly sounds just a little bit dated but not necessarily in a bad way either. I like. 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Woof. I remember this album. I really hated Lou Reed. I still really hate Lou Reed, but I hated him then, too. Just as irritating as I remember, if not more-so. Boring-ass music with mumbled lyrics right in my face that I don't give a shit about. Hardest pass on this loser; I truly must listen to music differently than people who love this as I *did* listen but would henceforth categorize the album as unlistenable. 2/10 1 star. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

The opening sounds of the sea washing up with distant voices underneath sets up not just The Who's genius magnum opus but the massive and incredible last gasp of the band's peak of creativity. They'd never come even remotely close to this quality again - it always leaves me thinking how the legacy of the band would have been had they completely disbanded at this point. Every album of theirs thru this one was an upward trajectory and they'd have been canonized even higher - I'm just not sure a band ever had a sharper drop-off than from here to...afterwards. Death/early retirement does wonders for a reputation. For me few albums in history can match the drama/story/power of this one; to be fair it could be a bit challenging in that it does bear close listening but this is a true cohesive work - nearly every song is fantastic [if pressed, my fave is "I'm One"] but each bettered by listening as a whole. All just highlighting that for me this isn't just the greatest double album of all time [that isn't much longer than some "standard" releases post CD-age], it's of course The Who's best work, and crazy it wasn't in the book even ahead of some of their own entries. 10/10 5 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

There are no fewer than 80 people credited amongst artists and production of this album. I don't know how much that means here, just wanted to note that for myself. Actually ... I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't note it as the vast majority of "mass personnel" albums are for me completely dilute music or deliver some common denominator that too-often smooths out any potential edges or weirdness in the music. i.e. too much compromise. Admittedly this is mostly in the realm of modern-ish pop music ("write a word, get a third") so when I saw it here I was hoping to avoid the mundane. And after finishing I'm still not sure how I feel about this album - I like it, it's fine, but there kind of *is* something about how easygoing it is that ... maybe it is because there were ~70 musicians in all that makes it just a little too "in a Starbucks line" easy-listening? I'm probably trying too hard to be critical. It was a really nice background album to do work to - not distracting and some excellent musicianship when allowed to shine, which I'd have liked more of - more individualism. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Where the hell is "Don't Pay the Ferryman??!" I like seeing an entry like this - as I'm writing this I would have put Chris DeBurgh down as a two-hit-wonder and I have/had zero knowledge of him whatsoever prior to the 1982 hit. The guy has *22* studio albums?!? No idea. [edit: to the submitter -> I love hearing the 'why' from users and their selections, I think it's important to give a little background so thank you - would love to see these as pinned comments for user submissions!] Anyways this is more than a bit showtuney for me. In a few spots I was reminded of Al Stewart who certainly could be a bit artsy himself but I don't enjoy this music as much - bordering on (if not truly overlapping into) the schmaltzy....WITH the knowledge and acceptance that it very much fit the era. Not gonna say I loved it but I am legitimately pleased to have heard it - who wouldn't want to up their knowledge of Chris DeBurgh lore? 5/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

There's a lot more here than meets the eye (ear) on the surface ... I initially started without paying full attention and wasn't getting much out of it but there's a clever complexity to these seemingly simple melodies. After starting over and listening more closely - I'm hearing bits of Shins, Rheostatics, Grizzly Bear, Elliot Smith, XTC ... just within the first few songs. Only the smallest touch of whimsy but not nearly enough to not get cute/pedantic...odd timings that frustrate me in the best / most fun way. I enjoy when I'm challenged a bit in trying to "figure out" a song. This is definitely a slow build album - first pass through I wasn't sure but I gave it another full listen and am starting to love this - keeper / cool pick. 7/10 4 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Darth Vader looks out upon the Empire's next conquest... Sure it feels dated now but this was fresh for 1972 - twin lead guitars, folky-sounding heavyish rock - this not only had a direct influence on huge bands to follow (e.g. Lizzy, Maiden) but at the time this album beat out massive albums from Purple, Bowie, Tull, and Hoople that year for album of the year as judged by UK fans so this seems like a big miss by the book. Much more melodic than most other "prog rock" of the era, it's far more UK progressive folk with a little proggy edge at times. My biggest critique would be that it's *too* restrained - although that likely distinguished it from many of the so-called "excessive" bands emerging at the time. I can see how this was a big hit. "Leaf and Stream" seems like it could have been on one of Yes' first two albums. This would have aligned a lot more to what I'd liked as a kid so I'm not nearly as into it now, but to be fair even if it's clearly music of the era, the recording still sounds fantastic and warm - it's a good listen even now and definitely a worthy addition. 7/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

My initial reaction seeing the cover and whatever this title is was that this is going to be the worst album in the list. It is not...but perhaps partially because of the very short runtime. Thank fk. This was extremely difficult to listen to with that "voice" - overshadowed everything else entirely ("oh but that's the point!" yeah get bent no.). 23 minutes would have been too much. Makes me think of the Jurassic Park quote about being"... preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.." 2/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I'm of two minds with this album... On the one hand it's dreamlike, ethereal, melodic, and I can almost let it transport me to a relaxed state. yet also ... I can't help but feel that it's completely devoid of all emotion, passion, excitement, dynamics. Yes it is a complete ground up construction of all parts and is impressive in that way but in this case at least there's something(s) lost and I do think it's due to it being this solo electronic album. There's no passion because it's just one guy layering synth after synth. Which on its surface is a concept I love, but here... after 10 minutes or so I feel weary. Good music for use in a soundtrack, a few cuts (any of them, really) I could listen to any time but overall it leaves me wanting some gd fire. Left thinking more about what isn't here than what is. 5/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

It's often such a fine line between what we like or don't like ... e.g. the path from this album to The Mars Volta's debut just a few years later is tight if not rather obvious but whereas that was a terrifying and hair raising 5 for me this immediately starts with the kind of unrestrained screaming that doesn't fit or even make sense to me. After the first track it settles in with still-aggressive vocals but a bit more of an attempt at following some sort of melodic path, but I can't quite get there. Maybe that short period of time was just what Cedric needed to refine his vocal approach even just a bit. Because the full throat screams are just....no. Ok let's call it: mostly his singing is goddamn terrible-to-unlistenable on this album. And it feels way too wordy - I'm sure it's similar enough to Comatorium but there it seems to just fit better Or maybe I can just ignore it more. Here it became tiresome. The music does have that nightmarish off-kilter aggression that works so well in Mars Volta to come and I like it quite a bit here as well, but it's still not all there yet. Glad to have finally heard this but oh man I'll wait until the gestation period ends and we can De-Louse in the Comatorium. 5/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? There's already the much better fully-formed version of this actually IN the book, so no.

Garbage were just sort of *there* for me in the 90s (although they were kinda everywhere) but upon further review I hated that album. Shallow insincere cookie-cutter slice-and-dice production which ... I don't know, maybe this was cool at the time? I'm old and that was a long-ass time ago and anyways getting to this album of more of the same bullshit boring braindead "alt rock" songs....I thought that when you release 2.0 of a product it is supposed to smooth out the mistakes, fix the bugs, address the customer's needs and wants. Only the Butch Vig connection (stupid) and Shirley Manson's "cool" (annoying) attitude made the media and record industry push this band over a ton of far-better 90s acts sadly lost in the shuffle - it wasn't her singing that's for sure, she's not good. Will give slight credit to "Special" - that song is average/alright but not anything sp... Pass - terrible. 3/10 1 star. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Very sad yet loving tribute, incredibly personal - but cutting right to it: I find it hard if not impossible to penetrate; the music is nice enough but quite literally a patchwork of hundreds of samples so it has very little cohesion for me and it's obviously not remotely the focus here. I can see how this would be attractive in theory but - I mean this in the most respectful way possible - to me this borders outside of music; it's more an endless speech (soundtrack?) and tribute with a series of backing tracks and therefore makes it not something to sit and listen to. Honestly this is an incredibly touching personal document and work - well made, even - yet at the same time how can anyone that's not actually a friend of the artist choose to listen to this more than the one time? 5/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I always rued the fact that the 1089 woefully underrepresented Canada and we've had some gems from the users lately, including this. I think the Weakerthans' next release ("Reunion Tour") is their flawless piece de resistance [including the most kickass song "about" curling that ever was and will be] and my favourite from the band but this is where the Virtute trilogy begins 😻😸 so it's a great launching point. Sometimes it takes a little adjustment to get used to John K Samson's voice [which can be a little muppet-like], but I enjoy it - fits the music for me. I suppose there's a Death Cab vibe to a bit of this but I'm too entrenched with a lot of Samson's music that he's just ... him. Great pick, love it. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Definitely would hear the argument that it sounds basic or simplistic today but idk, I like it a lot more than most modern hip-hop. Mostly due to rhythmic and extremely catchy rapping from Rakim. Definite building block of the genre and far more worthy of book inclusion than a lot that somehow did make it. Catchy throwback to a simpler time which is mostly a good thing. 7/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

I used to watch this cartoon after school when I was 11... cool, cool. 4/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Not my favourite style/genre at all but it's at least immediately listenable - damning with faint praise for sure, but I was expecting something more harsh and screamy? Nice thick guitar tones caught my ear, even as the actual guitar parts are terrifically boring. Funny that I was bracing for completely shitty vocals and they're actually so non-abrasive that they become completely featureless. The Evan Dando of pop-punk? Interesting - I'm reading a lot of the reviews saying they liked it more as it went on and I've had the completely opposite reaction. First few songs I thought this was fine in a simple Green Day kinda way and has a good sound yet after getting over halfway through I realized without the decent engineering this often felt no better than amateur hour. Were these lyrics written in detention hall? It's all more than a little tired-sounding for me, and even though I'd still rate this over a lot (most?) of the punk/pop-punk/grunge-adjacent bands of the era, I still don't like it at all. "Jet Black" was pretty decent though. 3/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Wholly unexpected and almost unable to label or categorize this, but I know that I really really liked it. In no way an all-serving album, it happened to work perfectly for me working today - I like the mysterious ready-to-erupt-yet-never-does aspect of a lot of the work here. I don't know if I would know how to pigeonhole it either but I'm sure Apple Music's algorithms calling this "Downtempo" are ... poor. Really different and I will listen again! 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Even though I ended up not interested in this I also fully appreciated the outstanding craft and musicianship within. It's just not something I love listening to but if quality very mellow folk with creative lyrics is your jam you will absolutely love this. Might file this away just for recommending to some friends. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

This is great - when this was released I would love to have been of age to truly hear why "critics" savaged this album. Obviously working class heroes who preferred gritty (lesser/simplistic) Lennon works but give me Paul any/every day. Classic Paul melodies that on the surface don't seem like they should be that complex to replicate yet why did/could nobody else write songs like these? Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey is an immediate joyful throwback to listening to AM radio in my childhood. Definitely should have been on the original list - not that it necessarily needed any more Beatles-universe entries but they also should be the exception for obvious reasons. A few meh songs but more than enough magic to make this a keeper. 8/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

I'll admit even if it doesn't truly relate to the music within (or does it) I absolutely do pre-judge an album by its cover and this one is a terrible c2001 mspaint type job. I realize it's shallow but there you go - all part of the art, perhaps. The music - well it's different for sure - I'm not sure how I feel about it - almost like I want to dislike it (cover!) more than I do - after a weird/awkward intro song and it settles in, it's honestly very intriguing. Avant-garde folk isn't a terrible description... I feel like I hear bits of other artists in here (even a touch of Animal Collective or Decemberists?) but with so many influences it just becomes its own thing - which is a pretty cool achievement. There's some interesting acoustic guitar work in here; not even necessarily on a technical level but just the unique playing and voicings. His voice often feels perilously-close to careening off the edge - I know there's some critique about that but it also kinda feels right for this. I'm giving this a 3 which might imply mediocrity but it's not that - Kings of Leon are mediocre - this is just different/weird and I still don't know how I feel about it. I could see a lot of 1s and 5s on this and I kept wavering between being captivated and annoyed, it's different enough that it's worth at least another listen. And honestly might have been an interesting entry for the book. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

Afraid I'm not the audience for this - while I absolutely respect this authentic sounding country music, it's really a sound I just withdraw from; no shade against the talent involved at all. Fiddle and twang, with a back and forth oompah type beat ... I did give the full album a chance, but it's just not going to be my thing. I will leave the comment that it's well-crafted and organic - if you're open to this you might just love it. 5/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I came across this album not long after its release and to my frustration I could not connect with it at all - I liked a bit of 70s prog as a kid and this being sort of "new prog" I was maybe *supposed* to like it? but it was too saturated in a way that bored me. Although in starting this again for the first time in >20 years I'm hearing some similarities to The Mars Volta's debut which I love/d...maybe that's just in the vocal timbre. Initially a lot of my issue with this is too many words. WAY too many words. Jesus - ease down, man. This music doesn't breathe at all - I feel like I heard something about a ring and the end of the world... I don't even know. N.B. At the end of the title track they either have a direct homage or completely and utterly rip off Iron Maiden's "Heaven Can Wait" with the vocal chorale - you choose. Yeah in the end the number one culprit for me is the vocals - not necessarily the voice but there are *always* vocals. Wordswordswords and I don't remember what they are. And overall the music seems to have far more in common with pop-punk than prog in terms of the in-your-face production and chunky/thick guitars. Also it felt like the second half of the record marks some sort of simplistic shift towards that emopoppunk genre (e.g. "Blood Red Summer" is almost comically horrible) so it makes me forget they're supposed to be prog. Which...who cares, but that shift was notable in how awkward it is. I had hoped to like this far more than I do. All of the supposedly great musicianship/technical aspects are completely lost in what ends up feeling like one very very long directionless and - most damning - uninteresting song. The *lack of any dynamics whatsoever* is both a fault of the mix and songwriting (even the "softer" parts are too loud - 21st century rock compression / loudness wars yayyy) - which makes it all becomes a chore before long and makes the album feel far longer than it already is. I kept looking at what track I was on, expecting (hoping) I was done. Objectively I can see why people would like and gravitate towards this and I do appreciate that bands like this are out there pushing boundaries [may have been a fine entry to the book] but I'm not feeling it. 4/10 2 stars. IMO: Belonged in the book? Yes.

No thank you, we have shitty numetal at home. Hardest pass with this especially when most of the songs are in the same key AND you have Babymetal as a guest good lord no 1/10 1 star IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

I don't know ... I want to like it but I just can't. Such a color-by-numbers collection of by the book rote songs. Sure it sounds great and is super well produced yet maybe too much so. It's sterile and tries to hide behind a bit of the flash. The lyrics when I notice them are eye-rollingly mediocre to embarrassing. Also too many collabs for my liking - too many cooks always just turns out as a compromise and clichéd. She's a good singer and I'd much rather hear her singing over a 5 piece rock band or solo piano. This is a mixed bag of toe-dipping into too many styles but rarely committing. 4/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

My second Mansun album in the user lists - I'd never heard of them before hearing their second album ("Six") which kind of blew me away, but it took a little time. I'm feeling much the same here - it's a lot to digest and it didn't connect with me first time through (much like "Six") but once again, after starting a second trip through it I'm really liking it. It's weird and creative and definitely not background listening for me. I don't know if it's on par with their second album but hello - this is a debut? Ambitious and impressive as hell. Damn - I don't know if I'm ready to give this a 4 but then again if I'm this intrigued already I think that's the minimum. These guys are good - I need to delve into more. 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No

TV On The Radio trying poorly to invoke Radiohead but dialed the wrong number and connected with mid-Coldplay instead, quickly hung up, then ran out of studio time and asked ChatGPT to record them an album but please make us sound like Band of Horses recording an Arcade Fire cover album but don't forget to throw in hints of 5 year old indie trends. Based on some of the descriptions (post-punk??) I was hoping to really like this but I should have just based my prejudice on the cover with horses. Donkeys are way cooler as well as far less-annoying than this. 3/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Liking the guitar and piano, not loving the non-stop vocals. To be honest I thought I was going to hate this more (what praise eh) but honestly by the 3rd/4th song I was getting tired of the vocals. It's not necessarily his voice which is fine enough and rather expressive in that British way; rather it's the forced complete emphasis on the vocals/lyrics based on only having a simple background of guitar and occasional piano. Also this comes across as a not-fleshed-out demo tape ["Executioner" in particular is so sloppily put-together, it was hard to get by...not to mention "Clean Steve"] that could have been pushed a bit further, and while I'm not at all against the idea of a true *solo* performance record, there could have been a lot more here. 5/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

A little conflicted on this as it's definitely not a genre I love or even like, and I'm pretty sure I really don't like this ... but at the same time they have a sound that sets them apart from anything similar. There's a combined element of early Soundgarden, even a touch of STP and Tool, amidst the shouty aggression. I won't listen again probably due to the monotonous vocals but there's an undeniable creativity in the composition even as the music overall kind of annoys me. 5/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Kind of a gentle and pleasant album to fall asleep to - definitely meaning this as a compliment. The drawback was that the vocals are too prominent for me; I'd have liked the lovely music to shine a little more or at least on parallel with the vocals which for me keeps this from being a repeat listen. Definite talent and care here, though, which I appreciate. 6/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

My immediate reaction upon seeing this submission - this is absolutely far-too-recent a release [2 years ago] to belong in any select list, no matter how good it might be. I always feel like I want to like St Vincent more than I actually do. She puts together really cool and intriguing sounds and does again here but I'm not sure I like the songs all that much, which is most of the point for me at least. I don't really dislike anything but aside from that wicked bass sound in Broken Man I don't find myself needing to "hear that again" from any of the tunes. TL;DR: It's often cool to listen to but I find I don't have a desire to listen to St. Vincent, knowwhatImean? 5/10 3 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Quirky - both in voice and composition. It literally sounds like multiple vocalists on the album - the light and airy vocals near the top of the album are in stark contrast to the deep baritone later on (just listen to the first and last songs for greatest contrast - I had to check the credits to confirm it was the same singer) so it's an odd listen in some ways. I think the fact that I can't tell if I like it or not but wanted to listen to it again is a good sign? A little outside my norms but there was something about this that would make me come back to it. 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Man, remember when everyone said yeah sure Kersh is a top-10 all-timer but cannot deliver in the biggest moments but then he just went out late career and won 3 titles and was absolutely lights-out in 2020. Just incredible that someone gave him a second chance after his questionable youth putting out simple bippety-bop-bouncy synth-by-numbers 80s pop. [also: has nobody noticed that the title track drum machine intro is identical to The Who's Eminence Front intro? I'd say he stole it but may be likely that was just a preset - come on, tho...] 3/10 2 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Categorized (by wiki/Apple at least) as "electronic" but that doesn't really describe it at all - it's kind of an all-over-the-map collection. I have to say I love the instrumental and actually-electronic/vibey tracks (e.g. "Golden Arrow") much more than the non-electronic / vocal ones (e.g. "Paper Trails" which comes across more like Nick Cave covering a John Martyn B-side). Giving it a second listen this afternoon, since I'm somewhere between 3 and 4 but honestly the overall restraint exhibited throughout the entire album is enough of a tiebreaker to push it up for me. TL;DR: Mixed bag but after I picked out the few raisins and almonds, the plentiful m&ms and cashews were enough to have me enjoy it. 7/10 4 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? No.

Is there any question this is among the most egregious exclusions from the book - if not *the* most? As in - this should be in a 200 Albums you should hear at worst, doesn't even matter if you don't like it - this was one of those rare touchstone albums. Honestly even though this was a childhood favourite I probably didn't listen to it for 25 years after I was a teen - when a song would come on the radio I'd dismiss it immediately but much with similar examples of the classic rock overplay-to-death age (Back in Black / Who's Next / Boston / Dark Side... / etc.) it was completely a symptom of massive over-saturation. Coming back to it in middle age was a revelation: the melodies were as complex as anyone's, the multi-instrumentation used to perfect effect, and the multi-vocalist harmonies put a unique stamp on the band. Sure they had some other big albums and smash hits but this is essentially a greatest hits platter. No real favourites since they're all great (Casual Conversations is the only meh track, buried near the end...) and nearly all have been on the radio at some point. A definitive statement of the era both in sound (great example of that 70s analog production perfection) and songwriting - not to mention one of the handful of best album covers ever created. Absolute perfection. 10/10 5 stars IMO: Belonged in the book? Please - it should have been the cover. YES.

Another big miss from the original 1001 - this was absolutely massive and whether you like it or not you can't tell the story of 1990s music without this album. Having said that I'm not really a big fan - personal bias/block against ska/horns/etc. I guess. Although as I'm listening to it for the first time in 30 (!) years I still remember every detail about these undeniably catchy singles. Can give this a mid grade but also state that this was a massive swing and miss not being in the book. 6/10 3 stars. IMO: Belonged on the list? Yes.