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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

<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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.