Wikipedia called this an example of shoegazing music, I think? I'd have to agree, although it was more watchgazing, as in when is this going to be over? It just sounded one long drone to me. I kept thinking "there's more TO this, right?" But nope, nothing else. Very disappointing. I did not loathe it, but it was very boring.

I am really impressed at Little Simz' skill here. She has a lyrical deftness, a flow and capability I do not regularly hear. The brevity of the album is also a big factor here. A lot of rap albums have so much filler, skits and interludes that just... ugh. It makes it difficult for me to want to come back to the album and do a complete re-listen. Hearing the "n-word" so often I did start to tune it out. It is tough to hear in people's albums nowadays. Definitely a nice change of pace album for me. I really enjoyed this and the showcase of her skill as well as how the MC really compliments her.

Wow. This is... awful. The synth is annoying. The screaming is jarring. I mean, I totally get why this was ground-breaking for 1977, but it is just... annoying. I almost had to stop it at least twice, wondering if I wanted to continue. Yuck.

Every song was easily a minute or two too long. I have a lot of drum n' bass, but the songs either need to ba shortened or another theme needs to be put in there. They were getting tedious. I appreciated him for what he was trying to do, but... man.

There's something to be said for an album that just seems to be done so care-free, so effortlessly. I know the band and everyone worked hard on this record, but it doesn't sound that way. And that, right there, is true professionalism. Making something challenging look easy. I don't know if I would have appreciated this album as much if I hadn't played an instrument. But wow, this stuff is great. And it's 65 years old, and it doesn't sound it. Great stuff.

I really enjoyed this album. Unexpected gem for me, hit in all the right places. I was a big fan of a lot of the grunge that came out (Pearl am, Nirvana, etc.). I don't know how I missed this group!

I have to say this - never been a big fan of Bryan Ferry's vocals. I'm not sure why they are so off-putting to me, maybe because they are a cross between a crooner and Peter Hammill's. But I have never liked them. The instrumentation is unique, and I liked how the sax blends with the other instruments, but Ferry's vocals just turn me off to the rest. I don't know why, it just does. So 2.5 rounding up to...

Yes, some of Eminem's best material ever is on this. And I can see how people have a problem with the lyrics and what they say. But you cannot deny the skill in which it is performed. Never been a big fan of the little skits in between songs, so I would very rarely play those.

This is is the album that started it all. All of the other Zeppelin songs and albums came from this.

Listened to the album for the first time. Goth-y type of feel, definitely an 80s Cure-ish vibe, but just not for me.

Good solid punk album. The vocals started to grate on me after a while, though. Standout tracks for me: “There Goes Norman” and “Under The Boardwalk.”

The album combines Blur's Brit Pop sensibilities with the grunge sound of Nirvana. At times, it works for me, other times not so much. Obviously a lot of people know this album thanks to "Song 2" but that one is vastly different from the rest of the album.

I really liked the style combination here of Britpop and Liverpool. Very raw, but a couple of the tracks felt too underdeveloped. Did not know “There She Goes” was originally theirs. Of the albums I’ve heard for the first time, this one I’ve liked best.

I was really surprised at how much I enjoyed this album. George Michael's vocals really stood out, and the seriousness in tone worked for all the songs. I had read some critics who scoffed saying he was overdoing it: "oh, look I'm serious now," but I did not get that at all. Of course, there is the Freedom90 song which we have all heard, but the other songs on the album were just as good to me.

Most people think of Janis Joplin as being the high point, but I really liked the guitar on this. I thought the solos worked well. I listened to the bonus tracks and they were definitely... uneven. "Ball and Chain" went on too long, I thought.

Van Halen's albums pretty much range from good to great. (Yes, even the one with Gary Cherone.) 1984 is a good album with some great songs. The problem is that the first few songs are GREAT, and the last three songs are just... okay. There's no consistency. When I mentioned to my wife about the last three songs, she could not name them. Heck, if "Hot For Teacher" was switched up and was the last song on the album, I would say it's a 5-star album. But as it is, it's...

This. Is. GREAT. Big fan of this kind of jazz, had never heard this before.

It was ok, I guess. A lot of the songs started to sound the same after a while. “Jazzie’s Groove” I could not stand. A song or two of this style would be good to hear as a palate cleanser. But a whole album? Pass.

I was initially turned off to this. "Kevin Carter" in particular, just seemed like a wall of noise. But as the album progressed, I warmed to it more and more. I appreciated the album more and more, particularly the title track. Watch the videos for it, I think it gives it more dimension.

I'll have to admit, this is very different from music I normally listen to. It was very refreshing. I don't know if I would put this on and listen to this every day, but I would imagine listening to it every so often; it was very "joyous."

The last two Fridays we have been getting albums I own. That makes it easy… While this is not my favorite Bowie album, it’s quite good. It does have probably my least favorite song on it. Going to go through each track: Station To Station - the opening of this song is so menacing. I heard live versions first, check out the “Stage” version if you haven’t already. Adrian Belew is great in it. 5/5 Golden Years - is it wrong that I think of this like a b-side to “Fame?” It was released afterward and it has that same kind of funk for me. 5/5 Word On A Wing - eh. I always forget about this one, which doesn’t say much about it. 3/5 TVC15 - Ugh. I. HATE. This song. I remember hearing it on Live Aid, the “oh oh oh oh oh” were so grating. Transmission indeed. 0/5 Stay - Ah, NOW we’re cooking. I like the backup vocal in the high register. Very creepy. 4/5 Wild Is The Wind - I always felt this song was like a verse too long. I don’t know why. 4/5 Averaging those that’s right at 3.5. That’s at an ok to good. The one song really drags it down for me.

I enjoyed listening to this. Part I in particular sounded very… lyrical. But I have to be honest, I started to lose focus on it somewhere in to part II. I think if I was there at the concert I would have appreciated it more.

Sparse instrumentation. Protest songs, but nothing has really changed. The pieces here are well done, but not something I am going to come back to again and again. You can only hear “Fast Car” so many times.

I enjoyed it, but I just kept thinking to myself “The Clash and The Ramones did it better.” But I always have that hang up with punk rock. There has to be something in it that’s unique. I did not really find it here. Maybe I need to listen to it again, I dunno….

Yeah, so I kinda get what Tom Waits was going for here. Just doesn't work for me. A couple of the tracks are ok, like "Town With No Cheer." It does remind me a lot of Captain Beefheart, though I do not know if that's a good thing.

Just a fun, funky album. At least one of these songs I’ve played in the Ravens Band. Really refreshing to hear.

“Oh yeah, those guys from that Paul Simon album. Whatever happened to them…?” These guys are great. Always enjoy hearing them. A capella music is always so refreshing to listen to, and this one I know none of the songs. Nice palate cleanser.

Ugh. I…. _HATE_ Lou Reed. So asking me to listen to VU is asking a lot. The song “White Light / White Heat” I know from Bowie. He performed it in concert a bunch of times. I can see where the foundation of punk came from from these songs, but some of them… people talk about prog rock bring pretentious, THIS stuff sounds pretentious to me. That 17-minute piece just meanders. God, it was bad. I’m adding one star for the song “White Light / White Heat” since I always liked it. So that’d be 1.5 stars, round up to…

Never heard of it. OK, seriously, such great staples of rock in this one too. I like this one more than the first, actually. Big step up in sound and experimentation here.

I like the musicality of the band, but I have never been a fan of death growl vocals. So it was really difficult for me to get past that.

Ugh. Well, their first album is markedly better than the second album. I do know “Waiting For The Man.” So there’s the one song, like in the other album. This one… it’s just so sixties. And not in a good way. It’s very dated. And you could feel the Andy Warhol influence all over it. So as opposed to the second album which was like a 1.8 rounded up, this is probably a 2.2 rounded down. I did not hate it as much, but it sounded so incredibly dated and pretentious I can’t imagine coming back to it.

I really dug this. We had watched a documentary on BritPop in the 90s so I had heard of this group but knew nothing about the songs. Some of the songs did start to blur together a bit, but maybe that was just me. Still, very enjoyable.

Hendrix. The master. I have so many of his albums so trying to do this with any criticism is not easy. So, I tried something different and listened to the tracks in the order of the UK release. One complaint I can have with these songs that way is the lack of “Purple Haze,” which is rectified in the US release. The only other one is that the tracks don’t… flow into each other as much as they do on the US release. But that just may be because of how I am used to hearing it. So many of these songs were never done live. By the time he became big, he was not interested in these tracks anymore but that’s what the audience wanted to hear. I wonder how he would have felt about bands playing entire albums live. He probably would have been bored with it.

This was a real winner for me. I don’t know why it resonated with me so much. But the intermingling of the instruments was great. Definitely on the list to pick up.

I don’t think anyone can deny the talent of Björk. She is truly a great singer and obviously has fans and detractors. When this album was released, she basically poo-pooed the concept of the standard guitar/bass/drums rock band as being past it’s prime. I would argue that any instrumentation can get in a rut, but people have to be willing to experiment before one can say “oh it’s all been done before.” So ultimately, what do we have here? It’s pretty much a dance album with one or two other songs thrown in. Kinda reminds me of what Radiohead was shooting for at one point, but more joyous. I’m just not that big of a fan of techno/dance music, so I don’t think I will come back to this. I appreciate it for what it is, and the significance of this album, but… just not for me.

I enjoyed the album for its rawness. A vital piece of music and rock history. The holiday piece at the end was just goofy. Supposedly the band is still active and touring.

Yeah, the music and the grooves are great. Undeniably that this stuff, if you are into Gangster Rap is great. But I just felt... uncomfortable listening to it. There's a scene in Office Space where one of the characters is listening to Gangster Rap blaring out of his car and then a car drives by with black people in the car. This is probably the first album I listened to on headphones, just because I didn't want anyone in the house hearing it. The music itself is really good, but it's all about getting stoned and killing and f**king. No way I am going to listen to this again. I can see how this could be considered a classic. I remember a number of my students having this way back when I first became a teacher, and even years later. It definitely has staying power.

Great stuff. The band was locked in, and everyone really had it together. Hard to believe that it was years ago. Definitely on my list to get.

Listening to this album, I could hear all of his contributions to the CSN & CSNY albums. A lot of the song ideas really can be plucked right into them. (Cowboy Movie = "Ohio," Tamalpais High = "Guinnevere"). Even with the obvious connection, I really enjoyed this. I keep thinking I should get this, but I never got around to it. This just solidifies that plan.

Each song sounds like there is a germ of an idea, but it needs a lot more development to me. It just doesn’t sound that great.

My mother in law is a huge Elvis fan. I guess because of that I find him incredibly… dated. This album did not convince me otherwise. The songs were too “boppy”. A few sounded okay, but it felt really stuck in the 50s.

I was always impressed by the fact that the band, like Queen, used no synths. I think I know every song on this album from type radio, but I do not own the album. That’s how popular it was. Production is stellar, of course.

I like how the music is syncopated. "Weekend" was pretty good. But once you autotune, I'm out. I cannot stand autotune. I know it's on pretty much every song now, but she seems to have a good voice. She doesn't need to sound like everyone else. But with autotune? She does.

Have never listened to Kraftwerk before. I get where they have influenced a number of different acts, and Bowie was so big on them in the 70s. But those first couple of tracks went on WAY too long. They easily could have cut out a minute or two from each. I started to think of it as just pretentious, but I eased up and kind of “got” what they were going for. But those first few should have been trimmed, especially “Hall of Mirrors,” by at least a verse. Yikes.

I dug this, but I wanted the pieces to not flow into each other. It made it difficult to get a sense of what each song truly was. Definitely a bigger step in evolution of electronica from Kraftwerk, but not something I would listen to on a regular basis.

Love Steely Dan. I thought that a few of the songs were a bit short, though. That was kind of surprising to me. But still, I had always enjoyed Aja and a few of their later albums.

I always enjoy Bob Marley’s stuff. Very masterful and a cut up above in reggae. The only real problem is that after him, who is there? Very few other reggae stars you can think of off the top of your head. I have heard most of this in collections or live performances, so it was nice to hear a couple imof tracks I had missed.

I did enjoy this. I never liked the term “math rock,” though. I like the idea of combining odd time signatures with raw energy. It just… went on too long. The album felt like it should have been 40 minutes. But with CDs, everyone was for a while all about releases being more than 45 minutes. Still, I wish the band came out with more stuff. I would have liked to have heard them evolve. So like a 3.6, rounds up to a 4.

About half of this album Is on the Best of Blondie CD I have, and it’s easy to see why. A lot of great tunes here. So I was familiar with the majority of the album. I knew Robert Fripp’s had played on a track, and it wasn’t even a “hit.” Really good stuff, but the filler is indeed filler…

The songs felt very… formulaic. Introduce a theme, beat it to near death. And just when you think it was over… they’ll beat it some more. A lot of the songs were definitely at least a minute or 90 seconds too long. I knew the two big songs from it, and Kalifornia was good, too. But man, use the edit button, there, FS.

I like Genesis. A lot. But they have never had an album for me that is solid throughout. Here, the last song kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth. A lot of the songs I heard the live “Seconds Out” version before. So they always hold up, except “Firth of Fifth.” What a masterpiece. “Cinema Show:” the studio version can’t compare to hearing Collins and Bruford going all out. So yeah, this is a good one, but not a GREAT one.

I've always liked Dire Straits, I wish I had a chance to see them perform when they came out in the early 90s. Their first album is not my favorite, but it definitely has some great stuff here, and not just "Sultans Of Swing." Listening to this album made me go listen to their other stuff, which is really what an album wants you to do: make you hunger for more. I want to hear more of the guitar, but there's a lot of it talking in spurts, more soloing please. It's more apparent in my favorite album "Love Over Gold." Still, I'd give it a 3.6, which does round up to a 4. But it's a weak 4, at best.

A comment on this album on YouTube was that this could be a greatest hits album. Boy, are they spot on. That one-two-three of the first three songs on it, man! I’ll be honest, I was not a big fan of The Cars. Mostly because of “Drive.” (So overplayed when I was a teenager.). But this first album is really good. They really have the songs down. Very concise and well-written.

Wikipedia called this an example of shoegazing music, I think? I'd have to agree, although it was more watchgazing, as in when is this going to be over? It just sounded one long drone to me. I kept thinking "there's more TO this, right?" But nope, nothing else. Very disappointing. I did not loathe it, but it was very boring.

I really enjoyed this. At first, the vocals were a little too... "french?" But "The Noise of Carpet"... man, that was really something. Totally dug that. The grooves on it and the vocals really grew on me after a while. Quite refreshing.

True story: I actually own this album. I found it in a book store for $1. I picked it up because: 1) It was $1. What had I got to lose? 2) Wu-tang is for the children. So yeah, it’s not something I regularly blast through the house, but they definitely made a statement here. Great flow, beats it’s all gear. Quintessential Wu-tang.

It's weird how we get one album soon after another from bands... Besides the hits, I keep forgetting that "Dirty Work" was also theirs, thanks to David Palmer. "Kings" sounds very much like a Steve Howe guitar solo to me, which was interesting. I liked this album a lot more than the previous Steely Dan album we have heard. I still think there is a better album which, from what I see on the list, we will come to. But the album tracks I liked almost as much as the "hits," so I think that that is something.

I had never heard of this group before. I enjoyed the groove, but it felt very… basic and dated in comparison to what I have heard out there now. It’s not really fair to put it that way, though. But De La Soul’s work doesn’t have that archaic sense to it. It all feels pretty timeless. This feels more like them trying stuff out.

Foo Fighters has always been a band where I have liked their "hits," but the album tracks have not really "hit" me. "Rope," from "Wasting Light", is a great example of this. So the 4 or 5 hits off of their first album are great, the "wheat," but the "chaff," the b-sides and the album tracks, are... well, there's a reason why they are not hits. I probably should stick to their "hits," I guess. But their "hits" are really damn good. The Nirvana influence is really worn close to the vest here, but Grohl as a musician has evolved a lot. But this really started him off.

Always been a big fan of Neil Young. This has a lot of great works on it. "For The Turnstiles" is always a good piece for me. Not a real clunker for me, although Vampire Blues" does drag on a bit. Still, great album from him, top-notch.

The album comes off really strong. Really liked the first half. Second half… the instrumentals were good, but I wanted to hear them more in a complete song. Still, this was a pleasant surprise, I really liked this guy.

The vocalist sounds a LOT like Pat Dinizio of The Smithereens (that's not a bad thing). It's too bad most people think of the "Mrs. Robinson" cover; these songs are catchy. But that just might be the vocals for me.

I only know a bit of EC's work. But what I do know I like. I guess this is as good as place as any to start. The whole DIY / punk feel to the songs really makes it POP. Really digging it.

It's interesting to see where Jerry Harrison came from before Talking Heads. But the singing here (or lack thereof) was dreadful. The lyrics didn't bother me, although it's interesting that the songs had lyrics that were more risque. I mean, it was 1972. "Saturday In The Park" kind of lyrics and here we have someone saying the word "a**hole" in a song. Quite a wide range. But Richman's vocals were so terrible they just pulled me out of enjoying the songs. Maybe a 1.6 so rounding up...

I thought it was good, but a little too "dreamy." I don't know if it is something I would ever come back to, but I get the appeal, I think. The tone and feel is sparse, but I get what they're going for.

Ugh. I. _HATE_ Bon Jovi. Damn you, rabbithole, for making me listen to this. As some of us are from NJ, and grew up during the Bon Jovi hysteria, you could not avoid Bon Jovi, he was everywhere. And listening to this album made me remember why I hated him. The lyrics are so insipid (although not as bad "only time will tell if we stand the test of time," BUT THEY COME CLOSE!!). Every cliche is in the lyrics and it makes me cringe. And the music? It's a blueprint for every 80s and early 90s "hair-metal" band would do. It's all there, the rockers, one or two songs to pull out the lighters. Gah. Nothing special to these songs at all. The production is skilled, but the keyboards, drums, nothing spectacular AT ALL. What they do here they do well, so they are lucky to get two stars.

Hard to believe that this album is 20 years old. I have "The Blueprint 3" because of "Empire State Of Mind," and a fe other tracks. It's funny because I mentioned Jay-Z and my kid was like "I don't know who he is." Kind of surprising, but he's a rock guy. Anyway, the flow here is a BEAST. And then putting Eminem in the one song, godDAMN. This is a great album, 20 years on. There's a reason he made 2 sequels to it. Hard for me to blast this in the house, though. The language does make it difficult.

This was… unique. I don’t think I have heard anything like this. The singer first reminded me of Mike Patton, but then he seemed closer to Scott Weiland. It grew on me a lot. Songs like “Charge” and “The Frog Princess “ I really enjoyed. Definitely something I am looking more into.

There's something to be said for an album that just seems to be done so care-free, so effortlessly. I know the band and everyone worked hard on this record, but it doesn't sound that way. And that, right there, is true professionalism. Making something challenging look easy. I don't know if I would have appreciated this album as much if I hadn't played an instrument. But wow, this stuff is great. And it's 65 years old, and it doesn't sound it. Great stuff.

The Mrs. is a big Fogerty fan, so I am pretty familiar with CCR. Although I think “Keep On Chooglin’ “ and “Graveyard Train” go on a bit long. I imagine stretching them out live must have been fanTASTic to witness. Definitive statement from the band.

I have heard a few Megadeth songs, but not many. Fun fact: Marty Friedman (guitarist) went to high school here in Laurel, MD. Mustaine’s vocals… take a bit to get used to. But the musicianship is clearly there. You can clearly see the line of evolution from Metallica to Megadeth.

Nice to hear Steely Dan again. I like this album better, the songs are a bit longer, seem to be more developed. Bodhisattva Vow is one of my favorite non-radio hits of theirs, so I will always give this a high ranking. I should just break down and get all of their stuff.

We all know the "hit". I played it for the Mrs. and she said "Oh, I liked her better in No Doubt." Me: "That's not Gwen Stefani." Which tells you either the generic-ness of this song or how little my wife can tell about singers. I am going to go with column A. Anyway, the songs grew on me after a while "Choke" to close out the album was really quite good. Definitely better than I was expecting, considering the "hit". I'd probably give this a 3.6, rounding up to...

I not a big fan of the Stones. I think growing up I got in my mind I had to choose between the Stones or the Beatles, and I chose the Beatles. But as I grew up, I began to appreciate them more and more. This album has a few well-known pieces to it, but I really encourage you to watch the youtube version. The lyric videos are really cool. "Sympathy For The Devil" has one of my favorite lyrics of all time: "I shouted out who killed the Kennedys, when after all it was you and me." So even with me not being into the Stones, this ws still real good. The slide guitar in "No Expectations" was ok, and little things bothered me, but it's really on the edge of being a 5-star for me.

Wow, this was just... amazing. Really hit that jazz craving I need every so often. Reading the background of the album was essential to this as well. Definitely going to seek out more of his work.

This is pure energy. John Lydon once sang "Anger is an energy," and this is proof of it right here. Hard to believe this is over 20 years old, and so little has changed. I did not buy this album when it was first released, but when I did WOW. Just an amazing piece of work telling the Man to go f**k himself. It's a hard one to listen to when my kid is in the car, I'll tell you that. But it is an important piece of musical history, and definitely worth all 5 stars.

We have an Elton John box set from 1990. I was surprised how many tracks are from this album, how many tracks I know so well. But then again, I shouldn't be; this is probably his best album, by far. So many of his other albums have great stuff on it too, though. Driving into work, there was at least two or three songs that had that 70s reverb and drum sound. You don't hear that on many albums and think that it doesn't sound dated. It fits in well with the music, and does NOT sound permanently lodged in the 70s. Not, almost FIFTY years later, we can listen to it and marvel in it. Perhaps if it was recorded now some of the songs would have a slightly different tinge or quality to it, but I doubt by much.

I have the first Buffalo Springfield album, and besides from the song "From What It's Worth," everything else sounds incredibly... dated. This is how I felt listening to Moby Grape. Every song sounded very dated, so old that it just does not break through the era it was made in. I imagine that's what's going to happen to a lot of the music that I knew growing up, when people who didn't live during the 70s and 80s hear it for the first time. Whereas for me it still fits into my head. So as good as the performances were, I doubt I would come back to it.

I am really impressed at Little Simz' skill here. She has a lyrical deftness, a flow and capability I do not regularly hear. The brevity of the album is also a big factor here. A lot of rap albums have so much filler, skits and interludes that just... ugh. It makes it difficult for me to want to come back to the album and do a complete re-listen. Hearing the "n-word" so often I did start to tune it out. It is tough to hear in people's albums nowadays. Definitely a nice change of pace album for me. I really enjoyed this and the showcase of her skill as well as how the MC really compliments her.

I was really surprised by this one. It reminded me a bit like Radiohead, probably around the Kid A / Amnesiac period. Very space rock-y. Although the vocals felt a bit generic (stronger, more forceful than Yorke's). I liked how the album opened, the intro really made a great statement. Their interpretation of "Moonchild" was... interesting. Not sure if I would keep coming back to that song, but at least they credited King Crimson.

Ahhh, that hit the spot. Some great latino-jazz here. It's sad that ten years ago people would have only thought of Tito Puente from the Simpsons, and now people don't even remember that. But wow, this band is tight. Definitely have to pick up both Volumes 1 AND 2.

OK, this is going to sound really bad. But I thought Sufjan Stevens was the lead singer from System Of A Down. Oops. Definitely not. Yeah, so this isn't bad. But it is a bit.... different. It's a bit noodle-y in places. Experimental music has (to me) sometimes the feel of pretentiousness. "Look, I can put together anything and package it and people will buy it." I get the point of the concept album, and maybe if I was from the midwest I could appreciate it more. As it is, it just didn't hit me like I was expecting. Not something I will revisit.

Wow. This is... awful. The synth is annoying. The screaming is jarring. I mean, I totally get why this was ground-breaking for 1977, but it is just... annoying. I almost had to stop it at least twice, wondering if I wanted to continue. Yuck.

Although I tend to group Fats Domino with other blues players, I found this a lot simpler than other albums by blues players that I've heard. Simple is not necessarily a bad thing, but here I was expecting a bit more from him. I respect Fats Domino because he broke so much ground as a rock and roll artist. I might put this on again, maybe as background music. It's just not hitting me emotionally.

The songs do tend to blur together on this, but that's how I always feel about techno. Eminem said it best: "Nobody listens to techno!" I like the groove, it's good background music. But there's nothing here that stood out.

That first side, man. Just floors you. Three of the greatest metal songs ever. Then there's the Planet Caravan song. Yikes. It reminds me of the Spinal Tap song, "Clam Caravan." I'm sure that that was what they were going for, but it just seems out of place here. Everything else fits really well. I remember getting this CD a few years back at Best Buy (remember when they had CDs, kids?). It was in a $5 bin. Only five dollars?! Sold. This defined the genre. Pretty much all of metal has taken from this album (except for "Planet Caravan", maybe...) The one song being a clunker, I am still going to rate this pretty high. How can you not?

Yeah, I was not really big into this style: New Order, The Cure, Joy Division... I do like a lot of punk. A good deal of it. This is not the kind I enjoy it. It's very flat for me,I don't know. It just doesn't hit me emotionally. I mean, it's well-crafted, but just... not for me.

I have only listened to "Duality" by these guys. No doubt they definitely have a LOT of musicality, particularly in the drums. This album solidifies it for me. But the amount of screaming and energy is... almost too much. I would have liked to have heard more guitar, solos and such. Have it brought more to the foreground, you know? I listened to the anniversary edition, which had some of their demos on it. Those are just a primal scream more than anything else. So the album itself is probably a 3.5 for me.

Really enjoyed this. It hit that punk/pop craving I was having. Going to have to pick up more if their stuff. Reminds a lot of the Clash, but more fun. I was hooked with the first track.

I had forgotten how many of these songs I had heard before. My sister was big into Prince for a while, so I imagine she played this tape in our room. I never really got into it at the time, but I should have appreciated his musicianship. I mean... WOW. The first three tracks are definite hits that were played over and over on the radio, but the others are just as solid. Truly a talent, gone too soon.

I have always been a big fan of B.B. King. His live albums are the best, studio albums seem too sterile for him... you have to be able to let Lucille out to play. It's strange, Spotify has a different track listing than on wikipedia or youtube. So I've listened to it a couple of times now. The difference between this and Fats Domino.... it seems so much rawer here. This is pure, unadulterated blues. This is where so many rock and rollers started. Or they should.

I have heard "Music From The Big Pink" and "The Last Waltz" a few times, so I am pretty familiar with the Band. The vocals always grated on me a bit. I'm not sure which singer it is, but he always sounds overly whiny. I know I should let that go. I mean, if I like Neil Young and Ian Anderson's vocals, this guy should be up my alley. But there's no forcefulness there. Then there's some of the songs... "Jemima Dancer" and "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" are definitely problematic (God, I hate that word.) songs today. At least "The Night" is a better song. "JD" is not that good to begin with. It's a good first effort by the group, but they definitely went up from here in their later efforts. They are NOT a group I have to get every 50th anniversary super deluxe edition set for, but a good comprehensive set would be good for me. I'd give this a good 3.7, minus "Jemima Dancer" (wow, what were they thinking?"

I don't know, there was nothing here that really stood out. With a name like \"Massive Attack,\" I was expecting something... harder. Something that was bigger, more MASSIVE. Instead it just seemed very... minor. There was a live track at the end of them covering \"Light My Fire,\" and it was very much how I felt about the album. It was... just unimpressive.

I only knew Jeff Buckley because I had heard his cover of "Back In NYC," which was not very good. People had been touting "Grace" for a long time. I was surprised by how much I liked the album. It was a lot better than I expected it to be. The singing and instrumentation worked a lot. More than I was expecting. The "Hallelujah," unfortunately, has been done to death. But even with that, the rest was surprisingly good. I did go back to listen to his cover of "Back In NYC." I still did not like it, but not as much as the first time. I appreciate it for what it is, but it's not something I have to have.

Flash in the pan. One-shot album, never heard from again. Seriously, I remember when this came out. I was in college and I gravitated towards it pretty quickly. You could not unhear this album; it was everywhere. Even the non-single, album tracks were played ALL the time. I tend to think of the album as overplayed, but every track on there (even Jeremy) is solid. It was their second album that solidified it for me “Go” is just a great opener. But this is where it all started.

I've had this album for a while and I really enjoy it. Definitely a jazz staple. Everyone knows the one song, but I realized I knew at least one other song, thanks to ELP. At first the songs feel a little... clinical, but once I got into it it was great. Probably Blue Rondo is my favorite of the whole 7. Really it's hard to believe that the band can have such different moods, but they really do get there. A definite must for any jazz fan.

So, it's funny we listened to this after the Brubeck album. Whereas the Brubeck album seems very clean and prepared, this is very experimental and out there. I know that's what Mingus was going for, but that last track, man... wow. It is definitely something I was not prepared for. I heard a lot of interesting things which, I think, with a number of listens, will go into something rewarding. But on the first listen or two, I can see people saying "what is this?" It reminded me a bit of early Zappa, very free-flowing. I liked what was there, but it's definitely not "safe" jazz. This is some dangerous, out there material. Definitely something that you have to listen to a few times to "get."

We had recently watched "Last Night In Soho" (great film, highly recommended). You can tell Edgar Wright is very particular about the music for his movies. Anyway, Dusty Springfield was on the soundtrack, along with a number of singers from the 60s whom I did not know at all. Yet they were HUGELY popular. I mean, Dusty Springfield had numerous hits. Nancy Sinatra is another one. HUGE in the 60s and early 70s, and then POOF, just gone. I didn't think that this album captured her vocal capabilities as well as it could. Supposedly that would be for "Dusty In Memphis". Also, a couple of the songs were better performed by the original artists, and her singing sounded very... white to me. Not as authentic as the real deal. So yes, I am giving this 3 stars, I think that other albums of hers are better.

I seem to remember hearing Babylon a few times. The album feels like one of those 90s singer / songwriter guys, like Jason Mraz or John Mayer. Listenable, but not memorable. Having said that, the last song on this album was WAY too long. I was expecting it to be like Phil Collins "We Said Hello Goodbye," and it went on for EIGHT MINUTES. OH MY GOD say GOODBYE already!

Every song was easily a minute or two too long. I have a lot of drum n' bass, but the songs either need to ba shortened or another theme needs to be put in there. They were getting tedious. I appreciated him for what he was trying to do, but... man.

I never disliked Disco. My biggest problem with disco was that every "hit" sounded the same. This, however, is different. Credit here definitely goes to Nile Rodgers and the bassist. They really put an emphasis on the music. The instrumentation for each sound is lush, the guitar solo for Savoir Faire was really great. The "hit" actually sounds overdone. The other pieces sound (to me) better. Really enjoyed it.

There's a very obvious Jerry Garcia influence to a number of songs here (not that there's anything wrong with that...). As the album progressed, the songs started to widen open in variety, which I appreciated. The band's appreciation for other bands (The Faces on the last track) really started to come out. I had heard of Wilco, but never really heard their stuff. Definitely refreshing.

The album reminded me a lot of early Jane’s Addiction, but much more punk. I know Nirvana used their producer for “In Utero.” You can really feel how raw the band is. I never realized listened to the Pixies, but I respect their influence on many bands I enjoy now. I did feel a couple of songs were a little “jokey,” but one can skip over those. (I’m looking at you, “Tony’s Theme!”) A joke song or two is ok, but you don’t want to overdo that. All in all, I liked what I heard. May have to do more listening of their work.

This one was difficult to do. How do you separate the art from the artist? Knowing how terrible of a person Marilyn Manson seems to be, it was very difficult to listen to this and be like "yeah, it's pretty good, BUT..." The unadulterated rage and anger built up in this album, you can really feel it. It's directed at the right people, the hypocrisy at the world, religion, society, etc. And yet we still have the man who created it, which makes this so much more difficult to deal with. I would have liked this more from someone else. Knowing more about the musician makes the songs more difficult. Knowing more about the actors certainly makes movies difficult for me, even if they are classics. But I am still giving this 4 stars, I liked it a lot, nut I have a LOT of misgivings with it. It was well-done, well-produced. There was at least one song that sounded a LOT like Nine Inch Nails to me.

Awesome beats for Missy to rap underneath. When she is going with her low vice, I felt she was really in command of the song. "Gossip Folks" was a bit annoying, though. The frantic-ness of her voice did not mesh well (I am a big fan of Ludacris, so that was kind of disappointing.) I liked the guest vocalist, they really added something to it. I am never a fan of interstitial stuff, so the outro / intro stuff in songs I could do without. It's hard to believe that she has been recording for so long, and Aaliyah has been gone for so long as well. After this I listened to her big hit, and it still really grooves (although the baby sample does get annoying after a while). So I enjoyed the Missy Elliot album, as long as she was using her speaking voice. But I do not think I will be coming back to it.

It's so weird to listen to something that's only 20 minutes long and say, "sure, that's an album." I have SONGS that are longer than this thing. Thinking about the previous review, things have come out about Marilyn Manson and his behaviour. And yet, if JLL was performing and behaving like this today, he would be shunned. Sure, things have changed, but it's weird to think about now. But what about the MUSIC, right? An incendiary performance, bar none. He was definitely in top form. It's so weird now to think of how he was such a different performer; few artists were rocking on the piano at the time. The sound quality itself should also factor into this. Hard to believe the recording is over 45 years old; I have heard bootlegs from the past 10 years of equal quality. Definitely a good listen, although I do not know if it's essential. It definitely gives you a good idea of the man playing live.

I have heard of these folks, but I have not really liked the albums I have heard. This was a step up from the albums I have heard, fortunately. This punk album was okay, but every song was under 2 minutes with no bridge or chorus. The songs seemed very underdeveloped. Don't get me wrong, songs don't have to be long to be good. But these just seemed like germs of ideas, as if they had a riff but nothing else. The Clash had riffs. And they turned them into songs. There were verses and bridges and all the things a song needs to have, and some of them were pretty short, too. These just seem like... half-baked ideas.

If you haven’t seen it, watch the Pharcyde’s video to “Drop”. That’s pretty amazing. As for this album, I liked the style and their flow was great. I just… I can’t listen to any track on this and feel comfortable. Is that wrong? There are rap albums I will listen to on my own, and some I will listen to with my 13-year old. But this… I feel dirty listening to it. 2 Live Crew is different. They’re going for shock. This is an emphasis on sex, and weed and the n-word that I cannot follow. Maybe I would have enjoyed this when I was younger, but the 50- year old says differently.

I have never heard any of Oldfield's stuff before. I am familiar with the riff from Tubular Bells, as any prog-head should. When I first sat down to listen to this, I hit play, and then I looked at the length. I did not realize this was going to be one of those "Thick As A Brick" type of affairs. Worse yet, there's no real lyrics on the album. It gets very... meander-y. The worst part of it was when he was naming the parts that came in. I wonder if that is what non-prog fans think of some of progressive rock music. I was impressed by his musicality, but as a whole I don't imagine me listening to this again.

I am a big fan of Doug Wimbish, so naturally I was looking forward to finally hearing his bass in this. It's nice to finally get the context of the other songs besides the famous song "The Message". Yeah, some of the songs are a bit dated, but they still work. The album is 40 years old, and it definitely feels it. It's not one that transgresses its years. The synths I think really hold it back, really. Still, it's a good album, one I will come back to (except them meeting Stevie Wonder, that seems kinda stalker-ish...)

Never heard of these guys. Seriously, the biggest problem with the Metallica album is that the good songs are never played and the great songs have been overplayed. To death. I have friends who are metal fans and if they never hear "Enter Sandman" or "Nothing Else Matters" again for the rest of their lives they would be ECSTATIC. Other songs are really, really good and you don't hear them very often anymore. My personal favorite is "Wherever I May Roam." The intro is so different from anything else the band had done before. Never in a million years would you have expected a progression from "Master of Puppets" to this. I liken "And Justice For All" like so many other progressive rock bands who went too far over the edge, a very divisive album, but then the band stepped back and tried something else. Some regained their fans (Yes, Genesis) others never really recovered (ELP). I picked up the 30th anniversary edition of the Black album (not the boxed set, that's overkill) and the lesser known tracks sound just as good (except "Through The Never", sounds kinda lurch-y. It feels like they aren't very sure about that one.) It's not my favorite album of theirs, but you cannot deny what they accomplished with it. My favorite quote about this album comes from Jason Newsted: "People said we sold out for this album. Yes, we did... every seat in every stadium." So I give this 4 stars, it's a really good, solid album, but it still isn't up there for me of their best (Master of Puppets, a quintessential metal album.).

I liked this album, but it did feel kind of same-y after a while. I considered the lyrics in a different language as another instrument, which was pretty good. It just didn't move me as much as I was expecting to, as I had heard some of Milton N's work before. Mostly just the acoustic guitar work. *shrug*

I think I mentioned this before, we watched a Britpop documentary a while back, it was quite interesting to hear more about Oasis. I only really knew this album. Still, the Beatles influence is overwhelming. It’s too bad the Gallagher brothers hate each other so. I would have liked to have heard their sound evolve. I think what they had was something that cannot be easily duplicated, and between brothers like that? Impossible. But Oasis sure gave it a try. I like this album a good deal, but I never get a chance to listen to the whole thing. It feels very slick, but we’ll-produced (that’s the 90s for you.) Really recommended.

Ska is always a bit iffy for me. It gets real hard to break free from that style. Fishbone was able to break free from it in the 90s, but that seems to be an exception. This album reminded me a lot of that problem: the guitar playing on the offbeat, which I wind up focusing on WAY too much. A lot of political statements as well. So what do we have here? I mean, the music itself is pretty good, I tended to get into the music more as the album progressed. But near the end I just started to lose interest. I mean, it was okay and I liked the instrumentation. But I guess I was hoping for more than I got.

Randy Newman is an amazing songwriter. I was really looking forward to the album. Then that first song came on. And I was like "wait, did he just say what I _HEARD_ him say?" I had to go look up the song and understand the context. I mean "Rednecks," right? Obviously, a song like this would have been different now. Heck, I remember when "Cop Killer" came out by Body Count (remember that pleasant little ditty?). It was not supposed to be singing about killing police, but playing a role. Same kind of thing here for that first track. It's not Newman is singing about being a redneck, but roleplaying. Still it's hard to wrap my head around. And I know it would not have been received so well in today's society. The other songs are classic Randy Newman. It's just that first song will make you pause without context, you know? Still going to give it 5 starts, but yikes.

A nice holiday surprise. Before, you know, he was in jail. The problem is, about half of the songs are difficult to tell who is singing. If you locked me in a room and played the Ronettes and then the Crystals, I would be hard-pressed to tell you who is who. The production doesn’t help, that wall of sound makes them sound identical. Of course, hearing Spector speak at the end is unintentionally creepy. It was a nice little album. Weird trivia: released on the day JFK was killed. I mean, it’s not like it was PLANNED. First printings are pretty rare, too. I like holiday music, but it always seems so… limited. There feels like there’s maybe about 100 songs, and they have to sound a specific way. So yeah, this was nice to hear, but I doubt I will come back to it.

There's something wrong about listening to this album on your phone, or your computer. You need to hear it on a record, or a dubbed tape on a crappy tape player. The Ramones should not be remastered for quality sound. My first encounter with the Ramones was when I was 15 or 16. My sister had two songs of theirs on a mixtape: "Blitzkrieg Bop" and "Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue." The second song made me pause because I wasn't sure if this band was a serious band or not. Even if they weren't, I still liked them. My kid came in and said "Is that the Ramones?" "Yeah," I said. "Every song of theirs sounds the same," he protested. "Not really," I countered. "Once you listen to the album, you start to notice the differences between the songs. Yeah, the songs are all at about 160 beats per minute. But you can still tell." Every song on this album has been covered by someone. I think that tells you something about the album in and of itself. I like this album a lot, but I can see how non-punk fans (like my kid) could be standoffish to it. It is pure energy (Almost every song you can hear the "1-2-3-4!" in the beginning.) and not much else. I understand how progfans can be towards punk (lack of talent and intricacy), but you cannot deny what the Ramones did and how this album really started it all. It is a great album. I did start to listen to the 40th anniversary edition, and it does get a bit repetitive. So steer clear of that one. The Blitzkrieg Bop single version has some weird reverb on it. Never heard it like that before.

I am impressed that Manu Chao sings in so many languages. I could do English and maybe… Pig Latin? (Okay, maybe a bit of Spanish if I was pressed.) I did not find his vocal range to be very impressive. I was hoping for more there. I did like how each song flowed into each other, which was different. The brevity of the songs was also good, not hanging on one riff too long. Least favorite track was Welcome to Tijuana. That got annoying really quickly. The instrumentation seemed pretty sparse, I was hoping for more. I just don’t see why THIS is in the top 1001.

I had heard them way back on SNL when they were on, and I do remember them because the last song led into a concert they did afterwards. The first time I listened to this, I was a bit turned off. Didn't like the vocalist, a little warbly. He reminded me a bit of Mark Coyne from The Flaming Lips. The drums were too simple, which bothered me. I did give it a second listen, and warmed up to it more. I found myself enjoying it, but I am still not a fan of the vocalist. And the drums do need work.

I only know Siouxsie & The Banshees from a few songs ("Happy House"). This is definitely NOT that. I get the experimentation and where this influenced so many other punk bands, but like "Suicide" I can't imagine me listening to this very often. I had to totally pause when "Helter Skelter" came on because I just wasn't sure what that was. It's never good when a song is totally unrecognizable.

The argument I have seen online is that the blues has a limited vocabulary. Yes, the blues can be somewhat... limited. But performed by a master, like Waters, the blues will always sound like a lot more. Hard to believe that this is from 60 years ago. The recording sounds pretty good for that long ago. I would have liked a bigger instrumentation, but it's live. So... what can you expect? Amazing guitar work by Muddy Waters here. Without stuff by him, most rock would have not existed.

I knew the one song by ELO, so there was a start. Jeff Lynne one said that he wanted ELO to be like where the Beatles would have gone next. I don't know if I follow that conclusion. I mean, if they continued on the path of Abbey Road, sure. But the Beatles were more than that. They also did "Let It Be," as we have seen from the recent documentary. They were willing to try different things. Anyway, the album itself is pretty good. I liked the concept album approach, although some of the songs did start to sound a little same-y. (Also there's this effect they used in "The Whale" that I first heard on Zappa's album "Sheik Yerbouti" so I associate it only with him, it's rather jarring to hear it somewhere else). I dug it for what it was, but it seemed a little out there? I think it's something I need to listen to again, because it feels like something I just did not "get."

When I was a kid, I HATED country music. Country music was my parents' music. You know what happens when you play country music backwards? Your wife comes back to you, your dog comes back to life and your truck miraculously gets fixed. My parents listened to country music of the time, in particular the group Alabama. But I remember hearing Willie Nelson on the radio, in particular "You Were Always On My Mind." I got back into Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash recently. Particularly with Cash being revitalized with producer Rick Rubin. Willie Nelson's cover of "The Scientist" is what made me want to look into his work. So the point is I had listened to this album before. It's a great album for Nelson, it complements his voice very well. Definitely well-done and great production.

The bassist / guitarist John Wilson is aMAZing. I will give them that... I like bits here and there, but this whole album reminds me a lot of that Friends episode where Ross pulls out his synthesizer and plays his music for everyone. It's just... very noodle-y.

It was a little too folksy for me. I don't know if I would combine psychedelia and folk for a full album like that. I mean, one song is refreshing, but geez. By the end, it was just too much. I enjoy folk music a good deal, but I always get a sense of variety within the songs. These just feel very flat with not a lot of energy to them. I guess you had to be there? And then there's "A Very Cellular Song." It's an ode to mitosis? REALLY? Okay... Sorry, I just can't take this seriously.

I was surprised by a few things on this album: 1) How many of these songs I knew that other artists covered. 2) How many of them Prima put the accents on very different spots in the songs. It was a little jarring, but definitely intriguing. This was not a surprise, as I already liked Prima's work. I was surprised at how the album was considered so... eclectic in some ways. The mix is very appealing. Definitely something I will revisit.

I never got big into Duran Duran when I was growing up. I will give them big props, their sound is very 80s but it's definitely good at what it does. I was very impressed with the non hits of this one for the most part. They were all very solid... except for the Chauffeur. Yikes. Not sure what they were going for there, but that was a real bad song to end the album with. "Save A Prayer," THAT is an album closer. The Chauffeur felt like a b-side to me. It was a real filler. Kind of left a bad taste in my mouth about the whole album. So I did enjoy it (on the strength of the hit songs I did know), but not as much as I had hoped and I blame that a lot on that last song. It's not very to do that, I guess, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

I'm a big fan of Tracy Bonham. So a lot of times I would get PJ Harvey as a recommendation. Not as similar as I would think. I will say I'm glad to have listened to this multiple times. The first listen I was not liking this, but a second more active listening I began to like this a lot more. I got into it a good deal, digging the time signatures and how the songs came together. Gonna give this a strong 3.

The majority of this album is on their greatest hits, Volume 2. I remember when I was in high school listening to Greatest Hits Volume 1 & 2 over and over again. I grew out of the Eagles. Part of it is that the only song the play on the radio is "Hotel California," which grew tedious. And then they were having a farewell tour, but then changed their minds. They could have gone out in a big finale, but decided "nah, let's not do that." That bugs me still. The few songs not on their greatest hits are also good, although I do not like how "Pretty Maids All In A Row" fades out. It's like Walsh couldn't figure out how to end the song. And Joe Walsh was the secret weapon for that band in this album, man. He was just... awesome. I don't think I would revisit the album, but it was nice to come back to once again.

There's a reason this album is so solidly regarded. Most of the songs on this album show up on later Wings retrospectives. Up until this point, Paul's solo works had not done well, but this has so many great things going. McCartney definitely needs that foil to write off of (in this case, Ronnie Laine). His own solo albums never really strike me as much as these. Perhaps that's why I like the solo album he did with Elvis Costello so much. The title track... I used to love this track a lot more, but there's something about it that bothers me now, maybe that it just sounds like a lot of riffs strung together before we get to the main chorus. I mean, they did that on "Abbey Road" with a bunch of short songs. Still, even those small pieces are so damn catchy. "Jet": who knew that this song was about his dog? Well, now you know. "Bluebird" is pretty good as well, but then the album starts to meander as well. But just on the strength on the first two songs ALONE this a damn good album. Sure, some of the other songs have a bit of head-scratching moment's like "Picasso's Last Words" but I still dig it. I'd probably give this 4 1/2 stars, rounding up to 5.

I remember seeing Meat Loaf in college, before "Bat Out Of Hell 2". He gave a great performance, played a lot of this album live. He really poured his heart into every song, you could tell he loved it, but he was ready to move on to that next level... Wait, so what was I talking about? Oh yeah, Bat Out Of Hell. Every song on this album is so... bombastic. Any one of these songs would take an album up another level. I could imagine someone like Springsteen taking one of them on, and really going for it, just like Meat Loaf does. The problem is that EVERY SONG is like that. You would think that "Paradise By The Dashboard Light" would be that epic song, the longest track, right? Nope. "For Crying Out Loud," the NEXT song, is LONGER. It's just so... exhausting. Even the slow songs are over the top. I'm surprised Meat Loaf is able to perform these songs without an oxygen tank. It's a really good album, but just... WAY over the top. I feel like I burn off a couple hundred calories listening to it.

This album is all over the place for me; it's like it doesn't know what it wants to be. I hadn't heard of this band before this. The first track I thought the band was one thing, then the next couple of tracks made think it was something else. I... _WANT_ to like this, but the variation is too great. I can't get a bead on what this wants to BE. The detours into electronica were like... playing a country song in the middle of a metallica album. It was too confusing.

I first got into Jane's Addiction right before "Been Caught Stealing" came out. "Mountain Song" and "Ocean Size" just... wow. "Pigs In Zen" at the time I really dug, but I can see it being a little cringe-y now. Most of the songs still hold up for me, Perry Farrell is one of the amazing vocalists from the 90s where it's just... wow. I know most people like the one song, but most of this album is really solid for me. It's interesting to hear the band compositions and see how different they are from the songs credited just to Farrell. Most people talk about Farrell, but can I take a moment to mention how stunning Navarro is in this stuff? I think it's a crime that he did not gel as much with Red Hot Chili Peppers that he could have, he could have taken them to another level. This album really sets up the next album to be their peak, but I think of it more as a one-two punch. Really enjoyed coming back to this, it had been a while (although Pigs In Zen I may skip next time around...).

So. What to do with a problem like Kanye? It becomes more and more difficult to review or listen to past works of people who become more and more known for their antics on the Hollywood gossip column than their records and tours. Still, and Kanye's swagger just reminds me more and more of Chad Ochocinco Johnson, where there he keeps saying"hey look at me, I'm still here, remember me?" Chad Ochocinco Johnson just got older and lost a step, where as Kanye? Kanye's life got intertwined with the Kardashians, and everything he released afterward doesn't... quite feel right. But. There was a reason both of them became famous before. It's different than say, watching old footage of OJ Simpson. This album and the next few afterwards have some great and I mean great stuff. "Two Words" is just... wow. The Workout tape song is pretty funny, and the skits aren't bad. But those skit interlude kind of things always grate on me a bit on albums. They do not warrant a lot of relistens. (The only one I ever liked was Fishbone's "If I Were A... I'd") I can see West's flow and lyrical sense. It is something to behold. He has definite skill, and this first album shows where he's going. "Last Call" did tend to ramble on, but so does Kanye. Best track for me was "Two Words"

Big Miles Davis fan. I don't listen to him as much as I should. It's funny how in jazz an album with just two tracks is regarded highly whereas in rock it's regarded as pretentious. Anyway, "In A Silent Way" is always a good one. I like how each piece gets their chance to shine. It's nice to hear the guitar in there along with sax and trumpet. A classic for me.

I had been listening to "Sand In The Vaseline," a compilation from <checks notes> THIRTY years ago?! Wow. A number of the songs are on this compilation, but I do not have this album. It took me a long time to get used to the elegant simplicity of those songs, as opposed to the well-known "hits" by the band. Because of this, as much as I enjoy the band, I can't give this 5 stars. I mean, yes it does have the great "Psycho Killer" on it. But it then has other songs which... yeah. (For example, "Who Is It?")

My wife had said I am not a big "ABBA" fan. And I will admit, it's not the first thing I reach for when I want something to listen to. Having said that, this album is really well-crafted 70s pop. I liked a lot of the feel of some of the songs. Even hearing the 1977 version, with "Fernando," an inescapable song. And "Dancing Queen"... I mean, how can you NOT like that song? Having said THAT, this album is really well-crafted 70s pop. So some of the songs are very dated. Seeing that the first song is called "When I Kissed The Teacher," yikes. The sense of what is acceptable really is different from 50 years ago. "Tiger" is another one that just teeters on the edge of camp. I'm sure they were like "oh, this is going to be a great one." But now it's just... what were you thinking? It's interesting that the album is just over 30 minutes long. Each song is a crafted 3-minute piece, going for that pop kind of classic. Do they all make it? At the time, yes. It's just now some of them seem so... dated. (To be fair, I'm sure of the stuff I listened to as a kid is really dated as well. But I have been listening to it over and over so I do not notice.) So yeah, I am going to take it a bit more off for it sounding so dated. But I guess that's not their fault. They were going for a specific sound that just didn't age well.

Strangely, this felt a lot like Nirvana to me. Which is good because I am a big fan of Nirvana. I had heard good things and how influential they were so I listened to one of their albums (I think it was "Goo"? Now I'm not sure.) and I just didn't get it. At the time it seemed like a lot of noise. Listening to this album, I "get" their sound a lot more. It was more enjoyable than I remember. I liked the layering of guitars and how it worked within the songs. Will I go out and seek more of their work? I don't know, but I do respect them a bit more and my stance on them has changed a bit.

The Black Crowes are a band I drifted away from and then came back to (Stone Temple Pilots is another). Their hits really "hit" but their b-sides and album tracks are middling. But the first album is very solid. I recently picked up the anniversary edition (if you can, try to get the Target version. It is basically the music in the box set without all the extra crap, trinkets and tchotchkes.) It's funny how everyone assumes "Hard To Handle" was a Crowes original. I never understood why they couldn't play that one with Page (they couldn't do any Black Crowes material on that fantastic album they did because of recording rights, but "H2H" could have been done...?) Although my favorite track of theirs is not on here, this is a very good (if not great) album. Solid all the way through.

On wikipedia, it says 'the music has been described as "bubblegum pop drowned in feedback"...' This seemed pretty accurate. In fact the feedback was so bad I could barely tell the songs. The noise was just too much. And can we talk about the recording itself? It sounded like it was in a garage, or an echo chamber. I could barely hear the singer. It was awful. I'm sure there's something there, maybe it's like the Sonic Youth the first time I heard them. I don't know, it just seemed like the band thought the waves of feedback would make them more endearing, but really it just annoyed me.

Superunknown was the first Soundgarden album I picked up. I had read an early review that said that it was going to be an amazing album, groundbreaking even. I was into Pearl Jam & Nirvana, they had broken right around college. But somehow Soundgarden had slipped me by when I was in college. When I did hear it back in March of 1994, my mind was blown. Listen to the original, not the remastered version (they boosted the volume too much, gah.). I go back and forth between my favorites on this album. Sure "Black Hole Sun" is overplayed, but there's a reason for that: it's a damn good song. I don't skip it when I listen to the whole album, but I don't listen to it by itself. They play songs with odd time signatures so flawlessly, it doesn't sound as clumsy as in other bands. I would steer clear from the Super Deluxe Edition version, only because the Demo & Rehearsal versions... like, how many times can you hear the songs in one sitting? I know fans of the band frown on this album, thinking of it as the "sell out," but honestly I think of it as a progression from their previous album. "Down On The Upside" is a fantastic album as well. Highly recommended.

I think I heard a lot of the songs from this album from different concerts ("Stage", in particular). It's amazing how many great songs are on this album, and they vary so much in style, too... things like "Ziggy Stardust" and "Suffragette City." But even deeper cuts like "Starman" and "Five Years" (which really aren't that much deeper when you think about it) vary in style. People talk about the short shelf life of prog rock, but when it was in big heyday in the early 70s it was something to behold. Glam rock was the same, and T-Rex and this album in particular. The true test of an album is its "re-listenability". I listened to it, and wanted to listen to it again right away. Definitely tells you something about the addictiveness and how much those songs become earworms in your head. "Five Years" for me really sticks with me for a long time. Maybe it was because I first heard it on "Stage" and it was so intriguing, but just... man, I feel like listening to it again right now. Great, great album.

I had picked up this album a while back, and at the time I did not really care for it. Think I sold it back. It's interesting how my taste has evolved, because listening to it now I am really enjoying it. Maybe it's the wide range of songs, or my larger appreciation of Beck in general, but it's just got something to it. Call it a swagger, call it what you will. It reminds me a lot of Beastie Boys' "Ill Communication," but in a good way. The big hit songs are great, but the other tracks stand by themselves, too. Really surprising to me.

Some music does not age well. This is probably an example of that. I got up to the second track and... yikes. You hear "the n-words are coming" and I was wondering what they were thinking. I get that it was about white flight, but still I was very taken aback. Also, go ahead and watch YouTube "SNL Shindells". It's a parody of doo-wop groups, and because of that, songs like "I Ain't Got Nothin' " have been RUINED for me. I will say the 12-minute "Papa Was A Rollin' Stone" was probably the highlight for me. But this was definitely not a good album for me.

This was a very pleasant surprise. Knowing the big band sound Sinatra usually gives, this was different, that bossa nova style. The Girl From Ipanema is pretty much required if you're playing bossa nova, though, isn't it? The one song, "Wave".... Frank really went for that low note, didn't he? He was almost at the legendary brown note, he was singing so low. And he kept NAILING it. Really dug this, it was nice to hear, something to listen to on a quiet Sunday afternoon, except for maybe "Wave." That "cling togeTHERRRRR" would be a little disturbing.

The lyrics to this album (for the most part) are so... hopeless. 2Pac knows he is "born to die." Songs like "Death 'Around The Corner" are just so... nihilistic. It really got depressing after a while, I mean it seemed like there was no point. Although "Old School" made me smile, to know that he honors those that came before him. 2Pac's rhyming skills are definitely there for all to hear, no doubt. Although listening to "Can U Get Away" he sounds a little... cartoony. I didn't take it as seriously as he wanted it to be. All in all, I thought it was a good album, really reflected the hopelessness of the streets. I don't know if I would listen to something so bleak, but I'm glad to have done so.

I can understand why S & G broke up, a folk duo can only do so much. This album kind of tells that. I mean, once you hear the fist song (the title track) there really isn't anywhere to go from there. I really think they should have put this as the last song, as it gives a bigger finish to the album. As an opener, it's like... great, NOW what? Most of the other songs are not on a level of that first one, although some do come close: "The Boxer" being one. "Cecilia" I have heard WAY too many times for some reason. So yeah, I had heard this album a good deal, I just think shooting your wad with the title track makes it tough to go on afterwards.

It’s weird that the song everyone knows from this album (“Waterfalls”) knows a little antithetical to the album. The album itself felt more hip-hop than R&B. I have to wonder what would have happened if they had continued. Anyway, most of the songs were pretty good, even the interludes were enjoyable (probably because they were music and not skits). I would have liked to have known the guest vocals, that made it more hip-hop to me, having Busta Rhymes and whoever else there. Overall there were one or two songs I might say meh to, but a strong outing.

There was a point somewhere in the middle where a number of the songs sounded exactly the same. I mean, the vocalists he got were of, although "Disco II Disco" was REALLY annoying. And hey, it's Nik Kershaw! Haven't heard him in a while. The last song I really enjoyed, too. There was a really interesting video for it up on YouTube. But a lot of the stuff was very same-y, so yeah. Not something I am going to come back to. I am sure this club stuff is big, but just not a fan. But the few high points make me round up to a 3.

There are some really strong tracks here; I really enjoyed things like "Regular John." "I Was A Teenage Hand Model" was... interesting, but it kind of meandered a bit. I listened to the reissue, and I think if I listened to the original I would have liked it more. It would have been tighter, and not all the chaff. I obviously had heard of QOTSA before (particularly the stuff from the radio and such) but the stuff on the album I liked I REALLY liked. I just wish the electronica stuff wasn't so noodle-y. So yeah, I will give 4 stars. Definitely a band I want to check more of.

The Mamas & The Papas sing about 60s sleaze, but they do it in such a folksy, white way you don't even notice. Groovy, man. They remind me so much of "A Might Wind." Not surprised by it, but jst a general observation. The music sounds so... dated to me. Even the hits that I know, hard to believe they are well over 50 years old. But they are, and each one has the weight of those 50 year on it. I'd probably give this a meh. Recognized the songs I was supposed to, but not much jumped out at me.

It's weird that this is the album that came up. The big sone from it, "Get It On" has a number of people on it who I enjoy. One of whom passed away the other day, Ian McDonald. That song in and of itself, is almost enough to buy the album. It is perfectly positioned, unlike "Bridge Over Troubled Water", which is right at the beginning of the album. This is right in the middle, so you have to listen to a good deal of the album, which is pretty good glam rock. He really gives a lot of sex appeal to those songs. They smolder a LOT. But it's "Get It On" that really sells it, without it, the album just doesn't go as far for me. It's funny how that one song does that, isn't it? Definitely something I will be going back to.

Reminds me a lot of the Clash. I mean, I guess that's the point? Still, liked the album a lot. Definitely a band I am going to have to listen to more. A good 4.3 for me, close to 5 stars. Really digging it, along with all the things they drew on.

It's amazing, for a guitarist, how much saxophone is in this album. The first time I heard this album, it did not become one of my favorites. But still, it has some great songs. "Peaches" is probably one of his greatest works. Listening to that piece today I really tuned in to the drums and marveled at how well-constructed they were. "Son of Mr. Green Genes" I had heard as a live performance, with lyrics. Surprising that it was originally just an instrumental. I have the Hot Rats Session box set. I need to listen to that at some point. The album itself is important as it is listed as "Frank Zappa" and not "Frank Zappa and the Mothers". I tend to gravitate to his Grand Wazoo era and Waka / Jawaka. But as a Zappa fan, I should listen to this one more often. Great stuff here.

Lynyrd Skynyrd. I have their greatest hits, and not surprisingly, half of this album is on it. There's a reason this album is on the list. As much as this is YEE-HAW southern rock, it is done well. The songs are catchy, even the ones on here that are over (FREEBIRD! PLAY FREEBIRD!!!) played. I remember hearing Freebird for the first time, and that whole twin guitar thing just blew my mind. Even though it's still a bit on the sloppy side and I know others can do it just as well, it's still great. The production on this and all the other songs are great. The formula for pretty much all of their albums exist right here, little changes from their other albums. I mean, did they peak with this one? Probably, it's the one with some of their best known (FREEBIRD! PLAY FREEBIRD!!!) stuff on it. But I was always partial to Mr. Saturday Night Special, not sure why. Anyway, it is probably an essential to that southern rock archetype. I just wish there was some evolution to it.

I liked the improvisational feel of all the songs on this album. It is what he was going for, that jazzy type of mood. "Everyone" could have sounded annoying and repetitive, and yet it holds up because of the delivery. It's one of my favorite tunes on the album. I think we've all heard the title track "Moondance" at least once or twice in our lives (I've had to play it a few times, not an easy tune.). But the other stuff on the album is just as freeform and improvisational, I quite enjoyed it. I wonder if that feel is brought to the songs live, and how many of the songs were performed live. So yeah, really enjoyable high marks for me. I'm glad the album is more than just the title track. A lot of times albums can't get past that big hit, but this one was able to do so.

The shortness of hte album really impressed me. Each song is not even 3 minutes long. For a guy who normally listens to 10 minute songs without batting an eye, this was a nice change of pace. And the energy! Wow, I haven't heard this kind of enthusiasm since punk, but happier. It made sense that this is just the A & B sides they work really well. There's no need for there to be an album flow, it's just hit after hit after hit. Don't listen to the extended cut / anniversary version of this, the 30 minutes in and out is all you need. Great stuff.

One of the things I really liked about this album was how every song was different from the previous song. I have only seen that happen once before (Faith No More's King For A Day, Fool For A Lifetime). Sir Duke... I played this song when I was in the Marching Ravens, what a great piece, but that brass part is a bear. Pastime Paradise... did not know that that was where Gangsta's Paradise came from. Shows you what I know. Easy Goin' Evenin' - Loved the harmonica on this I was surprised at how much there were a few songs that sounded like things were sampled, but it was 76 so I know that that wasn't the case. Great album, listened to it a few times and that doesn't happen too much for these.

Honestly, nothing on this album stood out for me. Reviews called it melancholy, I just found it dreary. Even the big "hit" I had never heard of. It was just all "meh."

The only problem with Led Zeppelin III is that it isn't Led Zeppelin I or II. It had a lot to prove as the band tried to stretch itself and had some growing pains. Even with that, some of the songs on it still really deliver: "Immigrant Song," "Since I've Been Lovin' You"... The last couple of songs are ones I always forget Bron-Y-Aur Stomp, and Hats Off To Roy Harper. I don't really call this album a misstep; bands would kill to have a misstep like this. But it is an important link from II to Runes. So yeah, I will give it 4 stars, but it just barely gets 4 (like a 4.4).

When I was a kid, I had joined the Columbia House Record Club. I picked a number of Bruce Springsteen albums because hey, he's from Jersey, right? I still only listen to Born To Run and Born In The USA with any frequency at all. If I had gotten this album then I probably would have need mental help. This is the bleakest album I have ever heard. I mean, it's him trying hard to be Dylan in a lot of ways, but wow. I find it interesting that the sides are so unbalanced on the record and tape. I would have found that confusing as a kid as well. Why put them so unbalanced? I guess there was a point... It's a very stark record, compared to the bombast of a lot of his other stuff, impressive that range. But still, man, Bruce lighten UP. So yeah, it was very well made, a stark record, but it was VERY depressing. Going to have to be in a good mood before I come back to that one.

Listening through the whole album, there was something digging about the music and I couldn't tell what it was. Suddenly, I started thinking about Billy Joel (of all people) and it hit me: There's no bridge in any songs on this album. Every song is just verse verse verse chorus, but there's no bridge. It's all A-A-A-A. As a dance song, that's great, but it gets very repetitive after a while. Maybe that's why dance music doesn't hit me as much. The lack of variation in the song, it doesn't shake things up as much as I want them to. So for me, the songs all wear out the welcome about a minute too long. And I think that lack of bridge is what does it.

Kind of reminds me of the music my parents listened to. Ver-r-r-r-r-r-r-ry twangy. But in a good way. Songs not stretched out too long. There's something to be said about succinctness.

The biggest thing this album had going for it is Annie Lennox's voice. Man, it is just incredible. The singles definitely benefit from her incredible vocals, and so do the other tracks. But one they start to get experimental, and her voice gets lost in those 80s synths, it's very hard to focus on the songs themselves. "This Is The House" is REALLY annoying, for example. Along with the bonus tracks on the 2005 edition, yikes. So yeah the singles are indeed what make this album. It reminds me of a few albums where the single is the best part of the album, and that's why they are the singles.

I am liking the sparseness of the songs. Even with just a guitar, there is still variety in the songs. Ruination Part Day is so dark, whereas other songs are more cheerful. My confusion as to why this album is on the 1001 list. There are other country artists that could have easily made the list: Alison Krauss comes to mind immediately. I don't see what Gilian Welch's voice or style stands out from other country artists of this ilk. Still, I like this type of music every so often as a bit of a "palate cleanser" so to speak. I just don't find it a cut above the rest of this type.

I liked this album more than I expected to. Maybe it was the crooning of the vocals, or the instrumentation. But there was something about it that I really kind of dug. It was really appealing to me for some reason. Probably the vocals, being a lower-voiced singer myself. Conversation 16 had some interesting lyrics to it. I think the only song that didn't stand out to me was England. The problem was there wasn't one song that was catchy. I liked the band, but there wasn't a song I was humming afterward. They were good, but forgettable. That's never good for a band "hey what's the name of that album by that band...?"

I've seen this album cover before and have always heard the Strokes were the "next big thing." I just don't see it. I do see a band that has a few catchy tunes, but not so much that I want to run out and but their stuff. The non-hit tunes sound very same-y. At least it's only 30 minutes long and not 75 minutes, so they get in and out pretty quickly. But it just didn't floor me. "Last Nite" is really catchy, I will give them that.

There is a definite influence here of a number of things: Cream, Pink Floyd's first album, Sgt. Pepper. The band really wears all of them very heavily on their sleeve, but somehow makes them all their own. I liked the songs each individually, but was not convinced of the actual story until I read Wikipedia. I think the Who did a better job with rock operas and had a more cohesive story. Maybe because they did it on a double album as opposed to a single album? I don't know. The music itself has a lot of good stuff going for it, I think I had heard of these guys before (with a band member called Twink you would think I would have).v SO I really did enjoy it for what it was. There are only a few live performances of this, with narration to pull the whole story together. I may go hunt that down on youtube orr something to hear all of that and maybe I will be more convinced of the story. As it is, I'd give a 3.6 which rounds up to a 4.

I've heard this album so many times when I was a teen. Being a prog head it was weird to listen to a lot of punk as well. I mean, so many of the songs were basic and raw, but there was an earnestness to them that is undeniable. It would be interesting to have heard more from this bband, but it was so manufactured they were never going to last. The songs themselves, now that I listen to them as a whole again 35 years later... well, some of them were obviously made to shock. I can see how "Bodies" or "Seventeen" would NOT go on the radio. But there are some great songs here: "Pretty Vacant" is still very catchy. I never did like "Submission;" Rotten trying to be sexy and just sounding scuzzy. The performances themselves are pretty sloppy, but they still hold up. Man, "Anarchy In The UK," "God Save The Queen"... they just really smack you in the face and do not let up, do they? So yeah, I have listened to this album a lot in my youth, but hadn't listened to the whole thing in a while. It was refreshing to come back to it and hear it with a new (and more mature) set of ears. Still really like it, though. I just can't give it 5 stars, just because of the embarrassment of songs like "Submission," "Seventeen" and "Bodies" (I still like "Bodies" but geez man...)

Let me start off by saying: I do not like Depeche Mode. A comedian once said the lead singer is getting to the point where his skin was almost transluscent. Dude, go outside once in a while. So I was probably prejudiced to this album. The electronic percussion was particularly grating. Having said that... Personal Jesus is just a damn good song. It is undeniable. I have listened to that one song over and over again. It just runs over you like a freight train. The rest is decent, but that one song almost redeems the album for me. Almost.

What a beautiful, desolate album. That last song "I Can't Give Everything Away" just floors me every time I hear it. I don't know why Bowie's passing hit me so hard. Freddie Mercury's dying was more of a shock to me, but when Bowie died, it just... I went numb. And I cannot imagine recording this, while he could probably feel the life draining away. I will say there a few songs on here are a little iffy: Girl Loves Me and Dollar Days are a bit... hmmmm, but I do like the instrumentation of all the songs on this album, the sax coming back so much after so long. The harmonica on the last song, wow. I can only play this album every so often as it chokes me up a little. But it's hard to separate the album from the man and his death. As a piece of art, it has so many strong songs, but those few weak songs do kinda bring it down a little. Is it his best work? I would say no, but it's definitely in his top 5 easily.

Although this is not my favorite album by Faith No More, it is definitely their most well-known because of "the song." Even with that song, I like this one a lot. It's funny, a friend of mine and I diverge right around here for FNM. I started to like them more and more, with this being where I really became more interested in them. By the time the next album came out, I was all in and my friend had bailed. The band has evolved so much past "Epic." However, you can hear a lot of their future endeavors in this, going from "From Out Of Nowhere" to "Zombie Eaters." Patton's voice is an interesting choice here. It is so much more than what is featured here, but I get the feeling he was trying to be a bit like Chuck Moseley, the previous singer. The trio bass/keys/drums really puts such an effective groove. I can pick out Bordin's drumming pretty easily, he has a very distinctive snare hit, kind of like Bill Bruford, actually. The music is wide-ranging, although not as much as later albums, which made it not so easy to pigeonhole the band. But as it is it's an amazing effort by the band. I wish that they had held onto Jim Martin for longer. But, the work he does here is great. I would definitely say this is the album to start with if you wanted to get into Faith No More, but it is not their best. I never bought "Edge Of The World", But one clunker doesn't mean the album sucks, right? And "Woodpecker From Mars..." holy crap is that great! So high praise for this one, I will give it 5, great intro album for this band, but their later albums really progress from here.

It's obvious how important this album is to punk. Having said that, there is a lot of this that reminds me of the "Suicide" album, and I did NOT like that album at all. Iggy Pop is also not one of my faves. Still, you can feel the energy coming off of this, especially for 1970, and that's saying something. The Damned had covered one of the tracks and it's nice to hear the original. The last track, LA Blues just sounded like an ungodly mess. I originally thought this was a punk album, not realized it predated it by so much. Even so, it just didn't work for me, it was just a mess.

I'm not sure why this is the Metallica album we had to hear. The orchestra really adds a lot to the songs that I was lukewarm to. The songs I really like or love of Metallica's... eh. It didn't make me hate the arrangements, it just didn't add a new layer. For example, I'm going to say it: "The Call of Ktulu" is a boring song. So the orchestra really does add a lot to it. But most of those other 80s classics, not so much. And wow, two new songs! No Leaf Clover and um... that other one! Yeah! There are other orchestral albums I've heard that have done good jobs with rock artists. I guess because of it closing a huge chapter of the band, as Newsted's last album. Still, there is a lot to like, but not a lot to love.

Back in the 60s and 70s, you were either a Beatles fan or a Stones fan. It was a whole light / dark thing, I guess. Listening to Yes I was more of a Beatles fan, so I never heard a lot of Stones' albums all the way through. I know a good deal of their music, but not complete albums. This one I knew some of the tracks going in, so that's a plus, I guess. The songs I did not know are sandwiched between two of the band's greatest songs. I think my biggest confusion was "Country Honk," which seems more like a one-off. They released "Honky Tonk Women" as a non-album single, so I guess they figured not to put it on the album. Still it seems like the only song you could probably lose off of the album. Imagine if they had put the single on the album instead... Other thoughts about this album: "Love In Vain" - really good acoustic blues song. "Live With Me" - damn good groove going there. "Let It Bleed" - I knew I had heard this song before, but I don't think I had ever knew the title. This could easily be a country song. "Midnight Rambler" - Jagger's beginning vocals seem a little off, not sure why. "You Got The Silver" - very Dylanesque "Monkey Man" - seems like this was from a jam and this was the best part of it. Would not want to hear the whole extended jam. Definitely a good album to get for any non-Stones fan, even without "Gimme Shelter" and "You Can't..." I would probably switch out "Country Honk" and I don't know how many times I would listen to "Monkey". Still, definitely a great album.

This album suffers the same problem as “Bridge Over Troubled Water” for me. The big hit, the most well-known song is first. The other stuff is good, but not at the level of that first song. Still, it runs right over and through you because LEMMY. Great, headbanging stuff, but a slight letdown after that first song. The dead man’s hand again…

As much as I enjoy the first 2 albums of Queen, here is where they really develop their sound. Going from metal (Brighton Rock) to glam (Killer Queen), they can really do it all. Even the songs that don't clunk resonate on this album. Yes, "Killer Queen" is overplayed on the radio, but it's still a damn good song. As great as Mercury's voice is, I think it's May's guitar work that really shines here. "Brighton Rock" and "Stone Cold Crazy" are real statements as to what he can do. Definitely one of my favorite Queen albums.

The cover made me think the album was going to be very different than I expected. Still, the album was a pleasant surprise. The jazz was pretty good, for the most part, but nothing mind-blowing. Their big "hit", "Street Life"... went on twice as long than it should have. I mean, it just meandered. Easily could have been cut in half. Perhaps that's how the single version is, I don't know... The other tunes had that electric 70s early 80s jazz feel. I liked it for what it was, but nothing stood out as "whoa".

Top five of Billy Joel's albums. It's weird how I have moved on from his stuff, but it's nice to come back to it, like an old friend. Every song on this one is a singalong, as opposed to some of his other albums which are really good, but you just don't have that feeling to sing along with them. Billy Joel himself seemed to push Vienna a LOT in later years, and it's easy to see why, it is an underrated gem. Even the songs that are the hits do not feel overplayed to me (I'm looking at you, "Piano Man." God if I hear that song one more time...) This one really put him out there in the mainstream. And rightfully so, it's a great album.

Honestly, I am not a big fan of R.E.M. I find Michael Stripe’s voice too whiny. But there are a handful of their hits I do enjoy, and one of them was on this album: “Man on the Moon.” Unfortunately, so is “Everybody Hurts,” which is very much on my least favorite songs of theirs. The other songs were okay. But nothing that stood out. Nothing that made me change my opinion on them as a band. So a big meh from me.

A lot of the songs on this album sound like the big hit single "Hate To Say I Told You So." They were very RRRAHH RAHHH RAAAAH after a bit, although a few songs did stand out. And on the plus side, each song was very short, got in and out to not overstay their welcome, I will give them that. The instrumental was interesting at the end. I dug that, along with "A.K.A. I-D-I-O-T." It's interesting that it's basically a best of from their first two albums. I have a Kinks collection like this. I assume that the rest of the first two albums aren't any better. Anyway, I'd give it a middle of the road, but there were some good bits in there, probably about half of the album. Favorites" "Hate To Say I Told You So" "Die, All Right!" "A.K.A. I-D-I-O-T" "The Hives Are Law , You Are Crime"

Huh, that's weird. I didn't know this band had a fourth album.... Just kidding. My son discovered this album a few months ago and has been playing it nonstop. He has great taste. Someone asked me a while ago what is Zeppelin's best album, and it obviously has to be this one. Yes, it's overplayed. But there's a reason for that. It's because the songs themselves hold up so well. There are very few albums that radio stations will play any track from, I think I can count them on one hand: Who's Next, Dark Side Of The Moon and this one. Even "Stairway" as many billions of times I have heard it is still a great song. It just doesn't get old. I vacillate as to what is my favorite song, and right now it's "When The Levee Breaks." Ask me next week and it will be something else. Just a great, great album.

My first experience with Kate Bush was her cover of "Rocket Man" for the Elton John tribute album. This kind of turned me off to her. So going in, I felt her voice was a little too... breath-y? I don't know if that really bes describes it, but that's where I was. That really is best heard in the title track. But as the album went on, I began to appreciate her vocal more and more. The instrumentation really helped as well (Karn's bass work was solid throughout). By the time I got to the last track, the piano / vocals really worked. I'm still not a huge fan, but I liked the album for what it was.

I was never into Kiss growing up. The boy went through a brief Kiss when he was younger. Most of that was watching "Kiss Meets Scooby Doo" hundreds of times. He hasn't grown out of that music, but has... moved on. So I think I'm familiar with about 1/3 of these songs. First off, the "live" version of "Detroit Rock City" is better. (I say it in quotes because the live Kiss albums had massive amounts of fixes in the studio). "Great Expectations" is a bit on the cringe-y side. The lyrics are, yikes. Originally I thought it was going to be about the book, so I'm glad they did not try to do that. "Beth" is... look, it's their highest charted single, but it is a bit on the schmaltzy side. But I am not going to take anything away from the success of the song. Ultimately, Kiss has always been a party rock band and they really do bring it home with this album. But I don't know, I always feel like their music is just so... pandering. "We know what you want, and we're going to give it to you!" But does it have any merit? The merchandise doesn't. Who wants to be buried in a Kiss coffin? It's a party album, but I don't think at a party "this place needs some Kiss music!" Not my go to band.

Wow, this was a bit tough to go through. It felt like they gave The Young Ones a bunch of instruments and said "put together some anti-establishment songs." They were very noodle-y. As a punk semi-fan, I had heard good things about the fall. I'm glad not to have paid attention.

My mother in-law is a big Elvis fan. So my wife knows a good deal more about him than I would. I do listen to him from time to time, so I was familiar with a lot of these. While I know a number of rock songs were later sung by white artists, hearing "Tutti Frutti" sung by Elvis is just... weird. It's just such an iconic song, and having someone else do it and not change it up more... it doesn't sound right. I'm sure there's stuff of mine that my kid thinks "that's Dad-music." But he has been listening to Rush and Zeppelin, so I don't know. I really consider this "parent music," and it's just nothing I get into. Roll into that people calling him the King of Rock and Roll when they basically ignore a huge percentage of the population, it does take some of the enjoyment out. Still, what he does he does well. It's just not for me.

Ah, ZZTop. You can't escape these guys on classic rock. They're good comfort food, and pretty fun, too. If you can, catch the documentary on them up on Netflix. It was pretty entertaining. It's really hard to believe that these guys have been around for so long. Still going after one of them passed away, too. I did not like the transition between the first two songs. Sounded kinda clunky. They reminded me a bit of Mountain, but looser (particularly in songs like Beer Drinkers and Hell Raisers). La Grange is that old? Wow. Really fun stuff, this I could imagine as more of a party album than Kiss' Destroyer.

I think calling this noise rock is a bit unfair. The first time I heard this, I started thinking of this as just noise. Now, there are some moments where it does get very repetitive, and a BIT more melody would be more helpful. But as a whole, it's pretty good. A whole album does get a little... on the nerves. A song or two on shuffle is a nice palate cleanser, but 45 minutes worth? Nope.

You can really tell this is the debut album of the band. The songs felt raw and unpolished. In fact, if you had told me that this was a demo tape for a band, I would have not been surprised. A lot of these felt like a producer should have worked with them more, developed them into better songs. I could not pick out the "hit" of this album. It's not that they all sounded the same, but no song stood out above the rest. So a big "meh" from me.

I liked the first half of this album quite a bit. But then it kind of fizzled out for me. I think that MP3 player have ruined my patience for things like this. I can imagine listening to a track or two of this on shuffle with everything else and enjoying it, but listening to the whole album my attention really wandered. It just did not hold my interest.

Had this album for a while, picked it up cheap a while back. It's a good one. Alice Cooper is still playing a few of these live. "I Love The Dead" is his closer. So these are songs the fans still love after almost 50 years. I like the feel of all these songs, most of them still have a bit of the 70s wrapped in them in. What I mean is that they could have only come from that era, I doubt the production styles of later eras would have made these songs sound like they do later, like in the 80s. It doesn't have as strong or as hummable a song as "School's Out," but I like all the songs on it: "Elected," "Hello, Hooray," "No Mr. Nice Guy" are some of my favorites of Alice Cooper. It's really weird to separate the two eras: the band Alice Cooper and the person Alice Cooper. But hey, that's rock and roll, right?

I had mentioned before about the BritPop documentary. Again, all I really knew about Blur before that was "Song 2" (woo hoo.). This album really puts them in a new light. It really gives you a feel of Britain, I think. The songs don't drag on, and the instrumentals blended in pretty well with the songs. Watching the videos did not really give you insight to the songs, particularly "To The End". I am still not 100% sure what that was about... Anyway I felt that this whole album was a bit more tongue in cheek than they were letting on. But not being from England, there were probably more in-jokes that I was missing. Still, I enjoyed this more than I was expecting.

My first true introduction to the Who was through Tommy. When they were doing their first comeback tour back in 1989, I remember watching the concert downstairs in the basement of my college freshman dorm. There were a number of us watching it, too young to have seen them when they were first touring but now experiencing them live on TV. I remember watching them play Tommy with special guest stars Phil Collins and Billy Idol... Then I heard the studio album, and it did not sound like that concert. It sounded... tinnier. My biggest problem with Tommy is how the development of the lead is through all these different characters that float in and out of the opera. In the story, it's not through his own internal development that Tommy as a character grows. Townshend's writing for character development really hit its peak in the next rock opera, Quadrophenia. The songs themselves do a lot of variation, and Moon pounds the HELL out of the drums. So yeah, as much as I appreciate this album for what it is, it only has a few great songs on it. I mean, you cannot deny the greatness of "Pinball Wizard" or "See Me, Feel Me." But besides that, a lot of the other songs are to beholden to the opera itself. So if Quadrophenia is a 5-star (which in my mind it is) this is definitely a 4-star album.

I had watched the show "Treme" on HBO, this reminded me a lot of that, but like the previous generation. I think that's just because of some of the dated production. I like the false ending on the last song, that was a bit of a surprise. But honestly this sounded very dated. Not surprising as it was 1968. I like a few songs by Dr. John, but this whole voodoo thing seemed kinda... goofy to me. I get what he was going for, but it just didn't connect with me.

I was surprised at how many of these songs I knew. I think I had heard of Supergrass before, but I don't think I knew any of their songs really. But there were at least 2 or three of these I knew from films or the radio. As a whole, this grew on me as the album progressed. The vocalist reminded me initially of Jack White. But the music doesn't really sound like his, there's a bit more variety here which I thought was pretty cool. All in all, this might be a band I look more into. I really dug this album. A low 4, at the least.

"Isn't this where we came in?" I have been listening to this album for almost 40 years. My feelings for it have evolved as I have. Learning things about the album and the band as I have read more and more. Pink Floyd is not my favorite band, but they are definitely one I can always turn to and listen to for a good 60 minutes or so. There is so much in the Wall that is similar to a lot of double albums. Somewhere in the middle, things start to meander a little ("Nobody Home" / "Vera". They're good songs, but still....) and then "Comfortably Numb" just floors you. Man, does it floor you. This album could not be made today. ("In The Flesh," anyone?). And the movie... yikes. I like Animals more, but still, how could I not give this 5 stars?

I was really surprised by this one. I knew of Thundercat from different things, he was (of all things) in the Book of Boba Fett. This album reminded me a LOT of the first couple of Frank Zappa albums of Frank Zappa, and Mike Keneally's "hat" album. It was very collage-like. The songs had that 60s Zappa-like feel too, which is always a plus for me. I liked the guest stars, and I keep meaning to check out "To Pimp A Butterfly." This gives me more of a reason to do so. So yeah, I really dug the feel of this, it kind of was in my wheelhouse. Definitely something I will be looking for. The cover is a little... disturbing, but not worse than I had seen before. Probably give this a 4.2 or 4.3, might go up with repeated listens.

I was surprised that those first two tracks were the big hits. I thought they'd be scattered throughout the album. "Bawitdaba" gets stuck in your head pretty quick. It's been said that the key to the album is that is doesn't try to be a hip-hop album. And yet a lot of the lyrics feel that way, like what would guys who are out in the midwest THINK rappers would go on about? And then instead of it being on rap, it was forced into a blend of country and "nu metal". It works, but the lyrics to some of the songs are pretty brutal. More brutal than some rap records we have listened to? Probably not. Maybe if I had heard them over and over again I wouldn't think about it as much. But now, 20 years later, the lyrics are a bit more cringe-y. So yeah, I remember the big "hits" from this one, but not something I would come back to for a bunch of reasons. But the construction and production is done well. So I'd give it a 3.

I'm surprised that it's taking us this long to get to the Beatles. But I guess that's the way the randomizer... randomizes. When I was younger, I did not care much for early Beatles. Somewhere around Revolver I was a fan. That changed later, understanding how their sound was groundbreaking. It's hard to believe how much their sound did evolve, though. But this is their starting point, really. And I've come to appreciate these songs. Still... the songs themselves are simplistic in comparison to their later work. I can't give this a 5 because of that. Still... you can't go wrong with the Beatles.

I know I've heard "El Paso" numerous times. It's a great song, and when I played this album it was the one my wife was waiting to hear. Definitely a change of pace album for me. It is such a different type of album from what I normally listen to, but that's not a bad thing. It's a simple recording but the songs are not simple. You would think that the songs being of the same type would be boring, but not really. Most of them are short enough to hold your interest, get in and get done fairly quickly. The Beatles' tracks were like that, too. 2 minutes or so and bam, you're done. That brevity is sometimes lacking in thing I listen to. Anyway, I dug the pieces, even though they harken back to a time before rock. It is a novelty but not a bad one. Something to come back to but not to listen to every day.

I felt the sound for a show over 50 years was pretty good, actually. I first appreciated Bob Dylan thanks to the Concert for Bob Dylan that was released back in 1992. It's hard to believe that that's 30 years old now. He even came to perform at my college in 92 or 93, but I did not go to see him. Thing is, the Concert for Bob Dylan was just about performances where almost of it was other artists singing his material. Listening to this performance, it makes me appreciate his songs, but it really cements the fact that I just do not care for his singing. The studio really brings out the vocals better, because live he can't sing for crap, even in the 60s. And his harmonica playing is just sloppy and all over the place. And not in a good way. It's great to hear Mr. Tambourine Man by the writer, but an 8 minute live version without the Byrds just doesn't cut it. And there are very odd... pauses in some of the verses. I mean, he wrote it, so he can choose to do what he wants, but still, it's very off-putting. Live with a full band, Robertson's guitar does a great job of harmonizing with Dylan's harmonica, but it's a struggle. As someone who has heard a lot of bootlegs from many bands, it's interesting to hear the audience cut out of this. There's applause, but the pause in between the songs is cut out (for time, I assume). I would have liked to have heard their reactions to the electric portion, as from what I understand, it was less than favorable. So yeah, I would rather hear the studio versions of these songs, or another artist cover these.

I men, I know who Biggie Smalls was. But I never really heard any of his stuff. It was kind of the same for Tupac, but "California Love" was on MTV all the time. So I had that at least. The songs felt like B.I.G. was a prizefighter, bobbing and weaving, dodging everything that was being thrown at him. The lyrical prowess on those first few songs were just amazing. The few interludes were a bit annoying, but at least they were few and far between. "Suicidal Thoughts" was disturbing. But apart from that, this was very solid. Every non-interlude track was intense. Rolling Stone called him "the greatest rapper that ever lived." I don't know if I would believe that, but he is definitely up there. Really good album.

I have a lot of questions about this album. Why is this considered an EP when other albums were of the same length? Heck, the first four Van Halen albums were about 30 minutes long. How old is the 1001 albums list? I ask this because this album came out in early 2021. I would think that albums would have to be at least in the world for at least a little bit of time before it's a "must-listen". Listening to the album I thought that Jazmine Sullivan was... adequate. The autotune was a bit overwhelming at times and I wonder what she sounds like without it. The songs were decent, many of them felt like they were cursing and using the "n"-word for the sake of it. And as I have said before, I am not a fan of spoken-word interludes. But if you're going to have them don't have as many as there are songs. I just don't why this is in the list. It just doesn't seem to be anything special.

My only experience with HD is "Dreams Reoccurring," which was recorded backward. I didn't get in context until reading about that album. It's too bad how the band fell apart after this one, but I can see it. The album is too much, and they admitted it. It should have been edited down to a single album (although which songs should have been cut I am not sure they would have been able to agree upon). A lot of the songs started to sound the same to me. I want to _like_ their stuff, it sounds like something I would be interested in, but this album seemed... bloated to me. Is it highly regarded by HD fans? I wonder...

There's something about Tom Waits that I still totally can't wrap my head around. His vocal range goes from anger to an almost Bruce Springsteen-like crooning. I imagined that when Springsteen got older he was going to sound a bit more like Tom Waits. I think my first impression of Waits was on Primus' "Tommy The Cat." The scat-like voice he used was just so... bizarre. (Makes sense since Claypool is on this album.) Listening to this album, he went from songs angry to almost Beefheart-like. "Who Are You This Time" and "Whistle Down The Wind" were both very haunting. I guess my point is I'm still not sure of his work, like Beefheart. It's something I may have to listen to numerous times. It's just so... odd. So I'm going to give it a 3. Hard to believe this is album #200. Really?

I think this album is a big step up from Talking Heads' first album, even though a lot of the songs at first have a similar feel to the first album. There's a lot more of this album I know though, whether it's from "Stop Making Sense" or greatest hits. My 2 favorite songs: 1) "Thank You For Sending Me An Angel" - every time I hear this song, I envision Jackie Gleason dancing. It just has that musical freneticism to it. 2) "Take Me To The River" - It's so weird to hear the original Al Green version now. This one is so definitive to me. Although not my favorite of their albums (either Fear of Music or Remain In Light), there were so many of the songs I sang along to in the car while listening to it.

Man, some of these songs sounded so 70s, but in a GOOD way. That funky vibe just sounded so damn good... I knew "Freddy's Dead" because Fishbone had covered, but the rest of this was just as good (although "Pusherman" was a little cringe-y, lyricwise.). The first song, sounded like it was alternating measures of 4/4 and 5/4. That off-kilter beat made for a chaotic sound. But it works really well. Short soundtrack, but I wanted to listen to it again almost right away. That's when you know something is pretty good. But I am going to ding it a star for "Pusherman," but it is definitely going on my list of stuff to look for.

I liked this one a lot better than the previous PJ Harvey album. THere were some definite highs on this one, songs that I really enjoyed, sand a few that were just kinda so so. Still, it's a step up from the last one which was a strong 3. So this would be a 4. I like the harmonies, and listening to it on youtube the song intros worked for me.

I like the mixture between country and lounge act lang straddles here. It was her first record so I guess she was still trying to figure things out, but you can hear the real emotion and fire in some of those tunes. Go for it girl, yeah! So... would you file this under country? I guess so. But the jazzier bits break up the monotony. I really dug it, reminded me of Lyle Lovett. Nice refreshing change of pace for me.

It was 1984, I think, or 1985, when I first got this album. I got it through the Columbia House Records & Tapes Club. I had gotten a bunch of Springsteen albums, but the only one I really went back to was “Born To Run.” Even “Born In The USA” did not overly thrill me. You have to understand, when you come from Jersey, you had to choose: Springsteen, Sinatra, or (later) Bon Jovi. I chose Springsteen. But then I kind of grew out it. It’s weird how that musical hero from that age left me. Maybe I just felt I had to like Springsteen for some reason, since “Born In The USA” was EVERYWHERE. Listening to the album in one sitting now, it’s a lot more polished than “Born To Run" (not necessarily a good thing). I keep joking about Springsteen becoming a country singer, and there are at least 2 or 3 songs that point to it here. The title track… it’s another one of those tracks with no bridge. This irks me, because it feels so repetitive. And yet the song itself is so well-known. “I’m On Fire” should have done more, it’s such a haunting song. “Glory Days” I can go my entire life without hearing again. Honest. It’s a good album with one or two iconic songs, but “Born To Run” is still his greatest album. This does not hold a candle to that. So it has to get a slightly lower rating, like a 4.4 maybe?

You can't deny the poetry of the lyrics. But yeah, this studio offering doesn't convince me of the musicality of Dylan's voice. I have to wonder how many takes it took. He seems pretty restrained as opposed to the live performance we heard. I know about half of these songs from other performances. "Like A Rolling Stone," though, is all Bob. It's iconic and no one can take the warbly version he puts out away from him. The instrumentation. Listening to "Just Like Tom's Thumb's Blues..." I felt the keyboards were kind of in the way of each other. And Dylan's harmonica... ugh. So I can't deny the importance of this album and the poetry of the lyrics, but I can't give it 5 stars. Dylan's singing just... ugh.

The album is a bit dated now, compared to their later stuff. But NO SLEEP TILL BROOKLYN will always get me cranked up and in a good mood. The band has disowned "Girls" which was pretty big of them. Hard to believe they went from being so sophomoric to what they became. I don't listen to this one a lot, but when I do it's put very L-O-U-D.

Such great stuff on this, even besides "Bohemian Rhapsody," which everyone knows. I mean "You're My Best Friend," " '39," "I'm In Love With My Car" are all great as well. But you can't get around the elephant in the room, can you? It's just too big. I tend to listen to the B-sides / deep cuts of Queen more only because I have heard those greatest hits so often. And BR is one I think I have heard hundreds of time now. It's still a great song, though. The band is firing on all cylinders on just about every song. Not one I would skip at all.

It feels kind of like an Irish country album. A lot of the songs go on a good minute too long. Kind of dragged, you know? So, probably not going to come back to it because of that.

I have the first album of Buffalo Springfield with "For What It's Worth." They had released the album and then Stills had written "For What It's Worth It" and the record company was all "Holy crap put that song on the record you numbskulls!" That song is better than any of the stuff on the first album. The second album is much better by leaps and bounds. They knew a lot more about what they were doing. It's too bad things were already falling apart, because this album was really good. I mean yes, it's very 60s, but not as dated as The Mamas and The Papas. And "Mr. Soul" is such a good song. "Stick around for the clown who is sick does a trick of disaster, for the race of my face and my head is moving much faster..." Such a great lyrical turn by Neil Young. I had never heard the original version of "Everydays," just Yes covering it. So it was interesting to hear the original finally. You can really tell the difference in the songs by writer, which tells you how the band is pulling apart a bit. There's no cohesion, you know? I will have to listen to the third album of theirs, but I suspect this is the best one of all three of them.

AC/DC. Every album of theirs, to me, sounds like the previous album. It's an amazing thing. A friend of mine took me to one of their shows. Concerts you can clearly divide up into shows where you get drunk and shows where you get high. At least in shows where you get high, you kind of stay within your own personal bubble. Drunks kept bumping in to me. Swear to god, I was ready to throw one off the top level. During the show, they had the cameras focused on women basically egging them on to take their tops off. Which some of them did. It was very surreal. Anyway, anytime I listen to their stuff I cannot feel a progression, one album to the next. The only difference is going from Bon Scott to Brian Johnson. That's a big leap to Back In Black. But this is about Highway To Hell. Each of the songs here has that sloppiness, vocal-wise. Like the guy is half-drunk. That was the beauty of Scott. He sounded like that all the time, but he was always on. Even though the albums are same-y, the songs vary to some extent. They're not all exactly the same. And there are a few deep cuts I recognize, like "Night Prowler," which I have always liked. So I don't say I hate them, but I get bored easily by them is my point. One album, like this one is good. Good enough.

Wow. Pretty much everyone associates "Smooth Operator" with Sade. And thinks the one track, because that was her big crossover hit. But MAN this whole album just exudes sultry. I didn't think it was possible, but she was able to outdo the sax there all throughout the album. "Sally" really struck a chord with me, not sure why. I really liked the lyrics and how she brought those out. I had to listen to more of the band's stuff after listening to the album, which says a lot about that first album. Really enjoyed the whole first album. Close to a 5-star rating, although the "Why Can't We Live Together?" seemed kind of forced. Still, all in all a really good album.

So I liked this album a little bit more than the other VU albums we have heard. It is more accessible, yes. But honestly, I can't see anything special about it. And "Murder Mystery"... um, WTF was that all about? The rest of the songs just had that air of pretentiousness. "Look I am being art." Sure you are, Lou. Just not buying it. Next.

The whole story behind this group and the fact that it was formed for a soundtrack fascinated me. The few songs "Apache" & "Last Bongo In Belgium" are so noteworthy as they are sampled on pretty well-known pieces. Jim Gordon was involved? Derek & The Dominoes' Jim Gordon? Oh, wow! "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" I liked, but having it be instrumental felt a bit too cheesy. The original Iron Butterfly version is cheesy enough. The CD has a lot of bonus tracks on it. The original album, just the 8 tracks, I rate higher than with the bonus stuff. I did not like what they particularly did with "Wipeout" or "Satisfaction", for example. "WipeOut" sounded like the batteries on the player were slowing down as they were playing. By the time I was on the bonus tracks I felt they were scraping the bottom of the barrel. I liked this album quite a bit, but there's just... something off about it. I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe it's all the covers. It reminds me a bit of the whole "Hooked On Classics" / "Up With People" thing. It feels too.... white? Sterile? It seems that way in particular with the bonus tracks. So it was good, and I may get it at some point, but it wasn't mind-blowing.

Pure anger. Justified anger, but anger nonetheless. It's probably too bad I only know "It Was A Good Day," but the other stuff hits hard. The interstitial tracks work, they're not just skits. I get how they tie the other tracks together. I don't know how many times I could listen to it with the language, but I still enjoyed it a lot.

I knew three of the songs of this already, so I guess that says something about the album. The tracks are well-liked enough that they are played more often than not. But I hate to say it, Coldplay bores me. You know that scene in "Coming To America" when Randy Watson comes out and starts singing, and everyone gets uncomfortable? That's how I feel listening to Coldplay. It just isn't for me. "Clocks" feels kinda too simple, and it shouldn't, with the piano and how it's being used. And "The Scientist...." I have a cover of Willie Nelson doing it, it sounds great. It's like Cash doing "Hurt", it takes it to the next level. So yeah it just is not my cup of tea, but I can tell it was well done.

I don't really care for the guitar tone on the album. It's too... jangly. I kept expecting the tone to change up, and it never did. From wikipedia: "Smith deliberately sought to record an album that was depressing, as it was a reflection of the despondency he felt at the time." Well. That's going to make you excited to listen to it. The longer intros to some of the sings were pretty good, I thought. But the songs were all very... gloomy. I mean, that's the Cure as a whole, right? Anyway, it was ok, I guess. But I didn't fall in LOVE with it. I get the sense the Cure is one of those things you either love or are ambivalent to. I'm in the second. It didn't really move me, but the intros and the instrumental work were interesting, but the guitar tone was offsetting after a while.

I remember when this came out. For a good year, you could not escape this album. The hit singles "Ready Or Not" and "Killing Me Softly" were played all the time right around the time I was getting ready for my wedding. Hard to believe it's 25 years that that's been around. I really thought Lauryn Hill was going to be such a star. And then she completely flaked out after her first album. But she is just so good her, the rhymes are crisp and really flowing. But it's hard to take Wyclef Jean so seriously as being "gangster." I just don't think of him that way, but that was the image he was trying to pull off, along with the third guy (what happened to him, anyway?) Hill's harmonizing worked so well with the big singles it's no wonder they were played so often. They became so damn catchy. But even the other songs work well, even with the goofy skits in the middle of them (the Chinese Restaurant thing is just silly, taking me completely out of the song). It's just a shame that there was no real follow-up to this album. The big stuff on it did so well. I keep coming back to it in my head. The filler is skippable after a listen. Why do all of these albums have these skits on it? Why does it seem necessary to them? I know I've said it before, it just makes it a track to skip after a while. I mean, now albums seem like suck a thing of the past with the technology available, people will just buy the songs they want and not the whole album. I just don't get it.

This album rates pretty high for me because it was one of the first ones I got on CD. That first side is just so strong, back to back to back killer tracks, although "Wild Honey Pie" is a bit of a filler. The second side has "Don't Pass Me By," which isn't bad for a first track by Ringo. Little heavy on the keys, making it feel very calliope-like. The third side doesn't have a real clunker, although Sexy Sadie is probably the one I like least of those, but it's still real good. Then there's side four. First off, I like the single version of "Revolution" that was released. I think it's much better than Revolution 1. I wish they had included it as a bonus on the remaster or something. Then there's "Revolution 9." Look, I get that they were experimenting with all different styles throughout the album. Sgt. Pepper is strictly an album of its time, but it opened up everyone to the possibility of doing more than just "rock and roll." The White Album is more malleable, much looser in form because of the experimentation. Having said that, "Revolution 9" is just... boring. Boring and too long. So I usually skip it. "Good Night" closes ou tthe album, and it's a bit too mich treacle. SO since I've skipped "Revolution 9" I usually skip that too. So there you have it. I've played this album so many times since it was one of my first CDs. But even so, there are still a few tracks I tend to skip, so as much as I have a fondness for it, I can only give 4 out of 5 because of those weak tracks.

The worldliness of the album was nice to hear. I listened to the last song a few times and I don't get it. The appeal of it escaped me a bit. I always felt that Sinead O'Connor got a bum rap back in the 90s, and her performance on this album is great. It'd be nice to hear her in more stuff like this, maybe more atmospheric. Imagine her in one of Fripp's soundscapes... But you know Wobble is a forgiving and gracious artist. He had to deal with John Lydon for a few albums in Public Image, didn't he? So yeah, I dug this. May have to seek out some more.

I enjoyed the album. Jazz, man. Dig it. The problem with a jazz trio is that you are not going to get a lot of variation. I mean, it's piano, bass and drums. What else are they going to do? Piano solo, bass solo, drum solo. That's it. It does start to sound a bit same-y after a while. So I can't imagine me getting the whole Bill Evans Trio collection. But a live performance like this one or two definitely cleanses the palate.

Why does every one have to be a "b***h a$$ mother-f***er?" on this record? Even with Nas' flow going, it still just seemed a LOT to call out everyone like that ALL the TIME. Still, he really had it going. I liked his word play and the groove was really nice. Short album, not skits. Pretty good.

A song or two of this is good. You know, 3 to 5 minutes or so. But a whole album? The problem with free jazz is that because there is no structure, every song starts to run together. There is no contrast. By the time any song sounded different, I was about 20 minutes into the album. That's a problem. It's just... all over the place. Not something I need to revisit.

I will say I liked this Tom Waits album more than the previous one we had. The whole jazz club atmosphere, the feeling you're in there with them. Waits really captured it. His singing was really heartfelt, and I guess not as... "Beefheart-felt." The tracks, well... I have this problem with how albums divide up tracks. This one particularly frustrated me, with the intros to the tracks being separate from the tracks was really... baffling. A lot of live albums also frustrate me in that the song starts on with the first note and not them saying "here's a song about blah blah blah, it's called xyz." That usually is on the end of the previous song. So if you have it on a shuffle of some sort, it's very jarring. And now this one has it so the intros are separate songs?! Ugh. Maybe it sounds like I'm nitpicking, but I just didn't get why so many intros were separate from the songs themselves, unless he was trying to make more tracks. And oh yeah, the "Big Joe and Phantom 309" track... it just annoyed me. Don't know why. It felt a little too beatnik. So yeah, I liked the album much more. Would I buy it? Probably not. The music was a vast improvement to the last one, though. I may pull it up again and listen to it. Maybe. The tracks thing, it just... annoys me.

I have never been a big fan of Green Day, or "pop punk," as it were. To me, "punk" is not popular. In its rawest form, it is a sign of rebellion against the norm, against conformity. Against popularity, "pop." So the two together is an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp, or military intelligence. Anyway, there were four songs on here that we've all heard, but what was interesting is how much the non-hits blended together for me. Billie Joe's vocals just blended into the same kind of wanker-y voice. And the guitar sounded... blah. Flat, nothing piercing through the wall of sound. The drummer didn't bring much to the table either. If you're in a trio, all three really have to be able to shine at their instruments, and really only the bass player stood out. So this is one of those "I know the hits, kinda like them, but the non-hits are non-hits for a reason." So nothing exciting here for me.

I liked the guitar riffs sampled by CH. Although that did get a little tiresome after a while. B Real has a very interesting voice, it has a kind of cartoony feel. I like the funkiness of the beat for most of the songs. I was surprised that many of the songs were shorter than I expected. The first song, "Pigs," made a statement about the establishment, but I felt that Public Enemy (the next album up) made better statements about the establishment. I always felt that Cypress Hill was not as serious, so it was weird to hear them rapping like they were. Don't get me wrong, I don't think they're the Fat Boys or the Beastie Boys "Licensed To Ill"-era. But I just didn't think of them on the same level as Public Enemy. So I dug it, but as a person who is not into stoner rock, it's hard to listen to you know?

There's something about Public Enemy. Their rhymes really sound important, even when it's Flavor Flav being goofy. And they are. I mean, even when they give props to Terminator X (which they do a lot here). I dug this album a lot, it was more serious than Cypress Hill, a bit refreshing. It's weird, knowing that B-Real and Chuck D would be working together in the disappointing "Prophets of Rage." I remember hearing "Party For Your Right To Fight" back in college. I didn't get it back then, but I understand it more now.

It can be really difficult to separate the person from the music. This is one of those cases. I first became aware of Afrika Bambaataa in high school. A friend of mine put "World Destruction" on a mix tape. It's a good song, him and John Lydon going round and round, their vocals. I hadn't heard the song in 20 years. It popped up on the PiL box set I picked up and brought me back to my teen years in an instant. So I was surprised to hear his work on this album, a very different context. Anyway, this album seems so... dated. At the time, I'm sure it seemed very much ahead of its time, but I listen to it, and compare it to some of the other rap hits of the era, and a lot of them still hold up, while this just... doesn't. Then "Renegades of Funk" came on. I was unaware that this is where Rage Against The Machine covered it from. I knew it was a cover, but didn't realize that this was the original. The cover is better, way better. So then I looked up in wikipedia about Afrika Bambaataa. Do your rating of this album or any of his work, then look him up. Because once I read it (not going to summarize), it really colored my feelings toward any of his work. I know it shouldn't, but it's like looking at a painting, critiquing it, and THEN finding out it was Hitler's. Do you still give it the same regard? _CAN_ you?

I thought this was interesting. The only post rock I have in my collection is Jambinai, which I don't know if I would call that post rock. The first track probably could have been broken up into different movements as the ideas went along. I have to wonder if they play only portions of it live or not. Instrumentals like this, it's hard to imagine them playing exactly note for note live, because it sounds more like a jam in the studio. Still, it' nice background music and I appreciated it for what it was. Do I need to listen to it again to find deeper meaning? Probably not, but it's there if I wanted to. Up on the high 3's, I think. Rounds up to a 4. I think it may warrant another listen.

A while back, I had criticized an album that was released last year. I said that I thought the album had to be around for at least a little bit of time before it's a "must-listen." Well, 2019 must be that amount of time, because holy crap this was not what I was expecting. That first track hit and smoked. The entire album emanated 70s soul, but still sounded modern at the same time. Very impressed by this one. In the low 4's for me.

Back to R.E.M. again. Blergh. I mean, Stipe's voice isn't too bad, and the three songs I knew were good. The one song with saxophone (!!), that was an interesting change of pace. But then there's just... Stipe. Maybe it isn't his voice. I mean, I listen to Neil Young and Ian Anderson and like them. They are just as nasal and whiny. But I just find Stipe so pretentious. And R.E.M. makes me think of 120 Minutes from MTV, and "oh, we're college rock. We're more ART." I don't know, it just somehow annoys me more. So the non-hits were a bit better than the last one, and the sax was a pleasant change of pace. But not enough to turn my loathing of Stipe around, sorry.

I felt the vocal processing wasn't too bad on this album. Lorde's unique vocals still were able to come through. The comments for a lot of the songs online were WAY too gushy for songs that quite frankly, were very generic. They didn't move me one way or the other. Neither hate or love. They were mostly... forgettable. Moving on.

Real good punk / new wave feel to it. The male vocalist has a bit of a David Byrne vibe in his voice (not a bad thing, mind you). Universal Corner feels a bit lke "Shape Of Things To Come." Its nice to finally hear the whole song RHCP sampled for their song "Good Tine Boys." Now there's one song off the samples I don't know as of yet. Anyway, back to X. Even with it being punk, there's still a bit of variation, which is good. Nice short punk album, I really dug it.

I thought that the Folsom Prison recording pretty much said it all. Although this is the infamous concert where he gave the camera crew the finger. The original recording is nice, but it's probably better to listen to the entire concert. It's interesting to note the fact he played San Quentin twice, playing it again at the request of the audience. You never hear that happen anywhere these days. So as much as I enjoy Johnny Cash, I can't give the original album 5 stars. It's too short. I would rather listen to the whole concert, and even then it just seems redundant with Folsom Prison out there. So down to 4 it goes.

A lot of albums that may not have been completely geared towards me as a demographic I can still get something out of. Music is normally an equalizer. This album, which seems to be an inspirational album, is one of the few times I did not feel anything. It just didn't hit me. A lot of the songs seemed very mantra-ish. There wasn't that song structure: verse-chorus-verse. Maybe that was part of it, I was waiting for someone to start singing, when the songs all just seemed to be intros. Not getting it at all.

Me: I didn't care too much for this Tom Waits album. Randomizer: How about... ANOTHER Tom Waits album? Me: ... Hmmm...Umm... OK. Well, it's better I guess, but maybe I can listen to something else...? Randomizer: How about... ANOTHER Tom Waits album? Me: <throws arms into the air> what the hell? So here we are with ANOTHER Tom Waits album. First off, I did not realize "Jersey Girl" was written by Waits. And yeah, this is another step up from the last two. I probably would rank this even higher than the last two. But so close to the last two. I mean... I'm trying to separate it. They're trying to make me rank it higher, or what? OK, but seriously, folks. What about the songs and the performances? I felt that Waits was more "on" here than "Nighthawks At The Diner," and I liked his performance there. The songs were pretty well-written, and Waits himself did a pretty good job. So yeah, I'm going to say comparatively, of the three, this would be the best. So this would get a 4 because of that. I just wish it wasn't so close to the last one.

Fogerty is always good for an album. A few of the songs do start to sound similar, at least in the intros. "Lodi" is probably one of my favorite of their songs, although I guess I did know it wasn't about the town in New Jersey, I secretly wanted to believe it was. Other random thoughts: I never really liked the big hit "Bad Moon Rising," it sounds too simple in comparison to the other songs. "The Night Time Is The Right Time"... Ray Charles does it a heck of a lot better. "Sinister Purpose" man, that is a damn good one. Should have caught on. So there's some good, and some "eh" songs. Still, I enjoy CCR so I can imagine putting this on every now and then, although skipping "Night Time".

Simple country. No steel guitars needed. There's something... pure about it. It's quite refreshing, actually. Nice to hear very little overproduction. No pitch correction, no artificiality to it. Simple and to the point. Really dug it.

I know Hanoi Rocks from the "Peacemaker" show. So I was kinda prepared for HR... ...what I was not prepared for was the fact that I was going to actually like the album. Yeah, it's very 80s, but it hit something in me that I kinda was missing. I really kinda dug it. Can't explain, really, Maybe it was the other stuff I was listening to previously today, I don't know. But I really enjoyed it.

The choices within each of the songs for tempo, rhythm, and style are interesting to say the least. Originally I thought that the cover was one of those retro covers. Nope, it's for an album of the time. The bottom line is, even with the innovation of the song choices, it still sounds incredibly dated. Not something I would choose to come back to.

When I was younger, I had the "red" and "blue" albums. Pretty much the greatest "hits" of the Beatles. This still had a bit of the whimsy of the earlier albums, but something was definitely looming, something big. The songs still hold up (although I could go the rest of my life never hearing "Yellow Submarine" again) for me, unlike a lot of the other albums we have heard. I can't imagine what it was like to hear this when it was first released, thinking "what IS this? How did they do all of these songs like this?" It's just so varied, but nothing really misses. "Got To Get You Into My Life" is one of my favorites. Those horns come in and, man! I just get this big grin on my face every time. Such a great album.

Now THIS is the kind of stuff I was expecting to find in the list. There is no way a middle class WASP from Jersey would have ever found this album growing up. Having said that, I really enjoyed it. Listened through it twice in a row. The only song I found annoying was “One More Dance.” I thought Charles Coleman’s laughing was annoying throughout the song; like a stand- up laughing at a joke before he finishes telling it. The interpretation of “House of the Rising Sun” was pretty daring, particularly in 1960. I cannot imagine a lot of singers putting themselves out there like that. I checked on this so I would not feel dumb: “Mbube” means lion. So it’s only natural that song sounds a lot like “The Lion Sleeps Tonight.” I imagine “Mbube” came first and was… shall we say, “appropriated…?” Definitely an album I will come back to, a nice change of pace for me.

Combining country and punk. Not something I would consider. On some of the pieces, it works. But doing it for the whole album, the novelty wore thin for me. And that spoken word piece, WTH was THAT all about? I totally get the vibe they were going for, but I wasn't feeling it. The best country punk song I ever heard was "The Country Death Song" by Violent Femmes. This was NOT comparable. Fortunately it was only 35 minutes. But still, not enough to sustain me. Give it 2.6, round up to 3. Moving on...

I was pleasantly surprised by this album. It reminds me of Love and Rockets by a bit, actually. Had that 80s new wave alternative feel to it. Honestly, I had heard of the band back in the day, and I knew one or two people who wore a t-shirt of theirs, but it always seemed kind of odd for a name, so I never took that step to try them out. This album was a real unexpected treat, and I would say if you are a fan of that style of post-punk, this is definitely a band you should check out.

This felt a bit poppier band than I was expecting. As such, the songs needed to be shorter. (Girl From Mars, for example. It seemed to go on a good 2 or 3 choruses too long.) So the juxtaposition of the band being a bit "noisy" (in a good way. Really.) as they were playing songs that were trying to be more pop sounded is fine. But I just felt that they went too long. The songs need to be briefer, like the Hives.

Standard blues-y fare, but Clapton on guitar. It's hard to believe that it's close to 60 years ago now. But the simplicity of the songs for the most part does date it. Cream did "Steppin' Out" a lot better than this version, I thought. It's interesting to hear the beginnings of what became some of the biggest acts in the world. But as a musical piece of history, it just sounds like that. I never got the whole "Clapton is God" thing. Don't get me wrong, I always thought he was great, but deifying him seemed a bit much. Particularly listening to what he was doing here. So it's of musical significance for history, but I don't see myself coming back to this.

I have TL's "Jailbreak". But besides the two or three big hits from that album, I could not tell you the other tracks. Having said that, I kind of liked this album. It's a nice live representation of the band and what their style was. And Huey Lewis plays harmonica on a track?! Whoa. I don't think I've ever complained about this on an album before, but the mix is very off. It's like they had vocals pumped through one lead, and all the instruments on another. I know other live albums of the era were not like this. Then there's the argument of this is even a live album to begin with. A lot of live albums of that time had MASSIVE overdubs. This one (at least by one of the producers) seems to be of similar feel. That's what I get from the stuff online, anyway. So I can't really say either way. Regardless, I liked the songs they did play, even though I only knew two of them. The others seemed to groove pretty well, and even with a fairly lame drum solo, this would be the disc I would pick to be a good representation of the band. Definitely one I would pick out.

Always a good album to come to. It drips 70s, but in a good way (yes I know it was released in 1969). Besides the songs that were hits, “Liberation “ has to be mentioned as an amazing track. A tour de force, really. “Free Form Guitar,” um… yeah. Guess you had to be there. Solid album, all the way through. The first few Chicago albums are really good stuff, I really recommend them.

This album reminds me a bit of the scene in Chasing Amy where they're at the comic book convention, and everyone is at a panel. And the one guy (Hooper X) starts making claims about Star Wars that are WAY overreaching. This felt like, although they were making salient points, it was very much hitting me over the head with very little subtlety. Public Enemy seemed... tame in comparison. After three or four songs, it just got... tiresome. A track or two is good, and definitely "Television, the Drug of the Nation" was great. But still... I needed to lighten up after that. Phew.

Great mix here of rock with the funk. As the one song says "who says a funk band can't play rock?" It's obvious where bands like Fishbone & RHCP get their chops from. The guitar solo on Maggot Brain is aMAZing. All hail Funkadelic! Reviews do talk about their owing a lot to progressive rock. I don't know if I see that as much. I see them owing more to jam bands than anything else, longer rock solos and instrumentals are not necessarily only linked to progressive rock. I mean, live versions of "Dazed and Confused" go on (and on and on...) for a half and hour. Even with that, it was really good. I had it on on a long car ride, but I did not get a chance to really *listen* so I listened to it again and really appreciated what was going on there. Definitely one I will come back to. Maybe a 4.3 or 4.4, one that is going on the list to purchase.

I had this album for a time and got rid of it. I honestly think I did not "get it" at the time. This is not an album to be taken seriously, but I was taking it too seriously. It's a "punk" album but the band is a bunch of punks. Listening to it years later, I have remorse for getting rid of the album. This is a lot better than I gave it credit. The stuff you hear on some of their later hits is really all here: "Why Don't You Just Get A Job?" is just like "What Happened To You?". "The Kids Aren't Alright" is like a few of the songs, probably a cross between "Bad Habit" and something else. So it's interesting to see that they haven't really evolved. Going to have to find this one again.

It's weird how jazz albums with 2 songs on an album side are considered "classic" yet rock albums with just 2 songs are "excessive" or "pretentious". I don't listen to enough jazz, but what I do listen to I like or love. And this album I love. I wish I listened to it more.

Fairport Convention is one of those bands I have heard OF but not heard anything BY. I should have by this point, but this is my first full album listen. I can see why Robert Plant wanted Sandy Denny's voice for "The Battle Of Evermore." It's a very good counter and has a very Irish tinge here in a lot of the songs, I really hear it in "Percy's Song." Steve Howe once said how record execs were willing to try almost anything back in the early 70s. I could see how this caught on back then and how folk rock like this co ntinued throughout, but it's not something I imagine would be big now. It does seem pretty late 60s and 70s. But I still dug it. Maybe it was all the Dylan songs, I don't know.

Watching the one video from this album (The Boy With The Thorns In His Side), I remember why I don't like The Smiths: Morrissey is just a whiny little s**t. He just... tries to hold himself like he doesn't know what to do with his arms. He is no Jim Morrison, I can tell you that. And that whole jangle-y guitar. Gah. Just... irritating. Next.

All I can hear in my mind as I am listening to this is "Weird Al" Yankovic's parody "Pancreas." And I _KNOW_ I shouldn't be thinking of it, but it's stuck in there as I am listening to this. The whole thing feels very... childish. But then, I always felt that way with the Beach Boys. Like, the songs never dealt with overly mature stuff, and the music reflected this (Good Vibrations and all). It's too clean cut. Speaking of that, Good Vibrations to me will unfortunately be linked to Sunkist soda. I remember seeing the commercials when I was 13 or 14. I didn't realize the corporate linking, I just assumed the song was for the soda. Little did I know... So now I cannot unlink it in my head. So I think it was a great accomplish for Brian Wilson to come back to this work over 35 years later. Are the melodies hummable? Probably. But it's so... light and sugar-y. It's an important album in the history of rock, but I just don't know if it's something I would come back to and listen to again and again.

I knew Q-Tip from A Tribe Called Quest and his collaboration with the Beastie Boys on Ill Communication. But man, this takes it to another level. His flow was great, the guest stars really hit the mark. Every track was concise and did not overstay their welcome. I really REALLY enjoyed this album. Definitely one to pick up.

This was a real pleasant surprise. I knew the big hit "I Bet You Look Good On The Dance Floor," but pretty much every song on this album is really good. It's not just your standard early 200s rock-fare, maybe it's the combination of all the different styles? I dunno. The start-stop beat of that first track really hooked me in. I also liked the fake ending for "Perhaps Vampires Is a Bit Strong But..." Maybe it was something I was in the mood for, but I really enjoyed this one. More than I was expecting to.

Damn this is SICK stuff. Great beats, the flow is amazing. This is what a hip-hop group at their peak really sounds like. It is definitely going on the list of planned purchases. Just... WOW.

I remember hearing about how this album is so momentous for a lot of musicians. My biggest problem with this album is the vocals by Richard Manuel. They are very whiny. "I Shall Be Released," for example. The vocals got really grating after a while. There are a number of covers that are so much better of that song. And "Tears of Rage" starts off very warbly. It made me think there was something with the wrong with the track the first few times I heard it. "The Weight," however is such a damn good song. I can't tell you how many times I've heard it. It's just perfection as a song. All of the music as a whole reminds me so much of the Dead (not that that is necessarily a BAD thing). But ultimately, it's hard to give this album super high marks when half the songs have such a whiny, nasally vocalist.

This was a pretty intriguing album. I really liked her vocals throughout. I also liked how some of the songs bled into each other. The lyrics... I started to lose a bit of focus on them. Bob Dylan's lyrics I can listen to them and get really into the tory of them, but these kinda just lost me. The last song was a bit of a jazzy riff, and I get what she was going for there. Yes, it is a cover and it was fitting for her to sing a song about analysis because she had gone through some of her own. It's weird how almost 50 years later we still don't totally accept therapy. This song is kinda making fun of it, and I mean we should be able to move past that. But we should also be able to be a little tongue in cheek about it too, right? This is one of those albums I had to listen to twice. I could tell there is more to it than what I was hearing. I think I may need another listen, but as it is, I like what I hear. But I don't think I should have to listen to it three or more times to say if it's good or not. So I'm going to say that it was good, bordering on great. But I am cautious on that. I mean, maybe I am just going off of what other people are saying? Shouldn't I be able to decide it for myself? Don't know. Perhaps I should give it another listen.

It's obvious how the band and this album influenced Nirvana and Jane's Addiction. When I first put the album on, it was like I had found the missing piece to the puzzle. Because those other albums don't just suddenly appear. There has to be some evolution, right? So, what about this album? Wikipedia said that NME writers voted it the second greatest album of all time. Now that's REALLY pushing it. I thought it was good. The songs were short and to the point. "Hey" was... um, yeah. Definitely made me want to hear more, which is a good thing.

The few skits that were on this were a bit distracting. I have stated before that skits do take away from the re-listenability of the entire album. Tracks produced by MF DOOM I can pick out pretty easily now, which is weird, because it wasn't that long ago I didn't know who he was. But now he's really on my radar. It's sad he's no longer with us, as he seemed to be a really highly regarded force in hip-hop, but not known outside that circle. Ghostface Killah really draws you in. The beat was great. It's interesting that all the members of Wu-Tang guest-starred. That the group were willing to do solo albums and help each other out like that is great. It's not an album I would come back to often, only because of the language and violence. But the lyrics are real and I totally get where he is coming from. I did enjoy this a lot. If this came on, I wouldn't turn it off.

Wow. So the Byrds are to blame. Seriously, this is in fact the first Country Rock album. It sounds more like a country album. Or at least what I consider a straight-up country album. As it is, I am not a big fan of that type of music, but recognizing that this is really the first instance of this type of genre makes me a little more appreciative of it. Probably my favorite track was the Dylan track "Nothing Was Delivered."

I had enjoyed Fela Kuti's "Zombie" album when it came up on randomly on the generator. I really dug the afro-jazz vibe. And now, with Ginger Baker added in to the mix, this made it even better. The bonus track: do we need a 16 minute drum solo? No, but it's still nice to hear. Baker is infamous for this, the song "Toad" by Cream, performed live has a THIRTEEN minute drum solo. So a 16 minute drum duet is no surprise. The other songs are in the same vein as "Zombie," although a bit more scat-singing. So high marks from me!

I had heard this album once before, a while back. A few of the tracks remind me a bit of the Moody Blues' album "Days of Future Past", but not in a good way. I guess being born in 70, the whole psychedelic movement kinda passed me by. I like Cream a lot, but songs. like "SWLABR" and "Tales of Brave Ulysses" kinda make me pause because the lyrics are WAY too out there. Some of these are the same way, like "The Red Telephone." What was THAT all about? Sometimes lyrics are supposed to paint a picture, Jon Anderson does that a lot with Yes lyrics, but it's still ABOUT something. A lot of these songs feel too silly. The first track "Alone Again Or" has been covered by a lot of acts, and I had first heard the Damned's recording of it. The track stand out as being the best piece over the other songs on the album. The rest is very middling fare for me. One song does not make the entire album, in fact it's rather frustrating because you wish the rest of the album could be this good. Blue Oyster Cult's album Agents of Fortune is like that for me, too. The rest of the album does not do a lot for me, and then "Don't Fear The Reaper" comes on and you think "why can't the rest of the album be as good as this song?" So it's not that the album itself is BAD, it's just that the first song is really good, and the rest is just... fair. And that really is frustrating and drives the score down for me. So just listen to the first song, and move on from there.

It's interesting that these songs are all similar in style. Probably the first "concept album," as wikipedia stated. Honestly, I don't like blanketing all of the albums as concept albums. In my head, I consider a concept album something more grandiose. But, I guess you have to start somewhere. <shrugs> Honestly, as I was listening to the album, at first I was intrigued that Sinatra was putting all of those type of songs together. You really don't get a lot of acts thinking "let's put all of these type of songs together so that they sound the same," but that's where we are. And it's not like it's a bad thing that they sound similar, as opposed to acts who have a specific sound and they can't vary it so that the songs sound different. Frank's music on the album does vary somewhat. However, "In the Wee Small Hours" is right. Because as I was listening to it, I kept thinking that a lot of the music sounded like something I would listen to to drift off to sleep to. Not necessarily BAD, but not the best to say it's "great music to fall asleep to."

UGH. This is the kind of country that I remember my parents listening to in the car that I would just roll my eyes at. The kind that the crowd was looking for when The Blues Brothers when into the bar that served both kinds of music: country AND western. The kind of music that sounds just... out of touch with the world and what is going on in America. Music that is just... white. Like a wonder bread sandwich with mayonnaise. Lots of mayo. Music you listen to while watching how to make a meal by Paula Deen. I can feel my arteries hardening while I listen to this. Moving on.

Aside from "Seven Nation Army," which I could be ecstatic to never hear again, I did enjoy this album. <Bass guitar? Where's the bass guitar??> Meg White's vocals were a bit... ingratiating after a while, though. Maybe as backing vocals it could have worked, but... yeah. "The Hardest Button To Button" I always liked. The video is pretty simple, but effective. So, it's a pretty good album, I enjoy the album as a whole: simple, but effective.

I went down a rabbit hole, looking up info about the Shaft films (yes, films plural). There's part of me that wants to watch the film and see how the songs fit in. Maybe I will. A number of the songs, as instrumentals, work except they feel like they need vocals. And the few songs (except for the Theme from Shaft) feel a bit clunky because... well... because of the lyrics. "Soulsville" in particular felt a little cringe-y. I mean, the topic was one that transcends the song itself about abject poverty. I don't know, maybe it was the delivery? I can't tell. One that caught my eye was "Be Yourself." It felt like it needed lyrics, and all I could think of was that the Audioslave song "Be Yourself" would somehow fit in there somewhere. I think the highlight for me was "Do Your Thing". The guitar solos were amazing. I didn't realize it was 20 minutes when I first started listening. A _DOUBLE_ album?! Wow, it's interesting that there was so much music in the movie like that. Definitely going to come back to this, especially "Do Your Thing."

Pretty strong album by Stevie. I have listened to the first song way too much, but it's still a damn good song. "Maybe Your Baby" just seemed like a riff that went nowhere. I was expecting a bridge or a chorus, but it was just the one thing over and over, even with... Ray Parker Jr.?!. Loved "Tuesday Heartbreak," very funky sort of a precursor to "Superstition". I've played the song "Superstition" and it is a bear. Although I think "Sir Duke" is probably harder, I think I probably like "Superstition" more. The songs have a real good range, too. Going from a funk feel to a real R&B vibe. The one song I liked, but feels weird was "I Believe (When I Fall In Love It Will Be Forever)". The song came out in '72, which is when he divorced his FIRST wife. So will it be forever? I don't know for him, since he got married two more times. The synths all throughout this album really make it stand out. It's hard to believe it was done in 72, it gives it a bit of a futuristic sound. Really cool stuff. All in all, I really enjoyed this album.

The one thing I marvel about this live set is how tight it is. It's only slightly over a half hour, and there's no mic talk "hey how you all doing?" "Here's a song about..." "Blah Blah Blah" They just go right into each song, bing bang boom. I figured that most of James Brown's live songs would be pretty short, I was surprised that there was at least one song he REALLY stretched out. The medleys were pretty cool, too. So energetic, and the band was just aMAZing. Just great stuff.

To me, DJ Music always seems so... light and inconsequential. I put it on and listen to the whole album, and not even notice when it's over. There's nothing ever profound there. It's music to take some E to, get out on the dance floor and have a good time. Like, who cares if it's the UK version of the album or not, where they had to re-record tracks because of sampling? No one goes to a rave and listens THAT closely. "Ohhhhh, listen to the beat, they used THIS kind of drum machine instead of THIS kind." You're listening for that BOOM BOOM BOOM to bump and grind, get blitzed to and have some kind of communal, dance experience. So deep listening to this is almost impossible. And giving it a high rating is almost impossible too. It's the fast food of music, it will satisfy, but will you really remember it afterwards?

I can hear the obvious influences. But man, it is a bit of a downer. The singer suffered from depression? Couldn't tell at all from the songs. The singing reminds me of the tonality the Clash used for "The Guns of Brixton." It's ok, but as a whole it just didn't quite move me the way I thought it would. Kinda meh.

The shorter songs were better, I thought. Most of the songs over 4 minutes felt like they were DEFINITELY over 4 minutes long. They went on and on, and you could feel that they could have ended at least a minute or two earlier. Again, the kind of music you listen to, and then pretty much forget afterward.

Living Colour is one of my favorite bands from the 90s. This album is pretty bright, compared to their later albums. I personally prefer 'Time's Up' and 'Stain' to this one, but I understand why they chose this one, as it has "the hit" on it. This album has the song of theirs that I never got into, which was "Glamour Boys". Maybe it's because I'm neither a "Glamour Boy" nor do I consider myself "Fierce." The song seems different, lighter and a little goofier than their later stuff, even with Reid's guitar crunch. But despite that, this album started them on their journey, and everything comes from this album. They've really progressed from here, and you should really check their other stuff if you liked this one.

I can't get past the fact that I think of Elvis as just... always sounding dated to me. Although the Mrs. doesn't hear it, and maybe that's just her hearing it all the time when she was growing up. But the album does have some of Elvis' strongest material ("Suspicious Minds" is probably my favorite of his pieces), and the cringiest (ugh, "In The Ghetto" just does NOT hold up well today.). Gentle On My Mind... I am familiar with the song, because I remember hearing a joke in a comic once, which always stuck with me. It was only today that I realize they were making fun of this song. "It's knowing that your door is always open and your furniture is gone..." which struck me as comical. Maybe it's just with the back-up singers, and how they're used, it just all sounds like something my Dad was interested in. But I've felt that way with all the Elvis albums we've heard. So... yeah.

It's weird, the title track on the album was NOT on Spotify. Had to go onto YouTube to hear it. It's interesting, the music reminded me a bit of Vince Guaraldi. Perhaps that's why I enjoyed it so much. The other instruments really added something to it as well. I don't want to call it "classic" jazz, but it was a straight up jazz album. But definitely more of what you expect in a jazz album. I did enjoy this very much.

I think the Rod Stewart Unplugged album really ruined this album for me. There are some really good tracks here, but the Unplugged version of "Mandolin Wind" soured me on that track, and especially "Reason To Believe". Then there's the repetition. A lot of the songs are stretched out by the repetition in the lyrics. (For example, the title track.). It started to get a bit tiresome. I was also particularly bothered by "That's All Right." The extra addition of "Amazing Grace" really made that song 1 that would be listened to once or twice and that's IT. I don't mind noodling at the end of songs, but doing the whole song was unnecessary. Maggie May... how many times have I heard that one. Still, a great song, though. I can hear all of the other Faces on the album, even though contractually they don't say really who's on each track EXACTLY. So I liked the album, but probably would have liked it more if I hadn't heard the Unplugged album so much.

I mean, it was okay. I just didn't hear anything groundbreaking in this. It sounded like your average alternative rock from the 80s. How was this different from what others were doing? I don't get it. The opening in particular kinda bothered me. Th scratching or whatever was grating. It just didn't hit me at all. I mean, I guess it was... ok? Low 3 AT BEST.

I cannot imagine being there when this album first came out. That would mean being in a world BEFORE this album existed. I have only witnessed such a world-changing piece of art like this once or twice. Nirvana's explosion was one such moment, but it still does not totally depict how much the world changed from this album. But let's talk about the songs by themselves, shall we? Almost every single one of these songs I've heard on the radio, except for a few. There's one or two albums where every song is playable on the radio, this one is not one such album. Probably my least favorite song on this is "She's Leaving Home," and even that is not a bad song. It's just a little... sappy. "Lovely Rita" is... ok. On an album with great songs, being ok is a slight. The sides of John songs and Paul songs can easily be detected. As opposed to some of the earlier albums where it wasn't so easy to say "oh that's a Lennon song." That's not a bad thing, but it's something you start to notice. From here, you can tell how the band started to shoot off in separate directions, particularly in The White Album. But here on this one moment, they were really firing on all cylinders. And even just "ok" songs are enough.

Ah, the old trope: "If the old guy can't sell the record on his own, let's get people who are influenced by him to guest on the album." (Although if we got everyone influenced by JLH there would be no room to hear anyone...) Still, for the most part, I liked the album. I didn't feel like they were trying to pigeonhole him into songs he wouldn't really do. I thought the last two songs dragged on a bit too much, but sometimes that happens in the blues. They overstay their welcome. Never been a big fanned of Canned Heat, but they weren't as overbearing as I thought they would be on Cuttin't Out. The album, as a whole, isn't as straight-up blues as I was expecting. But even so, I enjoyed it for what it was. Probably the stand out songs here were the first three tracks and the one with Los Lobos.

I was surprised how many of these songs I knew, over half, in fact. A few I thought were on later albums. The other songs... well, there's a reason the other songs were hits. Although looking at the wikipedia, wow they released NINE songs as singles? And one of them was Liberian Girl? That was probably one of the weakest songs on the album for me. Interesting how "Leave Me Alone" was the last song on the album. Trying to drive a point there? Still, a really good album with a few weak spots. (Looking at you, "Liberian Girl"). I mean, "Smooth Criminal" _AND_ "Dirty Diana" are probably two of his most rocking songs. Hearing "DD" for the first time in a while, I had forgotten Steve Stevens does the guitar on the track. Great stuff.

I get what the band is trying to here. But the energy is completely directionless. It's all over the place. I can totally see pnk coming from this, but I felt that a good deal of punk still has a bit more focus. This just sounds... drunk.

Lots of questions here... So this album was on the original list of 1001 albums, and then later pulled. Why was it put on the list? What are the qualifications of being put on this list? Furthermore? What made it get pulled off the list? Looking at Oct 2000, there were a number of albums that were released around that same time that I hold in higher regard that did not make the list. I have to wonder why they did not make the list. The album itself is not bad. There are a couple of songs I knew from previously. But I mean... Fred Durst? Really? Not exactly the most skilled artist. But hey, Limp Bizkit sells, so there must be something to it, right? There is a definite energy there. But 75 minutes of it? Nope. Just tiring. Next.

I went looking through some of the negative reviews of this album. It was interesting to see what naysayers had to say. "They took no risks." - First off, the band was polished, and playing a great blend of smooth jazz and rock. I don't see many other bands doing this type of music. Not sure what KIND of risk you are hoping for. "The songs went on forever." - Punk songs go on for only a few minutes. One thing I found interesting is I always think of "Aja" being this epic song. But "Deacon Blues" (which I love) is about the same length. So I can see people being a little squirmy for songs at 8 minutes long. (Although I do not have a problem with it.) So it really comes down to not liking the style of the songs. And really, the pieces here are great. Even the ones that did not get traction on the radio. The secret weapon here is Michael McDonald. God, "Peg" is just such an astounding song. And MM's background vocals... just SLAY me every time. "Black Cow" was one of the tracks on a best of I heard and was like... "WOW!" Josie I think I heard here, first, but it grew on me really. The two songs left are not as great, but they still are really good. If you haven't watched the Classic Albums series about this one, find it up on youtube or somewhere. It's really insightful to this album. And like they said, it IS a classic album.

I don’t know why I never got big into Cheap Trick. They consistently bring it live. I will say I like the whole and outro being songs. That is not done much anymore. Maybe it’s that the only song people know by them is “I Want You To Want Me.” And the crowd sounds like it was just a bunch of teenage girls, which is… creepy. Were they sex symbols back in the day? I really don’t know. “Surrender” keeps getting stuck in my head. Still a good song. Now it’s stuck in yours. You’re welcome.

Wikipedia said the album was not instantly a success, but it grew to be extremely popular. I kind of felt that way listening to it. It didn't grab me when i first heard it, but it started to grow on me. I mean the whole jangle rock genre is not big on me. But the songs are crafted well. The fade in and fade out of "I Am The Resurrection" was pretty good. The vocalist was... okay. I was hoping for. bit more emotion in the lyrics, but I guess I wasn't going to get that. So, I guess a "meh" for me. Maybe if I listen to it again I'll get the appeal? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Very different, very entertaining. Liked the vibraphone piece "Vibraphonissimo" especially. The different time signatures and styles wove in and out through each of the pieces. It was quite refreshing, and a very different type of album than I normally listen to. Really enjoyed it.

For some reason, the vocals reminded me of Thomas Dolby. Can't put my finger on why. Probably my favorite track was "All I Ask," wow what a sudden change of pace from the other stuff on the album. That was really nice. Kinda wish the album ended with that. That would have been a big risk, though. The other stuff was good, too. The more I think of it, the more I grow fond of the stuff on it. So yeah, I did dig this album a good deal. It had a... quirkiness to it.

How can you possibly follow up Nevermind? Do you remember what it was like when that came out? "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was EVERYWHERE. That was such a defining musical statement back then. I got the Nevermind album, but did not listen to it as much. This I listened to a _LOT_. So a few years later this comes out, and it's so... different, but utterly of the band. I remember not liking it as much at first, but a few listens later, I felt it was a musical evolution of the band. Thinking back, I could liken it to how "Angel Dust" was to Faith No More's "The Real Thing". "Serve The Servants" - I never liked it as the opener. But honestly I am not sure where there is a good place to put the song that fits the album. It kind of feels a bit like a b-side. "Scentless Apprentice" is credited by all three members, but is pretty noisy. Think it could have used a little more work, actually. "Heart Shaped Box" is just such a damn good song. It really shows you how far the band had come. I think at first I gravitated towards "Heart Shaped Box" as my favorite, but now it's "All Apologies." It makes me a bit sad, since it was the last song off their last studio album. "Rape Me" - ... I know what the song is, but it's still hard to sing along to. "Frances Farmer..." - interesting song, particularly once you know that the song is about the actress (Cobain's 'patron saint' as it were) "Dumb" - great song, both this version and the unplugged version. "Very Ape" - I always liked this tune, the crunchiness of the guitars, the line "If you need anything please don't hesitate to ask someone else first." "Milk It" - I always thought this song was a bit over the top, although I dug what they were trying for here. "Pennyroyal Tea" - I like the contrast of the two versions, this one and the unplugged version. "Radio Friendly Unit Shifter" - I liked the droniness of it. I imagine it being sort of done after a night of no sleep. "Tourette's" is very much a sequel to "Territorial Pissings" for me. Much shorter, though it doesn't need to be too long. Listening to a few different mixes of "All Apologies" it's obviously influenced by "Tomorrow Never Knows". Still it is probably one of their finest moments. I wish it wasn't their last. The album itself is a little uneven, but the great moments still outshine the previous album for me. So I am still going to give it 5 stars. Probably because I listened to it so much in my early 20s. A defining moment for me, musically, I think.

This was a very interesting album. The beats were all produced by Bjork, she said she created them all. Her vocals are very dreamy. Many of the songs felt... ethereal. The lyrics are a bit undecipherable to me, though. I think that if she just did more singing of oohs and ahs, I would like it more. I don't know, I would think Bjork would be more in my wheelhouse, something I would really get into. But for some reason, I just don't totally get it. I'm not saying she's talented, I just never got her stuff. It's just a bit too... far out for me? (And I think that's saying something, considering some of the stuff I listen to.) So it's ok, but I am never going to pull it up and say "oooooh, I want to listen to THAT."

The album seemed very egocentric. A lot of the songs had "me" in the title or it was implied ("Honky Tonk Heroes Like Me", "Old Five and Diners (Like Me)" "Willy The Wandering Gypsy And Me,"... ) BTW, why did the third song have to have the "and me" on it? I mean, "Willy The Wandering Gypsy" is a sufficient name." You really didn't need to put yourself into that song. "Omaha" sounded like a low-budget rip-off of "The City Of New Orleans" Not impressed. Next.

Here's the thing: I listened to this album on Spotify. And then it did the whole "You listened to 25, so you'll like this..." and it played another Adele track: "Right As Rain" from her 19 album. I liked that one song better than the whole of the 25 album. Why? Because it was different than all of that album. 25 seemed to just be torch song after torch song. It just... got very morose. Halfway in, I was looking for a knife to slit my wrists (ok not really, but you get the idea). I will say I did not hear as much vocal processing. Adele's distinct vocals were very easy to pick out; it did not sound like anyone else (which always frustrates me, how autotune will usually kill any uniqueness of a person's voice.) So the album is pretty depressing just because the songs themselves feel the same (I think the 4th song was a little upbeat, and maybe one other). So as well done it was, and how great of a voice Adele has, it's not going to be something I go back to.

I'm not sure what to make of this one. I like Joni Mitchell's voice, and I get the feeling that this is somewhat of a proto-"Graceland", where she is incorporating the things Paul Simon later used. But I still think Paul Simon did better. The lyrics were hard to fathom as well, but I think that has always been the way for Joni. You can't have gotten all those accolades without those lyrics meaning something. Still, I think of her more like Bob Dylan in that I like when others do her music (i.e. "Woodstock"). Anyway, this just didn't click for me, and I'm not sure why. Maybe I need to listen to it again or twice more...

I had forgotten how much of this album I knew and how much of a triumph it was for it to come out. The album really rocks, and it isn't until you get to the second side do you get a clunker or two. I only have the album before it ("Pyromania") but this was a great follow-up. The electronic drumwork was a real technological breakthrough. Musicianship was great. I remember not being a fan of the vocals as much, there was a bit of the way Joe Elliott was singing on some of the songs bothered me, and I can't say what it was. But now I seem to be over it. Good stuff.

I don't hate disco. Really. But I can understand the hatred. Particularly when songs are repetitive and go on WAY too long. But I mean, if you're out on the dance floor, all coked up and having a good time, an 8 minute song (like the first one) will seem like 30 seconds. So yeah, those first three songs went on WAY too long. I can imagine the single edits were more enjoyable. And "My Forbidden Lover," even clocking in at 4 and a half minutes could be cut down to a good three and I wouldn't mind. But maybe listening to it actively and not actually out on the dance floor was the problem. The time for the song would probably have gone zipping by if you were out there dancing the night away. But trust me, you don't want me out there doing THAT... Nile Rodgers did a lot of great work on this, "Will You Cry (When You Hear This Song)" was devastating. But the album versions of the hits are way too long and overstay their welcome for me. It's like getting a huge banana split when all you wanted was a small dish of ice cream. Too, too much.

For me, the first disc used to be miles better than the second. But then after listening a number of times, I really got to appreciate the second disc. Still not a big fan of "Down By The Seaside," but it's listenable. Usually when bands do that double album, it's hard to recover. It's overblown and critics call them out on it. But this doesn't feel like it. It's got a lot of great stuff on it, and is probably my second favorite LZ album.

Cream is probably my favorite group Clapton was in. But for Jack Bruce, I felt it held him back. Clapton needed the other bandmates, but they really didn't need him. Their solo output could develop well. And yet HIS is the name people know. Go figure. The biggest problem with Cream is their sound. If they had a better producer, their sound could have developed more. When you listen to "Strange Brew" or "Sunshine Of Your Love," the music is really stuck in the time. Whereas Zeppelin's music really transcends the 70s. I always wonder if they got Jimmy Page or someone as good as a producer what Cream's sound would have been. Songs like "World Of Pain" and "Strange Brew," the guitar, bass and drums are struggling to be in the foreground. It makes it difficult to imagine what they were like live until we got the live albums, whrre they took some of these pieces and stretched them out a good 10 minutes long. Even with their most well-known song on here, this is still not where they peak for me. It had to be "Wheels of Fire" they really go for a lot of range in that album. Here, there is also a lot of imagery in the lyrics with little meaning. "SWLABR," for example, or "She Was Like A Bearded Rainbow." ........ WTH is that all about? I have heard that song a number of times and I still don't know. And that last song "Mother's Lament" could have been completely taken off. Funny only gets you so far. So as much as I love the band, it is not their best. So 4 stars from me.

There are so many of these songs I know and love. And not just the hits: "Words Between The Lines Of Age," "The Needle And The Damage Done" "A Man Needs A Maid" (Ok, the last one is a bit shmaltzy, but still... Neil YOUNG, man.) Although at first, when I listen to this album I think "Oh boy here comes country again." But it is so much more varied than that. Weird fact: I sang "The Needle and the Damage Done" as a lullaby for my kid. Is that weird? No, not weird at all. Classic album. Love it.

I listened to the Special Edition which had a number of songs which were a bit too noodle-y for me. Even "Pimpf" was a bit much for me. Depeche Mode always has this feel of not being overly emotional. It always comes off as cold to me. The few big hits are able to overcome the sterility of their sound, but not the the album itself. It wasn't bad, but again not a big fan. It just doesn't feel very emotional to me.

I really did not know what to expect with this work. The cover makes you think hmmmm.... overtly religious...? Techno is not my first choice to listen to, but this had a definite groove I really dug. When I played the opening bit for the Mrs., she remarked that it sounded a bit like "Thriller," which makes sense since later on in the album they had the tribute to Michael Jackson. But... man, those first two tracks are so damn funky, more than I expected. Really quite enjoyable. As for "D.A.N.C.E.," I was not a big fan of the vocals. "The Party": Uffie's vocals sounded a lot like Ke$ha. Is that a good or bad thing, though? I think actually the songs without vocals were a bit more enigmatic and enjoyable. Something to rock on in the house as a change of pace. Really enjoyed it.

The problem with ska is that only a small amount of ska carries you pretty far. A lot of the songs are very same-y. The whole "chik-chik-chik" by the singer gets grating, the offbeat guitar gets boring, and an album that is only 30 minutes long goes on for an hour. They can extend songs for twice as long and you don't even notice. The vocals start to become indeterminant, and god forbid you see the band live. You won't be able to tell one song from another. And then I just lost interest. I don't hate ska, and they performed ok (aside from the repetitive "Too Much Too Young"), but it's just... I can only take so much of it before I have to go on to something else. So maybe a high 2, rounding up to a 3. So let's go on to something else, shall we?

The first time I listened to this, I thought it was "When I Grow Old." That really changes the dynamic of the song, actually. The electronica in the music doesn't sound bad, but her vocals just seem so... dull. Even when she makes them lower on "Dry and Dusty." Listening to the last track, my boy asked "Coconut? Why would anyone do a song called Coconut?" So I had to put on Harry Nilsson's "Coconut," which is a better song. Bjork did some work remixing some of her tracks. I feel like she needs someone like that to do more work on this. There's a lot of experimentation, but there needs to be someone there to say "that sounds cool, but what if you did this to it...?" A voice to help her figure out what to DO with her ideas. Electronica otherwise just seems like... noodling. Pass.

I've listened to this album three times now, and it's just... forgettable. There's nothing that makes it stand out. The three things I noted: 1) I dug "Metal Mickey" a little more than the other track 2) "Moving" has a familiar drum intro that I've heard at least in one or two other songs 3) "Sleeping Pills" - the first time I heard it, I thought he sang "You're a water sign, I'm an asshole..." you know what? That would have worked better. Besides that, it was just... unremarkable. And I tried to pick stuff out of it, I really did. But there was nothing I could pull out of it. They seemed to try too hard to be glam ("Pantomime Horse," wtf?) I've given this album way too much of my time. Moving on.

Old school rap. Love this stuff. The tunes take me back to high school, and even though back then I truly didn't get the lyrics or the music, it's something I really appreciate now. Pieces like "As I Read My S-A" have a lyrical acumen that you don't hear in a lot of rap nowadays. It reminds me a lot of De La Soul, actually. And it wanted me to look for more. Definitely not something I do with a lot of albums. No skits or throwaway songs, these were all coherent to the album, fitting very well. If you had not heard of Gangstarr, this is probably a good one to listen to because it sold me on them.

Lots of great stuff on this album, but there are a few forgettable tracks. And then there's "P.Y.T." (more on that later...) "Beat It" was a song I had not hear din a while, but then my kid wanted us to play "Beat It" in the car ALL THE TIME when we'd drive to daycare. That was like... 5 years ago? So I kind of got back in to the mindframe of not wanting to hear the song again. Even with Eddie Van Halen in it. "Wanna Be Startin' Something" is a great opener to the album. So... "P.Y.T.' I have mixed feelings about this song. The whole high-pitched thing is really annoying. The whole bridge works well, but the chipmunk bit is just... ugh. The three non-hits are just ... forgettable to me. But the other ones are pretty strong to me. So on the strength of those, I am giving it a 4.

It's interesting because I went from Gang Starr to this. Incredible how much the art form has evolved in the 30 years. Kendrick Lamar's rhymes even in the first song are stark contrast. There's not really a bridge, but you start to realize that the first song is more of a poem than a song. Later songs has bits interstiched in them, but it's not as bothersome as some of the skits that some rappers put in. They come together to form a bit of a story, a pastiche, really. It works on both levels here. I was hoping for hearing "To Pimp A Butterfly" first, as I have heard nothing but praise for that album, but this is really good too as well. It takes a minute to get past the swearing, but once you get immersed in what he is trying to do, you let it pass you by. The sampling is really great too, it's not overly repetitive, and still comes off with a solidity throughout. Looking forward to hearing his other stuff.

During "Breaking Bad," one of the characters listened to a song called "Crapa Pelada" by Quartetto Certa. It means (roughly) "Bald Head." It's a goofy comical piece in a blend of Italian and Milanese. The quarter sing it in a cartoon voice, but I tend to think of it more like another instrument along with the band playing behind them. Knowing this, it made me appreciate "Os Mutantes" a bit more I think. Yeah, knowing the language would have been a lot more helpful for the songs. But I think ultimately it's not necessary for the enjoyment of the album. The flat-out goofiness of the sound effects and music really lent itself to what the band was tying to do here. Ultimately yes, it would have been helpful to understand the lyrics and that ultimately drew me back. But the music itself was pretty good, but it did have that late 60s experimental feel. I will say I really dug "Bat Macumba," and "Ave Genghis Khan" (as opposed to "Ave Maria" lol). So although I won't be coming back to it as an album, I did enjoy it. But relistenability is key here to my giving it a 3. Not something I am coming back to.

Nice, solid soulful album. If you new "Cruisin' " from the Huey Lewis / Gwyneth Paltrow version, that has to be the whitest version of that song I have ever heard. D'Angelo makes it about 1,000 times better and smoother. Wow. The album version is a bit long, though. I imagine the radio edit is better. I'm surprised that he's only done three albums. But I guess quality over quantity? Although they called this neo-soul, there were a lot of times it drifted into more jazz. Not a bad thing, but the lines were definitely blurred. Good album to "get it on" to.

I run hot and cold with the Doors. Their hits definitely are great, the songs that got played on the radio were meant to be, you know? "Roadhouse Blues" and "Waiting For The Sun" definitely are good songs. But then we get to the rest of the album and you wonder what happened. I mean... "Peace Frog?" "Land Ho" isn't too bad, even if does hit the nail right on the head. "The Spy" is ok and so is "Maggie McGill." But OK doesn't really cut it. If you're going to listen to the Doors, their best of is really all you need. The albums have so much "poetry" that really goes nowhere. You shouldn't have to sit through 25 minutes of drek to listen to a couple of ok songs and 2 songs that are really good.

I seem to remember buying this for my sister, back in the day, as a birthday present, on Amazon. So I have had this album longer than I realized. I should have listened to it before now. Wow, what a good album. I think the star here is definitely Butch Vig. The production really makes every song hit with a punch. I don't think there was a single song that I disliked, maybe the last song was a little obvious (reminded me of STP's Kitchenware & Candybars). But otherwise, really good stuff!

This sounds like Neil Diamond wanted to make a folk group for "A Mighty Wind 2." I can't get over the singer and his overzealousness. They were supposedly compared with the Beatles, but it felt a bit more like Buffalo Springfield or other Stephen Stills stuff (or the Smothers Brothers). I might have enjoyed it better, but I did not really enjoy the singer. So a kind of meh from me. Next.

One of the albums that does not get a lot of love from the band or its fan, Queen ventures more into an era that many fans didn't expect: prog. There's a lot of nods to progressive rock tropes: fantasy, fast / complex riffs, bombast (ok, Queen always did THAT well anyway). There's always that one album by a band that just doesn't go over well, and the next album goes over huge. For Queen, it was this one which then made them go to "Sheer Heart Attack." Rush had it with "Caress of Steel" which then made them go to "2112." But this one has a lot of songs I always enjoyed: "Ogre Battle" and "Father To Son" are two pretty solid tracks. "See What A Fool I've Been" (a b-side) is a throwaway blues-y track, but they still make it fun. "As It Began" shows that they can do a nice gentle song, which they perfect in later pieces. In fact, a lot of other pieces seem to be staging pieces for what is to come. "Ogre Battle" is a precursor to "Brighton Rock," "The Loser In The End" a precursor to some of Roger Taylor's vocal work. So yeah, I dig this album a lot. It's an underappreciated album of theirs. I

You can feel the energy coming from just about every song. But after the first three or four songs, it did feel kind of monotonous. Having "Firestarter" (the big hit?) later in the album was kind of interesting. Drum 'n bass can only get you so far, really. There has to be some variety here. The album was high energy, but an hour of it? Kind of exhausting.

This is probably the first album I (and a number of other people, I'm sure) had gotten of Cash's material. I then went back and picked up a number of the American Recordings and a lot of this other stuff. Although this is a great recording and I like it a lot, I can't give it 5 stars. In my mind, a 5-star recording is a classic album, a truly great album. All the songs have to be at least likeable. There is at least one song on this album that is really really unlistenable. "Sam Hall" is debatable. It's mediocre at best. It makes me think of "A Boy Named Sue, " but not as witty. A lot of the other covers are really effective: "I Hung My Head," "Personal Jesus," "Hurt..." Man, he just owns "Hurt," doesn't he? "Bridge Over Troubled Water" is okay, I guess. I don't think there's anything he really adds to the song's original gravitas. Then... there's "Desperado." I mean, the original song is not a real toe-tapper to begin with. But... MAN. That version is SO depressing and somber I am almost ready to KILL myself every time it comes on. Cash sings that first line and zip, I have to skip that track. WAY, WAY too somber and morose. So yeah, the one song is just so depressing it makes the album miss its mark. Sorry, Johnny.

I've always liked George Michael's voice, even back in Wham (although I did not care for Wham). The songs here are not as much of a range as "Listen Without Prejudice, Vol. 1," but you can tell he was trying different things. And I don't blame him for that. Did not realize that "I Want Your Sex" had 2 parts to it. Shows you what I know. So this is definitely where you see the progression to "Listen..." and it's really quite good. Enjoyed it a lot.

I went back and forth about this album. There were a number of songs I liked, and a number of songs that I kind of scratched my head about. They were short, and didn't seem to go anywhere. It's like they were underdeveloped ideas that could have used someone to bounce ideas off of. I can hear the obvious influence that Black and the Pixies had on a lot of later American music. They did stuff that a lot of bands used to make that grunge and alternative sound. Truly ahead of their time. On the strength of songs like "Two Reelers" and "Ole Mulholland," I am going to give this a 4, but it's a pretty weak 4. A lot of this was relistenable and enjoyable, but some of the shorter songs were very undercooked IMO.

Ah, good quality jazz-funk. It's nice to hear an album of like four songs, reminds me a bit of Miles Davis in that regard. Not a big fan of this version of "Watermelon Man" with all the blowing through the glass bottles. Hindewhu is not my thing, I guess. I like "Sly" being a tribute to Sly of Sly and the Family Stone. Vein Melter wow! Definitely one I will come back to, although I may just get 3 of the four songs if I go buy it online....

I am not sure why this album was chosen. Of the first few albums, "Number Of The Beast" is vastly superior. I see it's on the list too, so that's good. The vocals... they're not bad, but I just kept thinking of how Bruce Dickinson took the pieces to a higher level. And some of the lyrics... "Charlotte the Harlot?" Really? (To be fair, I heard the 1988 version and it was a loooong eyeroll from me then, too. The vocals were clearer here, though.) You can hear all of the components to come in the later albums hear, but I just keep coming back to the vocals. The second album "Killers" actually is better, they really matured and evolved with his vocal stylings. But we're talking about the first album, aren't we? SO just going off of this one, I'm going to give this a bit lower, just because of the later albums (even the second album shows more of a progression).

The first four songs are probably the most well-known of u2’s career. But let’s talk about the others. They… don’t really go anywhere. I was not impressed and found myself wandering. But then, I was never a big fan of U2 so there you go.

For some reason I liken this album to Crosby Stills Nash albums. It has that same kind of feel to it. But the songs seem a lot more varied in style, which is always a good thing. Clark's vocals even reminded me of Stephen Stills by a good deal. I appreciated them more and more as the album progressed. I really enjoyed this, and when I started really get into CSN (and sometimes Y) if I had found this then I think I would have REALLY gotten into him. Thumbs up for me.

It felt like they were trying too hard to be "The Bends"-era Radiohead. I mean... pick a lane, man. I like that they kept the whole hidden track thing on Spotify and did not break it up. Hearing the slide projector on "Slide Show" took me back to my childhood a bit. I guess copying Radiohead... there are worse bands to mimic, right? So yeah, I just... didn't feel anything from these guys. Didn't hate them, but... forgettable. Next.

I did like the music a good deal, but the lyrics were... sophomoric, at best. I can imagine liking them more when I was younger. But I just kept thinking of Mr. RANDY WATSON from "Coming To America." Bobby Womack at least had talent. But calling the album "The Poet..." has a BIT of overconfidence to it, you know? But I mean I guess that how you were back then. Good, but the lack of depth at the lyrics kinda nags at me.

There's an old joke that was on "Wayne's World 2" about this album: WAYNE: Have I seen this one before? Frampton Comes Alive? Everybody in the world has Frampton Comes Alive. If you lived in the suburbs you were issued it. It came in the mail with samples of "Tide". It's weird how such a big seller in the 70s is so...unknown today. Lots of albums are like that now. But Peter Frampton is one of those guitarists I really never heard of until much later. The album really has that 70s feel to it, which isn't bad except it just makes it feel a bit... dated. Did not like the slow version of Jumping Jack Flash. Frampton's soloing worked, but it was a little too plodding. The other three songs that I knew I am sure I have heard on the radio at some time or other. Although "Do You Feel Like I Do" makes me think of his appearance on The Simpsons: "Do You Feel? Come On, DO YOU FEEL??" So I liked the guitar work Frampton did here on most of the pieces, but it did give you that 70s feel, but not in the best way. Not sure I'm going to come back to it.

Lennon or McCartney really needed a foil, someone to bounce ideas off of. Otherwise we get albums where they sing about their wife. A LOT. Imagine does have a few great songs, and some songs that could definitely have used some McCartney-esque touches, or a foil of someone else to say "Why not try this instead?" Songs like "I Don't Want To Be A Soldier" could have used a rewrite. "How?" kinda just peters out. A chorus or a bridge would have been useful there, I think. I don't know, maybe I just am wistful for what could have been. Hoping that in some alternate universe they had patched up things and recorded new music. And Mark David Chapman never existed. So yeah, the non-hits of this album needed some work, but they aren't bad. Definitely an album I come back to every so often.

The two songs I knew on the album are always enjoyable, even though the title "Mother & Child Reunion" is a weird one, named after a chicken and egg dish. The other songs show the acoustic, songwriter side that he had so perfected with Garfunkel. And for the most part, it works. The contrast comes in with "Me & Julio" "Mother & Child" as they are both more upbeat kinds of songs. But the others do start to become a bit of downers after a while. Still, Simon always turns a good phrase and the album was enjoyable.

I'm torn about this album. Not as a whole. I found it pompous and full of itself. But... why? Was it because the singer seemed to not really be singing with the music, but OVER the music? Or was it because he was singing in French? If I read the lyrics in English, will it make the songs sound less pompous? Or will is seem more pompous because it will be one of those beat poet kind of songs? I listened to the expanded version on Spotify, which was probably a bad idea. They had three or four versions of the same song back to back, which got real tiresome. So yeah, I ultimately found this overbearing. And this from a guy who listens to prog rock on a fairly regular basis. Just wish I knew exactly why. Next.

Acoustic fare. Very straightforward. I felt a few songs were a little too ... sophomoric (I'm looking at you, "The Queen & The Soldier). The songs that were with a band I actually liked more than just the plain acoustic guitar. It is a bit of a preface for her second album, which I think is a better choice for the 1001 albums. But they didn't ask me, did they?

I don't know why, but the keyboards bothered me the first time I listened to this. It shouldn't really, it's not like they went out of their way to have them be intrusive. I think it's really more on "Radio Radio" than anything else, and that being the final statement, the last song, that's where it digs in. I never really liked that organ sound for that song, and I'm not sure why. But besides that minor quibble (and it's really minor; it doesn't make it unlistenable. I just think it's a little overpowering on the song.), Elvis always gives interesting songs. Such a raw, young EC compared to what we know now. Really enjoyed it, only knew the one song from before. Going back and forth between a strong 4 and a 5. Right now, I'm sitting on a 4. Multiple listens may make it a 5.

When I was younger, I had gotten a number of Springsteen albums. When you grow up in suburban New Jersey (read: white), you are required to be a fan of either Frank Sinatra, Bruce Springsteen, or Bon Jovi. I chose Springsteen. I had gotten four or five albums by Springsteen. The only one I remember clearly. The ONLY album I will listen from beginning to end, and not reach for the skip button, is "Born To Run." Every song on this album is craftfully made. Hell, the title track took six months. That tells you something, right? As I got older, I got tired of Springsteen. The way he suddenly sounded like he was from Texas. The way he lost touch with the common folk when it came to prices on concerts. But this one album? I will always come back to. Masterpiece, from start to finish.

The original US edition of this album did not have "Help!" on it. It's probably a good thing, because that was a pretty bad version of it. That notwithstanding, this was pretty good, 80s production styles and all. The songs really leaned into Tina's singing capabilities. I didn't realize how many of her "big" songs were on this album. "Private Dancer" is a little bit embarrassing and dated now, but most of the others work still. I've always liked "Better Be Good To Me", I thought it was a better song than most of the other singles on this album (except for "What's Love..." of course). "Steel Claw" reminds of an Ike & Tina song, but updated for the 80s. The cover of "Let's Stay Together" is... adequate. I mean, it's such an iconic song it's hard to cover it and do it justice. It's like trying to cover "Layla". No matter how you do on it, people are still going to say "yeah, but the original is better." "1984" is an interesting choice to cover. I love Bowie, and covering one of his songs is always difficult. But she does it justice I think, taking a song in the 70s and bringing it into... the 80s. On the strength of the hits I would put this right on the edge of the 3/4 line. Really the only real misstep for me was "Help." That did not work for me at all. So I guess I would give it a 4 out of 5.

I like the music as a whole. The guitar is really cool and obviously very innovative. It's just.... Corgan's vocals are too whiny. It's why I never got into the Smashing Pumpkins in the first place. I will grant Corgan for the line in "Bullet With Butterfly Wings" : "Despite all my rage, I am still just a rat in cage." That is a great lyric. The kid listens to "Zero" all the time. So I dug it as long as I could get past the vocals, but that's kinda difficult. It's weird because whiny vocalists like Neil Young I get in to, but Corgan? Just... he sounds like one of those angsty emo teens who needs STFU and stop whining about EVERYTHING.

Never heard of it. OK, seriously. This was one of those albums of the 90s that blew my mind. I do not consider Radiohead "prog rock" like I do not consider Pink Floyd "prog rock". Sure, they will use odd time signatures and whatever else they want to "progress", but they are a band unto its own. Every song on this seems like it's on a completely different album, and yet it all fits together like a jigsaw puzzle. "Exit Music (For A Film)".... god, what an amazing piece. And the thing is that this is not even my favorite album of theirs, but it is definitely the one that made me a fan. I played it for my son once he started listening heavily into Pink Floyd, because I felt that it was the next step. He said it was "good" but I don't think he quite gets it. Yet. Highly recommended.

This was a pleasant surprise. I really was not sure what to expect from this album and I went in totally blind. It wasn't until it started playing that I started to look up the artist and found out the style and such. I really liked the guitar, and how the blues and the other music blended together. Definitely a style all to its own, and definitely something I will be looking in to some more.

The songs were very much stylistically the same. But with the instrumentation they had, I guess that was all they were willing to pull off? Just a basic groove, and that was it. Putting "Green Onions" at the front, pretty much tells you all you need to know. That was the best and most memorable track on the album. The rest was... ok. More of the same.

They have to keep sending out these albums I have never heard of before. It's getting ridiculous. Seriously, can't tell you how many times I have listened to this album when it came out. Forget "Sabotage," every track on this album and "Paul's Boutique" pretty much solidifies for me Beastie Boys as their two best albums. I now go to their lesser played tracks, like "Get It Together" as one that I play numerous times. Q-Tip's contributions to this track work so well. The instrumentals... some of them are my favorites of all time. "Ricky's Theme" is such a chill tune. I get very reflective hearing it every time. I think the only song that is a little too goofy is "B-Boy Making With The P Freak", but it still has good spots in it. This album is probably one of my top 10 of all time, so there's no way I'm giving it anything lower than a 5. Am I biased? The guy who has their book, the Sabotage action figures and every album of theirs? Probably. But you can't deny how good this album is. You just can't.

Hendrix is always a go to for me, but I always felt that this as a double album was a bit too much, with a few tracks that are definite... filler. The album really takes advantage of stereo, having the sound moving from the one speaker to the other. That seems to happen a LOT on this album, maybe even a bit too much. It teeters on the 4 to 5 star edge. What does it have going for it? Let's see, such iconic songs: "Crosstown Traffic," "All Along The Watchtower" (I don't think I can even remember how the original goes), "Voodoo Chile"(Slight Return), "Burning Of The Midnight Lamp". One of my favorite underappreciated gems is "1983 (A Merman I Should Turn To Be...)". Such a great song and melody there. What pulls it back? "Little Miss Strange". Look, I get that Hendrix sometimes wants to just play and have someone else sing. But Noel Redding is not a great lead singer. "House Burning Down" is clunky to me. It never sells as a hit like the other songs. "Gypsy Eyes" feels like a demo to me. I always felt that that one should have been reworked. And that first interpretation of "Voodoo Chile" always seems too long to me. It could have been pared down some. SO this I think could have been pared down to one single album instead of a double. It is good, and a lot people can make the argument about it being a classic. Are You Experienced and Axis: Bold As Love are more coherent. This album could have been trimmed down easily to a 45-46 minute album. Sorry, it's just how I feel about it

If you like beat poetry, then this album is up your alley. If you are not a fan of beat poetry, this is definitely not your thing. I had heard the iconic "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" so I knew more what to expect. The music part takes more of a backseat to a lot of the lyrics. Gil-Scott Heron is a pretty good singer, I'd like him to be more expressive and emotive. I would also have liked to have heard more of the band. But the lyrics and the poetry was obviously more important, so... I liked it for what it was, but since I am not a beatnik or a hippie I do not think I will be coming back to this one any time soon.

The Beatles? Nah, this guy has never heard of them. I truly thought this guy was british until I looked him up on wikipedia. I would also recommend listening to the deluxe edition, it has a nice cover of "Because" and the Schoolhouse Rock "Figure 8". A couple of the songs I liked were "Son of Sam," "Colorbars," "Can't Make A Sound." But ultimately it just sounded like he was trying too hard to be the Beatles.

I can't believe I didn't know any Isley Brothers until now. The first track was on makeup commercials, of course. The covers that they did are VERY funk-ified. (I mean, did we need a funky version of "Listen To The Music?" It would appear so.) The weird thing with the "Listen To The Music" cover is they took the bridge out, which I was expecting and then never heard. "Summer Breeze" had to be covered, because the original is so... whitebread. The guitar throughout, man that fuzztone is lazer-sharp. It will cut through steel, that's how precise it is. I feel silly that I hadn't these guys before. Going to have to find more of their stuff now!

The singer feels like he is trying to be a cross between Tom Petty and Bob Dylan. Not sure which one he really wants to be. The lyrics sound like he's trying to be profound, so even though he sounds more like Petty, he wants to be Dylan. I like the soundscapes in the background of a number of the songs, which make the songs a bit... more. And The Haunting Idle was pretty good too. But ultimately I just didn't find anything here that stood out, made me go "wow!" It was still average-sounding rock. They were trying to be more than that, but I couldn't pick out anything... unique. So a big "meh" from me.

I think the biggest thing that impressed me about this act is the variety of the songs. For a band from 1967, the songs really varied a lot more than I was expecting. They felt free to experiment and try different ideas it seemed. <And hey, they're from Jersey, so I guess they can't be all THAT bad?> But seriously, a number of the songs I was familiar with, even though at first I did not realize they were from this band. And no covers, which a lot of acts from this time period were doing more and more. In fact I know a number of bands have covered their songs (whether on their own albums or live, so it's great to finally hear the original version). Yes, it did seem a little dated, but how much they changed their style from song still impressed me more than I was expecting. Very pleasant surprise.

I enjoyed this more than I thought I was going to. Aside from "Common People," which I knew already, the other songs were very well-crafted. Very catchy. (I do keep coming back to "Common People," only because I knew it from the William Shatner cover (don't laugh, but it's really good.).) The other songs have a sardonic wit about them, which you just don't hear in a lot of pop songs in the 90s, and I kind of appreciated that. So yeah, big thumbs up from me.

Faith No More's "Angel Dust" is an ugly album. But in it I find a number of songs I do keep coming back to because in the harshness of the songs there is something there. The songs are challenging, but I find a reward to the songs. I mention this because I feel the harshness here too, but there's not the sense there's something deeper in these songs. It's just a lot of mindless, directionless anger. I know the two songs that were big from this album. I liked the duet with Ice Cube, I felt that worked. But there needed to be some kind of calm somewhere in this album, and I didn't feel it. All I felt was exhausted. And that's never good. Next.

It's nice to hear an album every so often that really impresses and blows your mind. Great voice, the backing music really punches too. I had heard of Badu before, but had not listened to any of her stuff before. My loss. This really kicks. "Booty" is really great with the stop / starts. "A.D. 2000" was really powerful. Probably the weakest song was "In Love With You" and that was just because Stephen Marley I felt as not of equal vocal capability. Definitely an album I am going to come back to. I give it four stars right now, but I imagine it will become five the more I listen to it.

This is probably one of the stronger efforts by the Doors. Jim Morrison's poetry is not all over the place ("I am the Lizard King, I can do anything." "Um.... ok, Jim. Whatever...."), the band is fine form, the organ is really complimenting the guitar. I'm embarrassed to say, this is my first time hearing the uncut versions of both "The End" and "Break On Through". I had heard them on a Best Of , but they took out the word "high" in "Break On Through" so Morrison sings "She gets..." and that's all I ever heard. And they edited out Jim chanting "f**k" as well. So the song felt... slightly different this time. Even the non-single songs sounded better. They're not so... ramble-y. "Soul Kitchen" and "Twentieth Century Fox" I had heard before, and I always liked the wordplay of the latter's title. The other songs work well, and their brevity does help with that, they don't overstay their welcome. So all in all, a pretty solid effort.

Back in the 60s and 70s, people thought they could be either a Beatles or Stones fan. I leaned more into the Beatles camp. I didn't HATE the Stones, but I didn't know them as well as I probably should. A number of the tracks I recognize, but did not realize the titles ("Bitch," for example). Three songs I was not a big fan of: "Wild Horses" (had heard it before, it seemed like a forced country song) "I Got The Blues" - the lyrics felt a little forced, and the conclusion was kind of clunky "Moonlight Mile" - the ending kinda trailed off. But most of that is quibbling the strengths of this album: "Can't You Hear Me Knocking?" "Bitch" "Sway" "Sister Morphine" It's weird to hear "Brown Sugar"now, since the Stones have retired that track since they felt it's so... problematic. But it's still a great track. The minor quibbles I have with the album aside, this would be one of the albums I would have people start with for the Stones. Solid effort by them.

Repetitive and annoying, after a while. Most of the songs overstayed their welcome. And things like "Jazzalude..." wth was THAT about? Electronica really has to grab me, there has to be some intensity, and I felt my mind wandering in the first or second song. I was not impressed by this stuff at all. Next.

I had this album, and listening to it now, I don't know why I got rid of it. Obviously "Criminal" is the song everyone knows and remembers. But every song is solid. The vocals are so... sultry. And the musicianship behind it really gives the vocals and oomph. Really digging it. Her other albums have been highly regarded, I should look into those as well.

The first thing I noticed about this album is its brevity: only a half hour. From there we see that almost every song is under 4 minutes long. A few of the songs could have benefitted from being longer: "Hometown Blues," for example, could have used more exploration, I thought. The other thing that struck me about this album is the drum part. It's so... rudimentary. I think I noticed how little thought goes into the drum part for Petty's songs when you listen to "Runnin' Down A Dream." The drums on his songs are there as a timekeeper. And I like songs where the drums do more than that. It makes me feel bad for the drummer, because he really doesn't get a chance to do MORE. I'm not expecting a 5 minute drum solo every song, but be more integrated with the band, you know? The songs I knew from previously are so... infectious. "American Girl" is such a damn good song. You can't help but bop your head to that song. Even with the drum part being what it is. So the album, for what it is I would give it a high 3, even with the drum simplicity. Just for the songs being as infectious as they are so I guess that rounds up to a 4.

I've always liked "Mother's Milk" by RHCP. The band is really locked in, the vocals and everything else really grooves. The over of "Higher Ground," holy crap this kicks serious butt. Then this album comes out, and I listen to it and it just... yawn. I have two major gripes about this album: 1) It's too long. It was too long when I first heard it back in the 90s. I was like, "Geez how many songs is this thing?" 2) Anthony Kiedis is really not a good singer. I listen to songs like "Breaking The Girl" and even "Under The Bridge" and I think "man, the band sounds great. Imagine what this song would sound like if there was a better singer doing the vocals." He sounds like he has a cold. Or he's high. Probably both. Really detracts from the song. "Sheeeeee was a guuuuuuuhhhhhrrrrrrllllllll....." Yikes. And his scatting. Dude. Stop. Just, stop. Anyway, then there's songs like "Sir Psycho Sexy" and "Apache Rose Peacock". They just sound dumb and sophomoric today. "Under The Bridge" is still a good song, but "Take me to the place I luuuuuuuuuuuve." Gah. Sorry the vocals detract from it too much for me. He gets better on other ones. "One Hot Minute" is awesome. But this one I never got why it was so great.

I felt that there was some kind of inside joke to this band that I was not in on. I mean, I had heard "Stereo" a few times, which made me think they didn't take themselves too seriously. I just don't what to make of this. It reminds me of NIrvana, but at the same time with someone who had a bit more refined vocals. I want to say the music seems more varied, but by doing so it lost its focus. It became like it was all over the place and I didn't get the point (or was it that I didn't get the joke?). There weren't really any songs with hummable melodies, which would make it tough to go to one of their concerts, I would think. Not really a lot of singalong moments. So yeah, a bit of a head-scratcher for me. Maybe I need to listen to it again. At least it's under 40 minutes, so it's not plausible to do a relisten. Maybe.

Definite appreciation of soul is needed here. I enjoyed it a great deal. It's interesting how the album is probably as short as one of those soul albums: around 35 minutes. The bonus tracks featured are also really good, including her version of Cupid. I like her vocals, particularly. The low range really hits hard. Great stuff.

Wow, this was boring. If they were shooting for a dream-like state, it worked, because a lot of it was putting me to sleep. There was no variety here, it was too ethereal. Nothing stood out from one song to the next. Moving on.

I found the album more varied than I expected. Hard to believe the album it's over 20 years old. The songs are short, punchy and to the point. They work well and I don't think any of them overstayed their welcome. I imagine "We're Going To Be Friends" would have been tiresome if it went on and on, but it did not, so there you go. I think I liked this even more than the other album "Elephant." Good stuff.

It's interesting that this came after the last album which was a White Stripes album. I can imagine this group opening for them. Their styles are not totally dissimilar. My biggest problem is with the vocals; they sound like she's singing through a megaphone the whole time. I do like the song "No no no". I see what you did there, Yeah Yeah Yeahs. Solid stuff. Very energetic, gets the blood pumping. Really enjoyed it.

Again, it's very obvious how Nirvana was influenced by this act. Some of the songs were a bit repetitive. (Stormy Weather, anyone?). But the introductory instrumental is a great way to start off. Short, punchy songs, which is always good (don't overstay your welcome.) But none of the songs really stood out to me. That's never a good sign. It's one of those albums that I guess I just don't get the following.

For some reason, I did not think the band was so old. Even with the name Flamin' Groovies. At first the music sounds a bit dated. But I actually liked it because of that. The production being so garage-y worked for them, it became less dated if that makes sense. The actual album is only 30 minutes. Again, I keep forgetting that albums could be pretty short... The music itself reminded me a lot of a cross between the Who and the Black Crowes, actually. I liked it a good deal. I could tell they were having fun, particularly on the live bonus tracks, although they sounded sloppier there (I know they don't really count). Anyway, the opening and closing tracks I really dug. The stuff in the middle was good, too. But the opening grabbed me, and usually if that happens, that sells me a lot on the album. So yeah, it would probably be a high 3 for me, rounding up to a 4.

Probably one of my wife's favorite albums. Most people think of the one song "You Can Call Me Al," but there are so many great songs here. Paul Simon was firing on all cylinders on this. Probably one of my favorites is "Under African Skies", very underrated song. I'm sure that people would say this is the album that pretty much represents Paul Simon's work, and I would have to agree (although The Rhythm of the Saints is a great work of his, too.). Highly recommended.

So when I said to my wife that this was the album I was listening to she asked: "So when you hit play, did the music come out on time or was it a couple of hours late?" My wife, ladies and gentlemen. After listening to Erykah Badu, I was prepared for this being as good. And really, it has a lot of great tracks besides the 2 everyone knows. (My favorite is probably the duet with Mary J Blige. Two women singing at the pinnacle, wow.) A few things that took me out of the album: 1) The codas on some of the songs were really distracting. Worse, they are not separate songs so you could not skip them at first listen. You didn't know they were there until surprise! Discussions of "what is love?" 2) The D'Angelo duet I could probably have done without. The overuse of snapping there, yikes. 3) The cover of "Can't Take My Eyes Off of You..." I don't know, it's just too... syrupy sweet. But besides those, it still is a really good to great album. It is one that makes you think and want more. You hope that one day she will come back out and say "here's a new album." But now, almost 25 years later, it would seem like that any follow-up would almost surely disappoint. But we still have this, a testament to life, and love, and music. I keep going back and forth between a four and a five. The fact that there is only the one album still somewhat vexes me. And those other points drag it down just a bit for me. It's right on the cusp, but I'm still going to give it a 4.

Not a fan of electronica, but I kinda dug this. The vocals in some of the songs worked. Not overly obtrusive. It was good background music.

Afro-cuban jazz. Dig it. Besides Tin Tin Deo, which I was familiar with, all of the other tunes were great. Band is tight, locked in and this does not sound like it was recorded almost 70 years ago. Good music should be timeless like that. Seven man percussion section. Damn! Cannonball Adderley is on this?! Holy crap! Definitely something I am going to come back to.

You know, at first I felt this was a good change of pace from the other stuff we had listened to. But then everything started to get to be very much the same after the fifth song. There wasn't a lot of variation until maybe "This Beard Is For Siobahn". Which was good, but very repetitive, I thought. And "Insect Eyes" was just creepy. Such sparse instrumentation, I have to wonder how this would be with a full band, perhaps more like Dave Matthews Band? Is that a good or a bad thing? So if I had this on shuffle on my computer and a song came on, I'd be like "ah, cool." But listening to the whole album became a bit tedious. Good in small doses, but not the whole album at once.

I don't go into these things trying to hate the music to begin with. I mean, what's the fun in that? I will admit I was a bit trepidatious, and I was expecting this album to be more like the Beyonce of 2010 and previous, but it's definitely not in a few ways: 1) the material is more... adult, 2) she is definitely trying to vary her musical style with the material There were only one or two times I could hear autotune and I think that was used for the song as an effect more than anything else. I do not believe that it was used throughout the entire album (thank God). Many of the songs really did showcase her vocal ability, which is really on display on a number of the tracks here: "Pretty Hurts," "Partition" (that was... an interesting one) "Rocket" "Blue" and "Superpower" Even the songs that didn't grab me still had great production, I think the only ones I didn't really care for was "No Angel" and "Haunted." But I can see the maturity in the work, in comparison to where she had come from and that is pretty impressive. I saw some reviews where people were bothered by the "songwriting by committee." If a number of people had to help out to make the song what it is and that makes it a good song, then so be it. I'd rather have that than one person who makes a song that's awful. And really, a lot of people need that collaboration. Am I going to come back to this? Probably not, but I liked it for what it was. Middling 3 for me, I guess.

The album is definitely in the synth pop, new wave feel, but I felt that this it could have been more punk. Like if it was done seven years earlier (or 8 years later), Lauper would have been known more as a punk rocker than as a pop singer. Interesting that one of the songs on the album is Prince's. The uniqueness of her voice is what makes the songs work. In today's music, it would have been auto-tuned to death. I always liked "All Through The Night" and how she harmonized with the other singer. Listening to all of the songs, it's still probably my favorite song off of the album. The synth pop made it felt a little too polished, to me. I felt it needed to be a bit more raw, which I was saying about the punk feel. So as it is, still going to give it a 3.

This was an interesting album. It felt a lot more experimental for the Cure, like they were trying something different. I am not that steeped into their music, so this sounded a lot different than what I expected. They were obviously going from the sound they had on their first album to the progression to what they would become, so a lot of the songs seemed more transitional. Because of that transitional feel, that evolution, none of the songs stood out to me as THE song. The song that made me say "oh, wow I want to come back to this." It just didn't stand out. So it was interesting, but not good enough.

Fell asleep to it. That doesn't say a lot, or maybe it does. I don't know, she was embracing that punk energy, but didn't feel like she had the chops to back it up. Maybe it was just me being tired, but it didn't hold my interest at all. Next.

So this was not the first Rush album I owned. Neither is it the first one I bought (that goes to "Hold Your Fire" in 1987). The one thing you can really hear in this album is the embracing of the 80s sound, which is very different from how they were even 2 albums ago. Compare the style and sound to "Hemispheres" or "A Farewell To Kings." Let's get this out of the way: yes, "Tom Sawyer" is overplayed on the radio. But it's a well-crafted song. Their most well-known hit, and the band didn't mind playing it every night, because it's still a hard song to play well. "Red Barchetta" ... I have always liked the middle portion "wind, in my hair..." it's just such a great car song. "YYZ" what a great instrumental, really shows off all of their chops. "The Camera Eye" I always felt this was a bit of a weaker epic song in comparison to "Natural Science". Their last "longer song," but it still gets stuck in my head. "Witch Hunt" - it's interesting how that became part of a trilogy for the next few albums. I don't know a lot of bands that did this type of thing (Dream Theater did, for their 12-Step Suite). Both Rush and Portnoy played the suites / trilogies during one tour. Would have been cool to see either. "Vital Signs" is such an underrated song. It was nice to hear them pull it out for the last tour. I got to see the band play the whole "Moving Pictures" album live back in 2011 (wow it was that long ago?). I am not a fan of bands doing a whole album live, but it was still cool to hear. Rush is one of my favorite bands of all time, so this album ranks pretty high for me. I like other albums of theirs more, but I do come back to this one pretty frequently. So... yeah, 5 stars for me.

The album predates Nirvana, but it sounded a LOT like them to me, but without the screaming vocals. The vocals by themself are a lot quieter, more... directed. They're purposeful. Reading the wiki, they mention the band as math rock. I don't think I notice that as much the first pass-through, but it was more on specific songs, like "Don, Aman." I usually only give bands a once through, but this one was warranted. I felt I was missing something, so I had to give it another try. Kinda glad I did, I liked it more on the second listen. I still think there's times that the songs drift a bit into noodling, so I don't think it's like "yeah, man. Slint is da stuff!" But considering the album came out in the same time of grunge, and it still seems to be talked about, that's saying something. What it is, I can't say.

Interesting that this one is not on Spotify. A few years ago De La Soul offered their discography for free download on their website. It was only for 3 days or something, but I made sure to snag all of their stuff. So I was familiar with this one. But it has been a while since I listened to it. Cranking it up... The spoken word thing again? O-kay... (Recurs once or twice. Not a fan of that.) The samples of songs that I know: Steely Dan, Hall & Oates. Look it me, I know stuff! The interludes, like "Transmitting Live From Mars" and "Take It Off"... it's better than skits or sketches, which a lot of other hip hop groups. De La does more sketches in their next album, "De La Soul Is Dead," which I find more annoying. But the interludes are listenable hear. They hold p on repeat listens. The "hits": "Me, Myself and I", "Plug Tunin," "Potholes In My Lawn," "Buddy," "Eye Know"... you can hear the group is having FUN. Lots of other groups at this time aren't doing that. It's a fun album, and it's fun to listen to. I also recommend the album "The Grind Date." I listen to that one every so often.

If someone put this on, I would have thought "who let their teenage son near the synthesizers?" But since I knew it was Kraftwerk, I had to open my mind a bit and remember that they laid the groundwork for a lot of the electronic music we know NOW. Even keeping that in mind, it's not like I think myself "man, how did they DO that? That sounds incredible!" Still, it's very atmospheric. It's something I would definitely have in the background, but not something I would be actively listening to all the time. Moving on.

I find it interesting that Kanye has 2 albums listed on this thing whereas other acts which I definitely would have picked before him have only one. Billy Joel has sold over 4-5 times as many records as Kanye West, and he has ONE album on the list. Whereas Kanye has 2. Still, there's a lot of good stuff in the album, but there's a couple of tracks that have some annoying samples in them ("Bound 2" was kinda grating after a while, and same for "Blood On The Leaves"). And Kanye's grunts in his rapping made me think of the SNL parodies that the actors have done of him. That's not good. It's like the original song making you think of the Weird Al parody. It's angry, it's hateful. But not in a good way. And the way Kanye is NOW, it just makes it even more difficult. So as much as I want to be positive about the music, and there are a lot of good things in it, it's not something I am going to bring myself back to.

Every band has that undeniably great album. And then they have the album that is debated, but ultimately crosses the line. The line of excess and overkill. The point of no return, as it were. For example, Yes had "Close to the Edge" as their undeniable great album. Their next album, "Tales From Topographic Oceans," is one that is debated by many fans about crossing the line of excess. (Personally, I love it, but I can see what they're talking about: double album, only 4 songs.) For Metallica, their great album is, of course, "Master of Puppets." The contested album is "...And Justice For All." The two big complaints are pretty obvious: 1) It's too long. Both the album itself, and some of the songs. "Harvester of Sorrow" is probably the one song I point to as being the best example of this, along with "To Live Is To Die." And yet, it's the shortest song on the album. But it feels like it's overstayed its welcome. Length of the album itself? "To Live Is To Die" os not as good of an instrumental as "Orion" from the previous album. "Frayed Ends of Sanity" is another one that just... goes nowhere. Looking at the LP version, you have sides that are 15 minutes long. It just seems like a waste. 2) The sound of the album itself. The bass. WHERE. IS. THE. BASS? Oh my GOD, this is such a perplexing album. You get a new bassist, and you canNOT hear him. The drums, however, are very prominent. Too prominent. The bass drum I hear in... um.... EVERY song. I don't think it's a hard thing to say all of the band members really peaked with "Master of Puppets." I mean, listen to them trying to play "Battery" years later, it never sounds right. I can't imagine what "Justice" would have sounded with Burton. But there's so much anger and grief in that album, it would have definitely have been different. Am I nitpicking at this album? Probably. "One" is one of their greatest songs they ever did, there's no denying it. "Blackened" feels like trying to take "Battery" up a notch, but I still dig it. It's the flaws that make it NOT be a 5-star album. But it is a raw, definitive thrash album. If only...

This is the start of Yes' classic run. The stuff that everyone who is even a casual fan knows starts here. "I've Seen All Good People," "Starship Trooper," "Yours Is No Disgrace" ... these are concert staples that would pretty much be in the bands' live setlists even now. I have heard them so many times in so many different line-ups, but this is the first group, the line-up that gave us these songs. I liked Peter Banks in the previous two albums, Time and a Word is really great. But The Yes Album is definitely brought up a level with Steve Howe. His guitar work is all over the place (but in a good way). I think the only things I dislike about the album are: 1) the ending to "I've Seen All Good People." It always feels like the record player is running out of battery power. Real lack of energy there. 2) "A Venture" fade out. The song itself is... okay, but the fade-out always made me wonder what happens if the song continued. But then, when you do get to hear the extended piece, it was probably good that they faded out after all. 3) Starship Trooper - the opening portion of Wurm always feels repetitive to me. Kaye's keyboard work could have been so much more. Live versions with Wakeman really show what this piece could have been in the studio. It's a shame here. So really, it's the ending of songs the band seemed to have a problem with. Something they would tighten up on their next album. But as it is, I'm nitpicking, because I would still listen to this album pretty much all of the time. I do get a little tired of "I've Seen All Good People," only because it was played on the radio WAY too much. Live versions work better for me, really. Still, a damn good album.

I love Neil Young. "Freedom" is one of my favorite albums of his. BUT. I keep going back and forth with Neil's voice. It's the part that gives me the biggest trouble. At first, I likened it to Ian Anderson's nasally whine. So I was ok with it. But HERE, there's a few of the songs that it _really_ grates on me. He's trying too hard and singing too high, and it just doesn't sit well with me. (Particularly "Mellow My Mind".) The song lyrics are great, but the singing on those 2 or three songs kinda kill it for me.

It was... ok. I mean, there wasn't anything about it that just blew my mind. The instrumentation was definitely better than the vocals. She had a very... hippie kind of voice. I don't get why this is one of the 1001 albums I had to hear. Did she pay someone off for this? I mean, it wasn't like it was mediocre or anything, but I just couldn't find anything that stood out to me. Very puzzled as to why this got in.

Even though the songs do feel a bit dated, they still work pretty well. There's only one or two songs that I knew (the last one, and "Love Hurts" which was a nice stark version of that piece). But the other songs worked with the counterpoint of each singer. It was good for what it was. The songs were short and to the point. I dug it, and even though it was dated, it was enjoyable.

The start of the Berlin Trilogy. The thing about Bowie is that everyone has a favorite phase of his. I think mine is probably this one. And even if there's a phase you are not a fan of, there's at least one or two songs from that era you still love dearly. Although this is not my favorite of hi albums, it has some of my favorite songs, like "Sound and Vision" .My biggest problem is that some of the songs come off like they are poems. and only half-finished. They're feel half-formed. For example, "Sound & Vision" could have easily repeated a verse and it still would have sounded just as good. Still, that's a minor quibble. The live versions of a lot of these really do take off and then stick the landing really well. Favorite tracks are "Sound & Vision," "Breaking Glass" and "Warszawa".

Eno is an artist I _SHOULD_ be more familiar with. I only really know him as the producer for Talking Heads and a few others, as well as a collaborator for certain key albums. Vocals remind me a good deal of David Byrne's, especially "King's Lead Hat." But I am sure that was what he was going for, so... The instrumentation is interesting, I have to wonder what made him choose any grouping for each song. To go even further, I wonder how he chose what songs made the cut. Wikipedia said he had over one hundred tracks to choose from. I have to wonder why each of these ten made the cut. Furthermore, there's an imbalance of the sides. Side one is a good 4 minutes shorter than side 2. He could have easily put another song in there, bt chose not to. I wonder why. As for the tracks themselves, there is a range, but with Eno's voice being a bit limited, the songs started to sound very much the same. That's never good. Still, I dug it, and it's definitely something I want to give more time to.

The first few songs were more new wave-y than I was expecting. I was expecting the band to be more high energy punk, but instead we get a band a bit more like The Clash (not that that is a bad thing). A couple of songs did grate on me after a while, like "Billy Hunt" (so repetitive: Billy Hunt, Billy Hunt, Billy, Billy, Billy ARRRRRGGGGHHH!). I like punk a great deal, but this just did not hit me like those other bands do. It just felt more of the same, and nothing was unique there.

I probably listened to this at the wrong time. I had not a great day teaching at high school, my last period of the day was being... let's just say, difficult... A number of the kids were talking overly loud and using the n-word. A _LOT_. It was grating on my nerves. So then I put this on, and that's all I could hear for the first four or five tracks. I know there's more to it than that, but Lamar's voice was a bit high and squeaky, and it took me a while to get into his lyrical flow because of just only hearing that. Probably the song that really turned the corner for me was "The Blacker The Berry" which really had a lot of rage in it, but damn it was so laser-focused. The last piece was another one of those ones that is one you hear once and skip after that. The interludes are at least relistenable. So the album picks up speed, but I don't want to sound too prudish, the n-word in the beginning just made it rough going for me. I don't know if it as my mood or what. But... yeah.

On the one hand, the music reminds me of the bands that Fred Armisen would make fun of on SNL in the early 2000s. The "What's Yr Take On Cassevetes" is easy fodder for that. Having said that... I dug a lot of this. It reminds me of the early B52s, like a cross between them and the Go-Gos. "Slideshow at Free University" & "Les and Ray" I could have easily done without, though.

There is a darkness not on the edge of every song of this album, but in the center of every song. After the first track, it's just unrelenting. There are a few moments where Springsteen mumbles too much, making it hard to hear the lyrics clearly the first time through. But repeated listenings would make it easier, I am sure. The album is one I had on cassette, but I think I listened to it only a few times as a tweener. I don't think I "got" it. It wasn't like "Born In The USA" or "Born To Run", even though the instrumentation was the same. It's definitely more of an "adult" album, I think. I can see why fans go to this one so easily, but "Born To Run" is (to me) what the typical Springsteen album is. It does go across all ages, as opposed to this which is definitely a more mature album. The themes are more mature, and because of that I am still giving it a 4.

I found it an in interesting country / folk album, but definitely through a British lens. It's a very odd combination, but England has always had an obsession with American music (the blues, for example). So it's no surprise when they would take something like country and view it through their OWN lens. The second disc (I am going to mention it, although it is not really part of it) was interesting, hearing the songs which varied more. There was more of a protest feel, particularly " Hold The Fort." I appreciated the actual album more, because there was more of a focus in what Bragg was doing there. So yeah, country with a british twang. I dug it.

The last album we listened to this band (Psychocandy) was so drenched in feedback I couldn't hear anything. Fortunately this album is less atonal. Maybe since this was the second album? I don't know. Still, it's a step up. There's that jangly guitar on a lot of the songs, though. Ugh. Vocal range for a lot of the songs is not much, a slightly more melodic Lou Reed? Again, not saying much there. So yeah, it's better, but I was hoping for a little bit more range in the vocals, and I am not hearing it there.

I confess, I already have this album. Although the first song of Violent Femmes I heard was (of all things) "The Country Death Song." Very strange, but there you go. Saw them live in college, with the original drummer. It was very interesting as he only had the snare and very little else. But that's how this whole album is, right? (More on that later). You've got a great one-two-three pinch in three of those first four songs: "Blister In The Sun," "Kiss Off," and "Add It Up." "Please Do Not Go" has a Bob Marley-esque kind of feel to it, believe it or not. It's too bad that the first song seems to have been reduced to being the song people clap along to at baseball games. It's a great song, a song about drug abuse (another one of those songs people probably should listen to more closely before they rock out to it...). So, the drums. The rest of the instrumentation doesn't bother me as much, because they do vary up the song styles. And it _DOES_ work. But just the snare? It does make it feel a little... one-dimensional. I always hoped for a little more that way. So that always nags at me, every time I listen to the album. It's that that makes it a 4-star, not a 5-star album for me.

Raitt's been stated as "never rocking too hard." Kinda wish she did. I felt some of the songs needed more to them. "Thing Called Love" and :Have A Heart" were fine, but some of the others could have used more grit to them. And "Cry On My Shoulder..." terrible, cringe-y lyrics. Glad she didn't write the song, I would have lost a lot more respect for her. She just seems too blues-y to fit right into country and too country to have that deep down and dirty blues album. And that contradiction made it hard for me to be like "yeah, girl!" So she just kind of fell in the middle for me. So a middling score is what she'll get.

It's amazing to hear this and see where so many bands got their ideas from. "I Wanna Be Your Dog" sounds like a Damned song, "No Fun" has them sound like the Ramones, along with "Real Cool Time." It's amazing to see (or hear) where this all started. Having said that, "We Will Fall" I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time. But 10 minutes? Yikes. "Ann" is the same, way too much there. "1969" kinda reminds me of Pearl Jam for some reason. The vocals have that Vedder vibe. Except the scream at the end, which sounds goofy now. The shorter songs work better for me than the longer songs, as they begin to meander a bit. Pretty interesting to hear one of the beginning documents of punk, coming out 6 or 7 years before that explosion. So I would pick the few shorter songs, but a lot of it was just blergh (like "We Will Fall." That's half of a side right there. Com on guys, tighten that up some.

Here's my theory about Genesis: Genesis tried too hard to be a pop album. In doing so, they never made a truly great album. And The Lamb is no exception. Honestly "Selling England" is the closest they came. So, what of the Lamb? I still listen to this every so often. But like a lot of double albums of prog, it's overblown and too long. So the album is good to put on and listen to if you're doing work, but it does have a bit of songs that could be pulled. Then there's the story. Rael sees steam in NYC that looks like a lamb and... lies there. He then is transported into a weird album, and he... does things? The ending is...vague at best, and ambiguous and unfinished at worst. The music? The first disc/LP/CD is great. Gets you right in all of the prog spots, prog boners everywhere. When that "Fly On A Windshield" kicks in, aw MAN is that some good stuff. "Chamber of 32 Doors" is such an underrated song. The second disc? Um... beginning of the disc, just like Tales for Yes, stalls out for me. They could esily have cut some of this down. They pick it back up again on the 4th side. "Riding The Scree" has that keyboard solo, which is mind-blowing. When I had first heard the album, I had only heard maybe three songs from live albums. It was weird hearing Gabriel sing them. So as much as I listen to this album, it's not a perfect album. It's too long, it's overblown because of it. Am I being a bit too nitpicky? Perhaps. But Genesis is one of those bands that got a huge amount of attention in the mid to late 80s. They sold out stadiums every time I could remember. A band this big should have that great album. And they never really did. They had great-selling albums, but that is a different thing...

The king is gone, but he's not forgotten. It's interesting how he uses this format of acoustic and abrasive electric again on only a few albums. The other one that comes to mind is one of my favorites, "Freedom." The album has a number of tracks I knew from other places, but it's nice to hear them here, too. "Pocahontas" will always be that acoustic song. I don't think it works electric, for example. The only song that I was never a big fan of is "Welfare Mothers." But it's just because the chorus is sung over and over and over WAY too many times, so it gets a little grating. The idea of seeing the multiple sides of Neil is something that probable could be done more often, but I'm glad he uses it sparingly, so that when he does use it, it's pretty damn effective. Probably one of his best. He's in damn fine form here.

Smoke on the water. A fire in the sky. The album has a bit of the same problem that Blue Oyster Cult's "Agents of Fortune" does for me. The other songs on the album are ok to good, but then you get to the one song everyone knows, and that one song is way above the rest (except for maybe "Space Truckin' " but for me, it's just that that song is so silly.). I like Deep Purple a lot, from songs like "Hush" to "Perfect Strangers" to "Burn". If it wasn't for DP, metal and progressive rock probably would not be around today. But I don't pull this one album out. But regardless, there's always that one song that goes way above the rest on their albums. Can I rank the album because of the one song? Well, no. So we look at the other songs. And they're... ok. A lot of them they still play on the road, so there must be something to them. We start with "Highway Star" is pretty damn rocking. "Maybe I'm a Leo"... ? WTH. The next two songs again are pretty forgettable. Then we have "Space Truckin'", which is, as I said, is pretty goofy. "Lazy" is a pretty good instrumental opening, then "Smoke On The Water." So about half of the songs are forgettable, which is not good. Still, the strong songs do outweigh the weaker songs. So yeah, I'll give it a 4, but it's a weak 4.

Didn't know being a remixer was a thing. First off Danny Vicious was extremely annoying. STFU, dude. The repetition in the songs is tiresome as well, like in "You Are Mine." I guess I was expecting verse-chorus-verse, as opposed to a remix of a song I have never heard. In the end, I just got bored with it. I didn't hate it, but it just doesn't interest me at all. Next.

There's always a bit of a twang to Mick Jagger's voice tat is... unsettling to me. I'm not quite sure what it is. But it's that bit of his voice that never made me fully a Stones fan. Sure, the hits are great, but the deep cuts never quite move me like they do others. But there's a lot to like on this album, though, hits aside. "Happy" was one of the songs I think I first heard by the Stones, actually. But most of the other songs are really strong, even "Turd On The Run," which seems like a bit of a potshot at "Band On The Run" to me. I've played this album a few times, actually. Which says something because I normally don't do that to these albums. I usually just do one take and that's it. But with so many songs on this, I felt I needed to do more than one take. Really strong effort by the Stones. Really enjoyed it.

"I gotta understand Beefheart, man." -- Marc Maron I tried. I really, really did. About 20 years ago or so, a friend dubbed this for me onto cassette (hey, remember those, kids?). I listened to it once, didn't get it. It was too chaotic, too... dada for me. Fast forward to now, and it comes up on the 1001 list. Maybe now that I'm 20 years older, listened to a lot more styles of music, I will be able to understand this more. I'm not going to say that I will _LIKE_ it, but that I'll understand it. Deep breath, here we go... First song comes on: "Frownland." And it's not looking good. As the next few songs come over me, it still just sounds like all the instruments are playing different songs ON PURPOSE. I mean, is that the point? It's just so nonsensical to me. Somewhere around "Moonlight Over Vermont," it feels like the band and CB are trying to coalesce to make one song together. But Beefheart is completely off tempo with the rest of the band. The instrumentals, which are as chaotic, work slightly better, though. I think of them like improvisational jazz. But at some point, you have to come back TOGETHER. And they don't seem to. I understand the uniqueness of this album. And I will say that I didn't hate it as much as I did 20 years ago, but it's still not something I'm going to go and listen to. Again. I think twice in 20 years is enough.

I enjoyed the instrumentation of this album, even with the limited range of the vocalist. I did like him singing with the guest vocalists. Strangely, after this album Spotify thought I wanted to hear Christmas songs. That was weird. Anyway, it was definitely a change of pace and with the vocalist, I was surprised that there was a wider range of song styles than I expected. Still, I just don't think I would come back to listen to the entire album all at once, but a song or two on shuffle is pretty nice.

A while back, Neil Young teamed up to record "Mirrorball." People have argued about them as his backing band and thought Crazy Horse would have done better. Honestly, I always felt they play too simple, to let Neil roam free with the guitar. He does that a lot here in "Ragged Glory." As I listen to the drums in the first song, "Country Home", I hear that a lot, the same beat over and over, and not much else... it does bother me a little, but the song is just so damn good it doesn't matter. Am I being a little picky? Maybe, it's just that I listen to so many other drummers doing interesting things that drummers doing boom pap boom pap the whole song irks me. Even with that, the album is really damn good, even with the goofiness of "Farmer John". In case people thought he didn't have a sense of humor, right? Strong effort, really enjoyed it. I don't know if I would think of it as a classic, but it has so many great pieces. It creeps up to classic level because of those songs, even with the simple drums and such. Maybe I'm just being too nitpicky. 5 it is.

There was a very interesting blend of styles in a lot of these songs. Take "No Sympathy," where the intro reminds me s lot of "Wish You Were Here," and then suddenly turns into some kind of techo slammer. Really cool. I think my favorite was "Sidewalk Serfer Girl." The juxtaposition between the two styles really worked well. And if the first or second song connects for me, that's always a good sign. The ending, it seemed like the singer was trying out a different vocal styling which did not work as well for me. But I stuck with it, and in total I liked this album a lot more than I was expecting. May definitely look more into this band.

This was interesting, I found this as an instrumental pretty entertaining. Although I wish they would have focused more on a melody and bridge then repetition (as trip hop). I think the only song that got dull after a while was "The Rough and The Quick." Yeah, the song could have ended a bit quicker than it did. Aside from that, I found it a bit atmospheric, particularly the last few pieces. Bit of a change of pace, and it worked for me. I kind of wish the songs were a little shorter as they did get repetitive, though.

I was totally surprised by this album, as I did not look this up at all. That first track comes on, and man that really slammed. It really gave that "Kashmir" vibe. The problem as the songs continued on, a lot of them started to sound the same. The only ones that sounded different were a bit cringe-y, like the cover of "Imagine". Wow, that was pretty rough (to be fair, there are certain songs that really should not be covered, except maybe live in the moment. And that's one of them, IMO.) So when he tried to stretch out into something a bit different, it did not seem to work, and staying in his lane the songs started to sound very similar. It is a curse of a lot of acts, isn't it? So I would definitely pick a track or two off this, but not hear the whole album in one shot.

Started listening to this, and I was wondering why this album was on the list. Then I saw the last song on the album and I knew why. "Peace, Love and Understanding" is perhaps Elvis Costello's greatest song. So it's not easy for the rest of the album to hold up to that. I think the first few songs do okay, but "PL&U" is... just at another level. It kinda detracts from the other songs in that way; they just can't compete. "Smoke On The Water" does that for Deep Purple's album "Machine Head". A really good example for me is Blue Oyster Cult's "Don't Fear The Reaper". Everything else on that album "Agents of Fortune" is just... meh. But "Reaper" blows everything else out of the water on the album. Where was I? Oh yeah, Elvis Costello. So "Peace, Love & Understanding" makes the other songs sound worse, it's like an outlier it brings up the rest of the album, but you don't really want to hear the other songs, you just want to hear that one song. Doesn't bode well for the rest of the album.

It wasn't bad. But again, like with all Trip Hop, it just builds. There's no change from verse A to B, no chorus. It's just verse A verse A verse A over and over. If you get into the song you're good. If not, it gets a bit... boring. Songs I did like were: Black Steel, Hell is Round The Corner, Aftermath. But it's one of those things where you just... had to be there. Next.

The Mrs. walked in on the first song and thought it was the Dirty Dancing soundtrack. Ah, 1964. The last song encapsulates my problems with songs of this era: the backup singer sound so... bored. It just makes the piece itself sound boring and old. It made the whole thing end with a bad taste in my mouth. I know it was a cover, but it just didn't feel right. I was hoping for something peppier, but of course... leave them with a slow love song, that's what you did with albums back there. Man, so formulaic. I could hear a bit of where John Fogerty got his vocal sounding from, which is interesting. But still, besides that opening song, it's not something I will revisit :yawn:. It's a 3, but more like a 2.5, rounded up.

I have read that some people think of this as a concept album. I think some of the songs are linked and reprise specific themes, but that's really it. As for the songs, again we have the problem where the title track (the best known song) is the best thing on the album. Gutter Cat vs The Jets & Street FIght are... ok, but if you are not a West Side Story fan, it's not for you. I think I probably liked "Blue Turk" second best, but there is still a pretty huge gap there between that & "School's Out". It says a lot that these songs were not played live much except for the title track. I even have this album, and it just doesn't get pulled out often, really. It just doesn't hit me like I think it should. But every teacher should have the song "School's Out" in their repertoire.

I listened to this twice in a row, because I felt that there was something more there that first time I listened to it. I'm glad I did, because I liked it even more the second time. Not sure why I liked this album more than the other PJH album we listened to so far, but this seemed to be a bit more cohesive. PJ Harvey said she put everything into this first album because she didn't know if there would be a second. Man, you can tell. There was a lot going on there. "Dress" was probably my favorite, the lurching of the 3/4 time signature did it for me. I did not like the abrupt stops of the first few songs, that did feel a little like there was a missing track somewhere. Definitely an album I will come back to.

Late 80s, early 90s or so, I had a dubbed cassette copy of "Pink Moon". I really didn't get it at the time, and for some reason I thought Nick Drake was in Pink Floyd. Listening to this album, I realize the sound and style he was going for. And it really works, depending on the mood you are in. A nice lazy Sunday is a good day for something like this. I then went back to Pink Moon and found it much more enjoyable than I did as a youth. It helps that the title track is much more recognizable due to the VW ad. I mean, his voice was very recognizable from that, so it was easier to access. Sometimes that simple guitar and singing is all you really need. It hit the spot for me.

You cannot deny that "Welcome To The Jungle," however overplayed, is one of the greatest openings for an album ever. The first minute of that song is so iconic, building and building to a musical explosion. Would I call this a perfect album? Not by a longshot. But that first track really gets everything going and sets the table for what is coming up. There are a few songs where you feel the explicit lyrics are there jus to shock, and not for the song itself. Reminds me a bit of the Sex Pistols in that way (but they definitely are way more skilled than them). This is Axl Rose in his prime, a force to be reckoned with. Slash's guitar work... wow. Sure, there are three songs on here that you probably never want to hear again because they were played all the time on the radio. But there's a reason for that. They're well-crafted rawk songs. (Yes, that is the correct spelling for them, definite stadium crowd-pleasers.) The other songs are... okay. Again, a few have Axl sewaring because oooooh, look how edgy he is. Still, everyone is firing on all cylinders on pretty much every song. And as much as I want to pick these songs apart, they are really well-done.

This album reminded me a great deal of Flaming Lips, which I can take or leave. They do intersperse the acoustic with a bit of space-y sound effects, which was interesting. The lyrics could have used some work (looking at you, "Heavy Metal Drummer."). Reservations was another track that I felt could have used some work. For the most part, it was okay, but forgettable. Next.

I don't think it's necessary to understand German to like or dislike this. I mean, I've grooved to Magma, and that's sung in an alien language. But I can say that this? Not digging it. I get the point of the songs and such, the punk mystique, but it feels too much like a do it yourself mentality. Can't find a recording studio? We'll record this in an abandoned factory. That's the punk mentality. Ooooo, what a stark vision. Yes! Really, it just sounds like a lot of noise. There has to be a beat somewhere. A groove. It's more crappy beat poetry than punk. It was short, at least. But.... nope.

This album reminds me of my father. I remember listening to "Shine On, You Crazy Diamond" in the dining room while doing school work one day. My Dad came in and wanted to know what I was listening to. "I like this, it's really good." he commented. My father and I did not have a lot of musical taste that were in sync. But this album he liked. All 3 of the middle songs are overplayed, yes. But they're great songs. Even with Roy Harper singing "Have A Cigar" and not a member of Floyd. This was the first album I had heard a song broken up to be at the beginning and end of an album like this. It makes "Shine On, You Crazy Diamond" that much more intriguing for me. The four or five album run there, starting with Dark Side of the Moon, is an epic run of albums. I don't listen to this album enough. I really should listen to it more, but I guess it makes me think about Dad, and so I do only listen to it once in a while.

My sister was WAY more into the Dead than I ever was. There's something about them that I felt like... you had to BE THERE, at the show, to get them. Oh, and you had to be stoned, too. Since neither of those things were going to really happen for me, it's hard for me to hear it without thinking "is there something more to this that I'm missing?" But some of their most iconic songs are on this album: "Ripple," "Truckin'" "A Friend of the Devil," "Sugar Magnolia". I have heard the Jane's Addiction cover of "Ripple" so many times I think of that more often than the original. Is that weird? Probably. Listening to the guitar, I think of the Band and how the two seem similar in a number of ways in guitar sound. Not that that's usually bad, but it dos venture into that noodley sound. Definitely the album you want the novice to hear to make them decide if they want to pursue farther. Doubtful I will, but I appreciate them as a group. A 3.6, maybe rounding up to a weak 4.

Somehow the vital connection is made. I always thought the words were "Somehow we find a connection is made." Oh well. What I also didn't realize is how SHORT that song was, only 2 and a half minutes. The other songs on the album were pretty good, too. Even the goofy ones (looking at you "Vaseline."). I can see how this album became so popular so fast. Reading their wikipedia article, I did not realize they only had two albums. (3 if you count the BBC sessions, which had a number of unreleased songs). Back to "Connection"... does it lose anything once you realize the riff was taken from the Wire? I don't know, it's still a catchy song regardless of who wrote the riff. And the other songs on the album are still good. They don't fall into the trap other bands do, where the one song outshines the rest of the work. The other stuff holds up pretty well, IMO. So yeah, I could see me coming back to this one. Listened to it twice already, so I would say it was really enjoyable for me. Maybe it was the vocals, I just liked how they came across. Strong "4" from me.

When you have an album where one song takes up a whole side, you better make sure the other songs on the other side are as good. Rush did that pretty well with Hemispheres & 2112. Yes did it well with Close To The Edge & Relayer. This band? Not so much. Most people come to listen that sidelong track, but the other stuff is 60s psychedelic pap. It just doesn't hold together well. And when half of your album doesn't work that does not bode well.

Redding's choices for what to sing seemed... strange. I don't know if he decided what to cover, or if it was the record company, but I just can't imagine anyone saying "yeah, let me take a whack at covering 'Respect'." It's such an iconic song. The result wasn't good or bad, I'm going to say it was... different. My feelings about covers: if you do it note for note, there wasn't a point in doing it. People could just listen to the original. So you better put in something that makes it different. And the brass band, well they sure did do that. "Satisfaction?" I didn't hate it. I mean, I like the Devo cover of "Satisfaction," so I can't fault someone for trying to do something different on that piece. "Wonderful World" was ok too, although the Mrs. didn't like it as much. So the point is that the covers, although they seemed odd, were very scattershot and hit and miss for me. So I can't say this was a total success, it did put a few of the songs in a different light for me.

I don't know why people were so down on this. For the most part, it's your standard electronica fare. Harmless enough. "666 Edit," "Move Any Mountain" "Human NRG" were all pretty good. But just as with any electronica for me, none of it is very distinctive. The songs get very repetitive after awhile. I think my favorite was the "666 edit", but the others start to blur together after awhile. It was fine, but not mind-blowing. Next.

Never been a fan of Green Day. That 90s-punk, cutesy face, faux high-energy thrash. Ripping off other bands' songs like Chicago and The Who, while trying to act "original." Then comes this concept album. And I have to admit, it's done really well. I think a few of the songs ramble a bit, like Jesus of Suburbia. Homecoming I think was the one that really went on too long. Biggest problem for me is that Billy Joe's voice, for a concept album doesn't fit. He doesn't have the kind of range needed. I think they could have used a few other singers in there to vary it up some. Ultimately, it did work as an album, and as much as I am not a fan of GD I have to respect what they achieved here.

Lots of good stuff on this record, but it starts to lose speed somewhere around "It Doesn't Matter". For me, that's pretty good for a techno album. "Block Rockin' Beats" is one of those songs I had purchased separately, so it's a good song to start off the album. After that, I dug a lot more on this album than I expected. But again, it's too long. Still going to give it a higher grade. If I had to have one of these kind of albums, it would probably be this one.

I liked this more than I thought I would. You get past the "hit" first song, and the rest of it was pretty good. I liked the lead vocals, there was a smarminess to it that I really dug. For some reason t reminded me of the vocals to the way you hear "Puttin' On The Ritz." I thought I would have gotten bored with the songs, but as I went through each track, it was varied enough that I was surprised. Each song seemed like a refreshing change form the previous one, they did not blur together for me at all, which was a very pleasant surprise. "Chicken Shake" at first I thought was going to have vocals, I was surprised that it was a pretty decent instrumental for what it was. Favorite tracks: "Connected," "Step It Up," "Chicken Shake," "Fade Away"

I look at this album and always amazed all the songs that are so well-known on it. Songs that my wife loves so much. For the most part, I love them too. King's interpretations of songs that we would come to know with other great songwriters and singers (James Taylor, Aretha Franklin) seem stark but fitting. I do find her version of "Will You Love Me Tomorrow?" to drag inexorably. But I understood her point in slowing it down like she did. It's a very stark album, and I find it interesting that Spotify now brings me to an album I had already heard: Nick Drake. Really, I didn't think it could give me anything that could follow this album.

When Eddie Van Halen died, I can't tell you how many times I played those first four albums. They all are real game-changers in my mind as to what rock albums can be. One thing that really surprises me is how short each of them are. Barely over 35 minutes. When you add up the times, the recording time for Roth and Hagar is roughly about the same, even though Roth has more albums. Weird. Anyway, that first album. I was too young to realize what was going on at the time. I can't imagine being a guitar player and hearing it for the first time. Every single song would have made me throw my guitar in the trash. The biggest thing is just the ease of the playing. It sounds like he's barely doing anything to get that kind of sound (I mean except for "Eruption."). So many people probably thought "You Really Got Me" was Van Halen's song, which is a shame, because both versions are great for such different reasons. "Atomic Punk" is another one of those songs that's so underrated. It could easily have been done by a thrash band and sounded great. Van Halen is definitely a band I regret never seeing live. But that first album I don't think I could have imagined them pulling off that sound, blowing people's minds like that. A classic must-have album.

Does anyone remember when they took the song "We Are Family" and used it in a commercial for "Pepsi Free?" "We Are Pepsi Free"? No? Just me? Anyway, the first song... "He's the Greatest Dancer.".. I hate to be pick on lyrics, but "One night in a disco..." (um what rhymes with 'disco...?' Ooooh, I know!) "on the outskirts of Frisco..." I just feel like they did not try very hard there. The hit.... the deluxe edition has remixes of it and "Lost In Music." Definitely did not need that. But even so i felt that the song kind of went on a little too long. Besides the first song, the other songs i liked. I liked the whole violins thing. It worked well with a lot of the music. Probably my favorite was "One More Time". But most of the songs felt... light to me. Not a deep meaning in any of them. But I guess there wasn't supposed to be, right?

This album is in the middle of what is considered Wonder's "classic period". And yet I do not recognize any of the songs from this album. Whereas the other albums all have songs I do recognize. Regardless, this is a real solid album throughout. It's got a lot of solid tracks, easily one I can imagine coming back to. My favorite would have to be "They Won't Go When I Go." The synth sound and Moog, man they just don't make keyboard accompaniments to piano like that anymore. It's a collection of great songs, I liked each one individually. There's not one song greater than the other, but it didn't seem to really mesh into the one album. I'm not asking it to be a concept album or anything, but it just didn't... coalesce. Maybe that's why I have never heard of this record before. The songs are really good, but as one whole album it just misses the mark.

What the heck is going on? This is not on the list. There's only one Taylor Swift album on the list, "1989." What got removed off the list so this could be put on? I call shenanigans. Is the list static, or is it fluid? Do we _REALLY_ need two Taylor Swift albums on there? I mean, Limp Bizkit is on here for f**k's sake, and not even the album everyone would know. OK, on to the album itself... I mean, the album itself is not bad. Decent alternative country stuff. Lyrically, it's pretty strong. There's still the autotune of her voice. But that's on every female singer now, so they all pretty much sound the same. But again, what makes this album so special? Special enough to knock something else off?

The similarities between this and Metallica are pretty obvious, even if you do not know the history. I wish the drummer was better, though. He seems more of the thrash standard. He sounds more mixed to the back, probably because he did not have a lot to do. It's trying so hard to be like "Ride The Lightning," but it's not as melodic to me. There's more of a sludge and crunch to it. Still, I enjoyed it for what it was. But between the two bands I am going to pick Metallica.

It's hard to describe how much this turned the world around back then. The world was still in that metal phase, a phase which (for the most part) I was okay with. I like some of the bands involved there, but a lot were on autopilot, just like back in the 70s with album-oriented rock. And then punk blew up the whole thing. Then this came out and blew everyone out of the water. EVERYONE thought "grunge" was the thing (when grunge was basically a made-up fashion by the press). Yeah, I got this album. And listened to "Smells Like Teen Spirit" endlessly. But other songs on the album kept me coming back. And now, thanks to the new Batman movie, "Something In The Way" became the new thing. But even so "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is still the juggernaut, the song that EVERYONE knows. Imagine being the writer of that kind of song. It's hard to wrap your head around. Just about every song on this album I have gone through a phase with saying it's the second best song on the album and have played a bunch of times (except for the bonus track, which loses its welcome with me after a while). But besides the one track which only slightly bothers me, this definitely a must-have album for me.

Throughout the album, I felt like the Temptations were trying too hard to be someone else. 1969 was obviously was a momentous year of change musically, and the Temptations tried to change too. But songs like "Runaway Child, Running Wild" smacked of Stevie Wonder. Their... "update" of "I Heard It Through The Grapevine" just fell flat. I don't want to say they had to stick with just what they know, but sometimes you stray too far and it gets... embarrassing. As soon as the album was done, Spotify started playing "you liked this, maybe you'll like..." and it did Otis Redding's "Sitting By The Dock of the Bay" and a whole bunch of soul classics. It just made you realize what the Temptations album was missing.

I found this album to be a lot better than "Cheap Thrills". The album seemed more focused, the band was tighter. "Mercedes Benz" & "Bobby McGee" I have heard a billion times before, but I don't remember her voice cracking so much on the first song. I guess she really needed to break out from the band and have her own career. Good stuff.

Dug this quite a bit. Wasn't quite sure what to expect, honestly. The processing of vocals was not overdone (thank god) and the interludes were more transitional bits rather than sketches. F.U.B.U. was a bit... jarring. But still has a definite groove to it. Probably my favorite track was "Don't You Wait". That could have been done a whole bunch of different ways, I liked how she sang the chorus. Some of the tracks I imagine coming back to at some point, so it's a pretty positive album for me.

I liked the album, and I will say the singer does a very good Elvis Costello impression. But the songs are all very... consistent. They're high energy, but there's nothing to vary them at all. After hearing the whole album, you're exhausted. One song up on shuffle is great, but all 12 of them? I doubt the tempo for any of these songs varied... at all. It just all felt like it blurred together. The horns came in for a song, then they were gone, and came back again. I needed something slower to mix it up a little, you know? Just for a minute or two. Nothing to really write home about, high 2, rounding up to a 3. Next.

I think most people around my age are familiar with at least one song by the Byrds. Because, you know, I'm old. However, what's interesting is how some of the songs I had not heard from this album start to sound like other songs that I am familiar with. "John Riley," for example, has a rhythm track that sounds incredibly like "Heatwave." Listening to anyone else other than Hendrix doing "Hey Joe" always sounds weird. Even when they do it a completely different way to differentiate themselves from Hendrix. It still never comes off quite as good. I had forgotten "I See You" was theirs, although I had heard Yes cover it a bunch of times. The twangy guitar that is the Byrds' signature sound is unmistakeable, and it fits in to almost every song in this album very well, it even helps to give it a more timeless feel, not so helplessly locked in to the 60s. But in the end, many of the songs do not get past those trappings of when they were made "("I Come and Stand At Every Door?" Yikes.) and you could feel how dated they really are. It's only Eight Miles High and one or two others that really work. The version of the album I listened to had an instrumental version of "John Riley," with interview snippets from each of the Byrds tacked on at the end, That was... a choice. Probably if you were going to listen to this group, find a best of and go from there. Not a great starting point.

I like Adele when she grooves more. I know that her style goes more towards the torch songs and the ballads, but "Rumor Has It" really works. I wish she would do more songs like that. The rest of it was... okay. Oh, and the cover of "Love Song" is terrible. Completely unnecessary. Makes 311's cover sound like a frigging masterpiece.

I _want_ to like the Cure. But the goth is just too much for me. And this album, every song sounded exactly the same and the production as well, like it was recorded in a garage or something. Not a fan. Sorry. I know they have their die-hard fans, but they just... nope. Not for me. Next.

I have never been a big fan of Bryan Ferry's voice, but I am warming up to it. It seems like a cross between David Byrne and Peter Hammill, but not in a good way. The sax seems all over the place. I can't tell if he's trying to be that way on purpose or not. If that's the whole punk idea they incorporated or not. I liked "If THere Is Something" at first, but then the mantra near the end got very repetitive. Probably my favorite songs were "The Bob" and "ReMake/ReModel." Listening to it a second time driving around today, I think the album is still growing on me more and more. Ferry's voice is sounding more and more likeable, but I shouldn't have to listen to it a few times for it to grow. on me, you know? There should be something there of interest on that first listen. Or maybe I was holding on to my pretensions from the first time I listened to this band, I don't know. Still, I am starting to like it more and more. Maybe it's the other band members who I do know? So I'm giving it a high 3, rounding up to a 4.

I have PiL's "album", which is a heck of a lot more accessible than this was. Those first few tracks were enough to make me second guess my feelings toward that album. But if one wants to be avant-garde, you have to accept the fact that people will love your work and others will think it's a bunch of pretentious crap. For example, "Religion" didn't feel any better once they set it to music in "Religion II". It felt way too out there. Jah Wobble said "PiL was the simple thing of four different people doing different drugs at different times." A number of the songs felt like that to me. It was interesting to hear the progression from Sex Pistols to this, but I doubt I will ever listen to this album again.

The music was... okay. There wasn't anything here that popped out and grabbed me. It seemed like standard alt-fare to me, nothing special. Next.

Britpop was not something I got into when it came out. Grunge was in its last throes (weird as I write this, it's the anniversary of Cobain's death...). I watched a documentary on Britpop, and saw it was basically Blur vs. Oasis. I didn't know this album was such a big impact on the scene. Critics were looking for the next big thing, and this was so bright as opposed to the stuff from Seattle, characterized by doom and gloom. The problem at first for me was I couldn't separate the band from the dysfunction, so it took a few songs for me to get into the music. But I did come around after a while, even though the band was (for the most part) homaging so many other works. One song I gravitated towards was "Cigarettes & Alcohol". In Wikipedia, Alex Niven typified "Cigarettes & Alcohol" as a "twelve-bar blues rock song" and "a classicist boiling-down of the Rolling Stones' rebel rock archetype". But I mean... come ON. It is so obviously "Get it On" bt T-Rex. Even so, I don't think of it as them ripping them off, I think of it more as an homage. Because really the whole album is that, an homage to those great bands that came from Britain in the 60s and early 70s, but with a new shine on it. Everything old is new again. Anyway, I liked the album a lot more than I expected to ("what, no Wonderwall?"). And many of the songs were pretty catchy to me. But they weren't very distinct. They still had a bit of that 90s sheen to it. It didn't feel like they were loosening up until the end with songs like "Cigarettes & Alcohol" and "Married with Children." But that might just be me.

I started listening to this before, and was put off a little. I wasn't sure what the singer was aiming for, but it was obvious he was not going for super-positive. I think his voice reminded me more of Neil Diamond initially, but more... serious? (Not that Neil isn't serious, but it's what the singer was going for.) I switched to something else, and tried again later. The second time I started the album, I enjoyed it more. The songs began to be more... picturesque, I thought of him singing like Leonard Cohen, and I started to appreciate it more. I think if I went through it the first time I would have given it a more negative review, but I kinda got the vibe he was going for. It doesn't mean that I absolutely LOVED it. But still, I appreciated it more. So probably a 2.6, rounding to a 3.

I... _WANT_ to like Lenny Kravitz. I feel like he is trying his best to meld the past, present and future into one thing in his music. A guy who brings out John Paul Jones to play with him on stage gives you a pretty good idea he wants to honor the music he dearly loves. But I listen to a song like "Empty Hands", and I can hear him lift a guitar lick right off of Zeppelin's "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You." I feel like he can do better than that. This is in comparison to Oasis, who I also admonished for pretty much copying a song. But I felt that they were doing the best that they could in homaging. They could not elevate that style any higher. Whereas I think that Kravitz can move things forward, like he does in some of his songs that work, like "Let Love Rule," which sounds like Lennon without quoting him directly. Or "Fear," which I really liked. That was probably my favorite off of the album. Part of me feels like I'm using a double standard here, but this album has a lot of potential, and I see it in some of the songs that he performs later in his career. So I will rank this album higher because of that, as opposed to Oasis' first album.

Nice to hear Cooke run through some of his classic pieces. He sounded very enthusiastic, playing for the crowd. HIs interactions with them didn't seem forced, he was having a good time, which came off infectiously. Great stuff.

Sounds like your typical old school C/W fare. I liked The West Texas Waltz, combining the two styles like that. I'm just not into that style, although I will acknowledge that style more than the new "Americana" style of country (rock + steel guitars). They all had that sound to it, but the songs did not drag on and overstay their welcome, I will give them that. They were well done, produced well, but just not a style I am a fan of. Next.

Another Tom Waits album. I think this is the last one on the list (thankfully). This one has a number of songs that felt more like tone poems. There are a few times I can feel Waits channeling that inner Springsteen, and then there are those songs where things kinda go to crap. Instrumentals like "Bride of Rain Dog" felt like they didn't really go anywhere because they were so short. They were more of an interstitial thing. Doubtful many people pick those as their favorite tracks on the album. After listening to 5 different albums of Tom Waits, I can't say I'm a fan. I respect his work in that it is so different from the stuff I listen to, but his voice is just so... toneless and animalistic. Very growly. I need a melody in there somewhere, and he just can't seem to carry it from song to song. I never know what to expect. So, yeah. Still not a big fan, although I probably would pick this one amongst the others I have heard if I had to say which one I liked most. But that's REALLY not saying much.

Forever? For ever ever? For ever ever? Andre 3000 sometimes seems like his lyrics are trying to catch up the beat, like he's putting too many words in. It's more apparent in Ms. Jackson than some of the other songs, though. Even though I am not a fan of interludes in albums, I thought it was funny that they yelled "BREAK!" at the end of each one. Still, I liked the flow of some of the other songs more, even "?" which was short but to the point. "Humble Mumble" was also good (didn't know Andre 3000 & Badu were a couple). I can see why this made it in, the rhymes were really good, but Andre has to not try to fit so many words in, like fitting your size 10 foot into a 9 1/2 shoe. The slowing down of "Stankonia" at the end, ha sooooo funneeeeee. <sarcasm> So probably a 3.5 rounding up to a 4 for me. I enjoyed it a lot. I remember listening to Idlewild and enjoying that when it came out. So yeah, I was probably going to enjoy this going in.

One of the things I had heard about this album was that Steve Howe was in it, so I was excited to hear his guitar work. Did not realize it was on a song that was over TEN MINUTES long. Let's talk about how hopelessly DATED this album is. Sampling RONALD REAGAN. Covering "War," "Born to Run" and "Do You Know The Way To San Jose?" and they still sound less fresh than the original songs sound. Also THREE covers? That's a bit much, don't you think? Really everyone's here for the one song we all know. But one song doesn't an album make. "Welcome to The Pleasuredome" was good, too. But there's quite a LOT of filler here. And again, putting all those covers in that "modern sound" just sound like it's still 1985 (I mean I guess that's better than 1955, but...) So this could have been EASILY trimmed down from an hour to maybe 40 minutes. Just saying.

I think both this and The Joshua Tree are probably my favorites, even though the "hit" songs are definitely overplayed. Having said that, I am not a fan of U2 at all. Someone once said the Clash was "the band that U2 wanted to be," which always made me smile. Having said that, you can't deny how the songs on this album work and fit together, even if the bandmates didn't feel it. Edge's guitar work... depending on the song, it works, like in "Acrobat" and "Mysterious Ways". Sometime it's just too janga janga janga like in "Ultraviolet". "Zoo Station" for some reason reminds me of Bowie's "Speed of Life" off of his "Low" album. I don't know if it was something they were going for or not, but it just has a similar feel for me. It's not necessarily a bad thing. I remember when they were doing the whole ZooTV tour, it seemed overblown to me, much like some of this album feels. But how else would you follow up The Joshua Tree? Hard to do, right? Still, a solid album.

I liked this album quite a bit. I liked how the songs merged into each other, it made it feel more like a concept album, even though it really isn't. I liked the instrumentation, I liked the feel and nature of the songs (being from the suburbs myself). I related to the lyrics a lot. I remember hearing Arcade Fire on SNL and they really did not impress me. But this album did. I don't know if I would run out to get their latest, but this was something I appreciated.

I liked this album quite a lot, only because I had not heard a good deal of Britpop. The singer does sound a bit like the Noel Gallagher, though. I liked the opening quite a bit, but a few tracks somewhere the line did start to sound a bit "same-y". At least the songs were short, I guess? <The opener really stuck with me the more and more that I think about it.> They were really going for a retro feel, if I had not known better, I might have imagined this was recorded in the 60s. And do we have to use the echo on EVERY track? I'm sure it has to do with where it was recorded, but it loses its effect after the first couple of songs. It gets a positive review from me, but I wish they had varied things a bit more.

I could understand the sprawling lyrics (cocaine can do that to you). But besides that, I enjoyed this a lot. Jaco's bass work really added new dimensions to Mitchell's poetic lyrics. I wish I hadn't first read what the lyrics were in reference to because it colored my interpretation of the songs. I have to wonder if something like this would be made today, because it's not something you would her on the radio or streaming to get millions of hits on youtube (not on spotify, so...). Definitely one I would like to come back to.

It's not bad. I wasn't really sure what to expect here, but I was not expecting a simple crooner. Decent. I would have liked to have heard him tackle a standard or two. Because again, the songs start to sound the same after a while. There's a bit of blandness after a while. After a while I was all "great, what else do you have?" Maybe the whole shuffle thing on Spotify and other electronic devices ruined my patience for these type of records. I'm just expecting... more.

I got about 1/3 of the way through the album, and I just.... didn't get it. Why was this on the list? Who is this guy? So I looked him up on wikipedia (trying not to research the albums beforehand, but I felt I had to here). I got a better picture of who the guy is. But still... this is just... incoherent ramblings. I'm glad that in the 60s and early 70s, artists and musicians were able to be daring and tried a lot of stuff. Record execs took a lot of chances. But there should have come a point where they said "yeah... pass." It's not as bad as, say "Trout Mask Replica". But not a keeper at all.

Ugh. The Smiths AGAIN? This shouldn't be a punishment or a chore. I liked the bass work in "Barbarism Begins At Home." But the song is WAY too long, and the yelps, the hell is THAT all about? When having an album called "Meat Is Murder," you're already straddling the line of pretentiousness. But then the title track comes on and Morrissey is all the freaking way in. Look, I'm not anti-animal rights. Our concern for animals is noble, but you have to be very careful about singing about those kind of things, and these guys just don't have that ability to tread lightly.

I remember when this came out. I was in college at the time. I have a friend who is a big Aerosmith fan. Me, not so much. I really like their stuff from the 70s, but that was about it. But this album has some of their strongest later material: Otherside (Dulcimer Stop is a great precursor to it), Love In An Elevator (love the harmonies at the end). Ending with probably one of my favorite late-Aerosmith songs: "What It Takes". Some of their later albums I was not as much a fan of, but this had a lot of the songs I did like of theirs of the 80s / 90s. One of the reviews I did see were people complaining about Tyler singing about sex all the time. Well, yeah. That's what Aerosmith was all about. Rock and roll, sex, and... drugs. Lots of all three, man. It was pretty excessive and some of the songs are that way too. You just have to roll your eyes and go with it.

I mean, if you're going to listen to an album by Aretha Franklin you might as WELL start off with "Respect." The title track is a pretty damn good one too. The instrumentation and back up singers do make it seem a little dated, but Aretha BRINGS IT. Pretty much trumps over the dated feeling of the songs. I never realized how short "Respect" was. I mean, they always wanted the songs to be less than 3 minutes. The more times they can play it, right? But only 2 1/2? Wow. In fact, none of the songs are very long at all. The longest just barely crosses over 4 minutes. And yet they don't feel short or long they fit right in the amount of time necessary. I mean, "Respect" alone makes the album rank pretty high in my book. But the other songs do it justice as well. I'm only dinging this a little just because it sounds a little dated, but Aretha does a lot to keep it sounding pretty fresh. Still quite enjoyable.

Again, another obvious influence of the sound of a lot of later grunge bands: Soundgarden, Nirvana... The vocals are... okay. I dig the rawness of them, but wish for a bit more melody. When the songs go off a little bit more noise experimentation, it loses me a little. I remember having one of the Sonic Youth albums when I was a teen, I think it was "Goo." It was so beyond me, I didn't understand it. But after a few decades and music history I understand what they were going for now. I guess I wasn't ready for it at the time. Still, there's only so much of that "wall of sound" effet you can take before you are like "Okay, so... what else is there?" It gets old kinda quickly. Just like the album did for me. Next.

I'm not a big fan of the Beach Boys. I'm not sure why I never got into them, I appreciate their musicianship and their vocal harmonies are great. This album does not have any songs I am familiar with either, which is probably good for me to not have any predispositions. That last track is so weird, a fake interview with the band. It sounds like it's a bonus track, but it isn't. I can't imagine what people initially made of that. It's interesting that the songs were organized the way they are: the A side is ptemp, then the B side are all slow, ballad-like. Listen to the lyrics and you can see a maturation of Brian Wilson's lyrics: an apprehension of what lays ahead for him, he's not a teenager anymore. Ultimately, the songs still have that dated sound. I tend to think of the Beach Boys as "old", just before my time. But they were around for the Beatles who I love. So it's a bit of a paradox for me. So listening to the album itself, I found myself enjoying it more than I expected. And thinking that maybe I need to revisit my feelings on their stuff. I still don't think I will become a fan, but I appreciate them more than I did.

I mean... okay. It just seems to be very march-y. Is there any joy to this? Any... fun? Covering "One VIsion" from Queen. The end of the original, Mercury sings "just gimme gimme gimme FRIED CHICKEN," which goes by so quickly you miss it if you're not listening closely. The point is the band doesn't take themselves too seriously. This band seems to be doing the exact OPPOSITE of that. I mean, even on the SNL bit "Sprockets" there was a point where they danced. Lighten up, guys.

When I first started teaching, one of the students was a big Nirvana fan. It was only late 1994, early 95. She dressed up as one of the cheerleaders from "Smells Like Teen Spirit," and she wrote out the tracks to this album over one of her notebooks. I think about her occasionally, because now it's almost 30 years later. I wonder what she (and the rest of those students) are doing now, and if she still has that same infatuation with the band and their work. Almost thirty years later and this album really holds up. Kudos for the band picking more obscure pieces and not just "da hitz". The Meat Puppets songs are a little tough on Cobain to pull off but he does pretty well. Hearing acoustic versions of some of the louder songs like "Pennyroyal Tea" and "All Apologies" you really appreciate the craftsmanship of the song itself. That was what Unplugged was supposed to do, really. One thing I noticed about the public reviews for this album is it has a very split feeling. It's a 5 or a 1, not a lot of ones in between. I never thought of Nirvana as such a polarizing act, but there you go. Even so I am going to have to put it in the 5 camp. What an amazing feat, totally emphasizes what the Unplugged program should be.

I had to listen to this a second time, because I felt I was missing something the first time I listened to it. It reminds me a bit of Tracy Bonham / PJ Harvey in some ways, but more in the troubadour-esque feel. Songs like "Fifty Years After The Fair" had a lot more maturity to it than I would expect for a first solo album. The opening number really kicked off the whole album, gave you a good sense of everything. "Say Anything" is probably one of my favorites off of this album. I felt there was a lot more to her voice here than what I was expecting (you know, the girl from 'Til Tuesday...). Hard to believe this is 30 years old. Really good starting album.

I'm always amazed at listening to recordings done that far back and earlier. Some sound dated, and some sound timeless. This was a bit of a mix really. It wasn't until maybe the last song or two that I felt the weight of the years come rushing into the recording itself. Afro-Cuban music is not something I am familiar with, but the energy from this gives me a great impression. The yips were a bit annoying, but that was just them getting into the music, so it's forgivable. The instrumentation was very interesting. Very percussive, which at times drowned out the other instruments. But they were the most important part of the band here... All in all, I liked this album quite a lot. The last song or two was okay, but I felt the production really made you feel that the album was as old as it is. But I might be nitpicking here a bit...

I remember when I first getting this. It was one of a bunch I got from the Columbia House Records & Tapes club. (You remember the Columbia House Club, right folks?). It had to be around 1985 or so. I liken this album to Rush's Permanent Waves. It was the stepping stone to their next album which became their biggest album of all time. (I was never a big fan of "Pour Some Sugar On Me," but I think it was just overplayed.). I don't think I have listened to the album since I was a teenager. So hearing it again made the years roll back to that time. I mean yeah, "Photograph", "Rock of Ages" and "Foolin' " are well-known hits for the band. Hard to believe that this was only their third album. I kinda feel that this album was the precursor to "Hair" metal (ugh, I hate the name). Probably one of the songs that is really underrated is "Stage Fright". Wow, I forgot how much I liked that piece. And "Billy's Got A Gun" had its own little bonus track. The expanded edition has a great concert to it as well. Maybe it's just me being nostalgic, I really enjoyed the album and going back to that time. But I can see how others may not be big into it.

Every song was too repetitive and too long. (Over seven minutes for some of the tracks?!) I know that was the concept for French dance music, you don't want too much of a change, but I felt like there needed to be something else layered on top of each song at some point. There needed to be... more. To make it interesting. And it just wasn't there.

I felt like each song has the same feeling or opening sound as "Mr. Tambourine Man", the guitar sound sounds the same, the vocals are similar. There was not a lot of variation from one song to the next. But the title track was indeed the superior song of the bunch. Listening to a whole album of it? Not so much.

The singer reminded me a bit of Bryan Ferry crossed with Dave Vanian from the Damned. But in a good way. I can see how they got their popularity. The singer's charisma really came across in the songs. Obvious post-punk influence there. I'm surprised I hadn't heard of this band before. Nothing from the songs stood out for me, though. All I can muster was an "it was okay." I wasn't blown away by it.

I can't tell you how prevalent this album was in 1985 and early 1986. "Money For Nothing" was EVERYWHERE. You could not escape that song. It was like Dire Straits had not done anything else ("Sultans of Swing?"). It's weird how I tend to like the album BEFORE the hit album of some of these bands. "Love Over Gold" is a tremendous album, and such a different album than this. Lot of great atmospheric and instrumental stuff on it. "Industrial Disease" and "Twisting By The Pool" were really the first two songs by DS I ever really knew, Then came this juggernaut "Money For Nothing." Let's talk about the elephant in the room and the slur used on the song. Knopfler was role playing for this song, and many other performers have done the same in their songs. But in today's world, the song would still not have been made this way today. Same as "The Wall." I don't want to wave it away and just say "times were different", they were. But that kind of acting in songs without realizing the repercussions was just not thought through. I think one of the things about the album to me is how so many of the songs actually have a Springsteen feel. You know, without the gravitas, the songs don't have that cathartic feel. There was a thing called the Walk of Life Project where the song made so many movies better. It is such a "feel good" song, you can't help liking it. I still enjoy it. I don't think there's any song I find overly weak here. The guitar work is smooth on all of the songs, you even have Tony Levin on a track (always a bonus). I wish Marek Knopfler was a better singer. He does not have a wide vocal range, but his guitar kinda makes up for that. I teeter back and forth on this album. I like it a lot, but it's not my favorite of theirs. It has a lot of great songs, and just about all of them are easily listenable. I think "One World" is a bit of a filler, and honestly "Money For Nothing" does go on a little long. I can see why there were single edits to it. I guess the big thing is that I don't keep coming back to the album. It doesn't have relistenability to me. It's a strong 4, but it just doesn't cross over to be a classic for me.

There have been so many different versions of this album that I've owned, I'm not sure which one I should review. The original 37 minute album is honestly too short IMO. Live albums need to be more than 45 minutes. They have to give you a feel of the show you're at, and an album length is not long enough to do that. At the very least you need an hour or more to get the sense of the show. So normally I would think that'd be an hour's worth. Having said that, let's start with the original release. The six tracks on that album are quintessential Who. A 15 minute version of "My Generation?" Yes, please. Throwing in some Tommy riffs as well, love it! "Young Man Blues" & "Summertime Blues" are probably my 2 favorite covers The Who ever did. "Substitute" is dispatched pretty quickly. "Shakin' All Over" is probably the weakest song off the album and it still tears the roof off. If we go to the expanded CD version, that's the one I first heard. You've got Entwhistle's "Heaven and Hell," an... interesting choice for an opener. "I Can't Explain" is another one quickly played. "Fortune Teller" & "Tattoo" are two lesser-known songs, and I really like their take on "Tattoo". "I'm A Boy..." I like the studio version better. Not sure why, I think there's a slyness to it that the live version does not capture. "A Quick One While He's Away" is good, but the superior live version comes from the Stones' "Rock and Roll Circus," and we all know it. So the extra tracks, do they add to the original album? I don't think so, but they make them worse, really. I can see why they picked those songs for the original album. They truly are the best pieces from the show. I am more of a fan of the Who's later work, but it's this early stuff where they cut their teeth. So hearing he old stuff done in this live album is a real treat. The live version of "Tommy..." it's ok, but you can only hear it so many times. I never really liked "Tommy", thought "Quadrophenia" was better. I thought Townshend really matured by then in his musical writing. So I really didn't need to have another version of Tommy. Still the original album has great stuff and that's what we should be looking at. It's very strong, and the 95 CD reissue was great for me as well. A must have from the Who.

I had first heard Cohen play "Suzanne" on the Isle of Wight Festival recording I have. That performance was 1970. I felt the solo performance was even more haunting than the original here. The other songs are just as eerie to me with the sparse instrumentation. The lyrics are pretty morose and introspective, but they're supposed to be. It's a quiet album, something to play late and night and have a cup of tea with right before you go to bed. Not exactly the best bedtime album, but there you go. I don't know if I would listen to it (except for maybe "Suzanne") because it does get rather depressing.

This is where it starts. Although I started listening to Radiohead with "OK Computer," it's this album that truly shows the band in their element. I know that the first album is good, and people play "Creep" to frigging death, but so much of the later works can be tracked directly to this album. Sound effects on "Planet Telex" can be found on the next album, "High and Dry" and "(nice dream)" both have the same kind of feel as "No surprises." I should listen to this album more. I know a number of these songs from concerts and bands covering them, but it's an album that should be more in my general rotation.

I've listened to this one and "The Suburbs" a few times and I would say I like this one a little more. Probably my favorite track is "(Antichrist Television Blues)", I like the abrupt ending. It's very off-putting, and unexpected. I also liked "Black Wave / Bad Vibrations", that worked pretty well, too. I don't think they've got me as a fan yet, but I did enjoy this album. And the fact that I came back to give it a second listen says something, I had to hear it again to make a decision on it. A lot of music has been pretty polarizing, but this was a bit tougher. It's probably good for me to give these a deeper listen sometimes...

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. This is one of those few albums where EVERY song is played on the radio. There are very few of those. There are no deep cuts here. As much as I love the live versions of "Baba O'Riley," that studio version with the violin is just something to behold. Man, that is just... gets the blood really moving. "Won't Get Fooled Again," though, I think is better as a live song. To hear Daltrey making that primal scream way back when... I wish I could have seen that. I don't think it's the same now, pushing 80. Not a clunker on this album. I used to listen to this over and over. I always wonder how this would have turned out as the Lifehouse project Townshend wanted. We have some idea, but still. This is a masterpiece and any rock fan should be familiar with it.

I feel there are a number of songs on here that could use a lot more work or could have just been dropped, songs like "Honey Hi" and "Brown Eyes." If you're going to do a double album, make sure you have the material to stretch throughout. The Beatles did it for the White Album. But Fleetwood Mac aren't the Beatles. Even their noodling still can be crafted into songs. Honestly I thought "That's All For Everyone" was the end of the album. What a strange place to put the song, it has such a finality to it. I definitely would have cut out some tracks out of this, pared it down to at less than an hour. "Sisters of the Moon," for example is a DAMN good song and should have been touted more. This may be the "anti-Rumours" but that doesn't make it a good thing, necessarily.

I find it interesting that there are so many producers on the album. You would think that that would make the album feel a lot more scattered, that there was not a central theme. But really, you don't get that here. Throughout the album, the core... the Roots keeps whatever groove necessary to solidify that theme. The shorts lead right into songs, which is ok, I guess. A couple of songs went on a bit long: "Break You Off" could have been tightened up some, "Pussy Galore" I probably could have done without. But "Water," WOW! That was great. More of that, please. Definitely going to have to check out more of their stuff now...

When you listen to a cover and hear the original, a lot of times the original is better. This is not one of those times. Kinda like Hendrix's "All Along The Watchtower" is better than the original, Neil's version of "Everybody's Talkin'" pales to Nilsson's. But they rereleased this to coincide with "Midnight Cowboy," what did they expect would happen? The rest is standard fare for the most part. The last piece was an interesting bit. When I saw it was eight minutes I was a bit worried it would be an eight minute vocal piece. He can play a guitar pretty well, I will give him that. More of that last track next time, please. Hearing this right after a L. Cohen's album it was interesting. The two were not as dissimilar as you might thing. I appreciated the Cohen album more after hearing this one actually. I wonder what others would do with Neil's songs...

Bitches Brew was, at first, like Yes' Tales From Topographic Oceans. A double album with long songs? How could this not be something I would enjoy? I like most of Davis' eras, but his intro into this experimental jazz / fusion has always been a quandary for me. It just feels like the band is noodling along and there's no sense of melody or theme throughout. Davis does that whole trumpet burst thing, but his solos are not really... impressive. I don't get a sense of where each piece is going, and it gets to a point where I am unsure as to what is the difference between each one. I'm not saying jazz has to fit into a specific box, but 2 hours of noodling doesn't seem like groundbreaking to me. I'll still put it on every once in a while, and see if I "get" what all these critics were getting when they rated it so highly. But somehow I don't think so.

David Bowie as a soul artist. It's a little weird to think about him that way, but he really did reinvent himself like that. I just don't think about this album a much as I should. Still, it has two big hits on it: "Young Americans" and "Fame" (although when I first started listening to Bowie I had heard the 1990 remix of Fame more.) The one thing that didn't work on this album is his cover of "Across The Universe." The song is supposed to have a dream-like quality, and I just didn't get that from his performance. Still, it's a pretty solid album but not definitely not one I go to as my favorite of his.

One hit wonders are always weird because the album is usually not as good as the song. But this album was pretty fun to listen to. I ran hot and cold with Rowland's vocals. Sometimes I dug it, there were one or two songs I was thinking the song would have worked better with someone else. The cover of "Jackie Wilson Said" was pheNOMenal. I feel bad for people who bought the record for their one hit and then had to sit there to listen through everything else for the one song. Fun fact: they fired the drummer halfway through making the video, so you'll see him and then you won't. I am intrigued because they remixed the album, as they felt it could have been done better. I will give that a listen as well, which bodes well for the album itself. If it stank, why would I compare it to the remix, right? Pretty good album, overall.

Rick Wakeman has said this is the best album he ever made: "... It’s faultless, such great musicians, there wasn’t anything that wasn’t right about that album." "Changes." "Andy Warhol." "Oh, You Pretty Things." "Life On Mars." All four of those songs are very high on my list of favorite Bowie songs. I think it's telling because Wakeman plays piano on most of them, but still Bowie songs. If it was just these songs alone it would be close to a 5. But the other songs... Some are really strong, like "Eight Line Poem" and "Kooks", but there are some that are definite b-sides, like "Fill Your Heart," which I felt was supposed to be more tongue-in-cheek than anything else. "Song For Bob Dylan" has a guitar feel more like Queen, but still it's pretty good. "Belway Brothers" has a bit of a cartoon-y end, which is... odd... And then it's over. And you're kind of hoping for a better ending, but no luck. I'm glad that Bowie shifted to more of a piano-based album, it really shows how much he expands in his ideas. "Kooks" is one of the songs he resurrects from his very very FIRST album. It still works, too. But ultimately, I can't give this a 5. A 5 is an album I would come back to again and again and listen to it start to finish. "Belway Brothers" and "Fill Your Heart" are just.... not as good as the other songs. And putting "Belway Brothers" at the end like that puts a sour taste in your mouth, like a bad aftertaste on a desert to an exquisite meal. It's a really good album and has some of my favorite tracks, but it's just not great.

I think my biggest problem was the vocals. The voice sounded a little disinterested at that times. I couldn't tell if the singer was not interested, or if that was just the voice he was going for. The music for the most part was ok. The hidden track got VERY repetitive after a while. There was obviously a good deal of craft in the music that was made, but honestly it just didn't move me.

The music vacillates between country and Bob Dylan. That's not a bad thing necessarily, it's just something I observed while listening to him. The song I probably liked the least was "Bartering Lines," I felt that that one was getting way too repetitive. Dragged on way too much. There was a feeling of age to these songs, as if they were older than they appeared. Like Ryan had pulled them from some old songbook, and not written them himself. It was weird to hear that, like looking through a mist. You can make it out, but just barely. I liked his voice, and the way he duetted with a few others on the album. Ultimately, it worked well for a duet album. I definitely won't be him with BRYAN Adams anymore. So ultimately I liked it for its independence, singer / songwriter feel. I saw some of the albums or works he covered and I'm intrigued to hear how they sound against the original. Probably like a 3.4 for me.

I feel that every song of Bob Dylan I like, I like because someone else does it better. They sing it better, they perform it better. I can name on one hand the songs of his I like that Dylan performs where I really like his delivery. And none of them are on this album. Yes, I am well-familiar with a number of the tracks on the album, but his singing is just so... gah. I just can never get past it. I think that goes back to hearing the 30th Anniversary Concert they had for him, and everyone's take on his stuff seemed so damn good. As a lyricist / songwriter, Dylan is above the pale. If only he was a better singer.

The singer sounds drunk. Like, _ALL_ the time. I vaguely hearing "Get Free" on the radio when it first came out. I didn't realize it was that short. "Mary Jane" was probably the worst song on the album. I haven't heard a song so repetitive in a while. Comparisons to Nirvana seem a little overblown. The vocalist is raspy, but maybe it's just the way he screams, I don't know. It's a good rocker of an album, gets the blood pumping. Pretty good debut album.

If you told me that the first two tracks are well over 15 minutes of electronic music, and that I would actually like it, I wouldn't have believed you. But I did. I found them fascinating pieces of work, deeply enriching and numerous themes in both. The shorter songs were okay as well. I am not that big of a fan of electronica, but this I quite enjoyed. The beats and counterpoint in each song worked well. The vocals were not so great, but I kinda tuned those out after a while. Still, not bad.

This feels like a couple of guys went in to the studio, got REALLY baked, and 10 or 11 hours later came up with this. Sure, it was a lot of editing to bring it down to this, but I'm sure if you take 10-11 hours of that kind of noodling you could find an hour's worth that's good. Or at least listenable, maybe? Songs that have them calling out colors ("Orange!") like in 'Aquarius', and other stuff like 'Happy Cycling' was annoying. The songs that were 2 minutes long were all "What the heck was THAT?" And the songs that were over 6 minutes long were all "Why didn't this end 2 minutes ago?" It's not the worst thing I've ever heard. Maybe my weed just isn't strong enough. I don't know.

I have been told that this music is groundbreaking, and yet all I think is that it sounds a lot like video game music for something with graphics slightly more complex than the Atari 2600. OK, maybe that was a little too mean, but the songs seem kinda boring. And a 22 minute side-long song about driving on the Autobahn? Geez, it should have at least had movements where things happened. It just seem to drone one. The last track I did like, it was peaceful and meditative. I can imagine that more of the other pieces (particularly "Autobahn") would be great for that kind of thing. I never did quite get Bowie's infatuation with this stuff in the Berlin trilogy, and hearing this album I still don't totally see it. As contemplative, new age-y pieces, I've heard stuff that's better that's out there.

Poignant, but very downbeat. Listening to it this morning, the Mrs. said "Does he sing any peppy songs on this? Come on, Randy. Pick it up!" So I pulled up the one song on the album that takes me back to when I was kid: "Simon Smith and His Amazing Bear." The only reason that it does is because the first time I ever heard the song was on The Muppet Show. It's always weird when you hear a song as a kid and then hear it again when you're an adult. You're transported back to that time in your life. It's only happened a few times for me, and this was one of them. Randy is obviously well-known for his Disney soundtracks (trying to scroll through all of the albums to this on Spotify was almost impossible because of how many versions of the soundtrack to Toy Story 4 there are), but his wit is on fire for this album. "Political Science?" very little like it these days. I felt it was a very melancholy album, but it was definitely what he was going for. Enjoyed it a good deal.

The singer reminds me of CeeLo Green. But with a bit of an accent. Unfortunately, it makes some of the songs kinda annoying, like "Ride On and Turn The People On". My question is why this album is one I _HAD_ to listen to before I die? It doesn't seem that overly impressive to me...?

One of my favorites. So many great songs on this album, INCLUDING "Octopus' Garden". Yeah, I said it. I know people find it a little insipid, but you know what? I saw Ringo Starr last year and it still was great to hear, over 50 years later. I've heard a cover band perform this whole album live, but still nothing compares to the sound, production, and craftmanship of the original. You want a lesson on how an album should be done? This is it.

I'm not surprised that half of the album are the "hits." I'm surprised that more of the album isn't songs that I know. From what I know of the popularity of this album, I would have thought this album was more like "Who's Next," where basically every song was hummable and known. But there are a couple of songs on here that are head scratchers. Exhibit A: "Oh, Daddy." That's just a stinker. Almost cringe inducing, really. "Go Your Own Way," what can I say that probably hasn't been said before? I do really like how the drums come in to that song and really turn the beat around. It's probably my favorite track off that album just for that alone. "Don't Stop"... is you were around 20 years ago you know how tiresome this song became. It's not a bad song, but it's not the best track on the album, and it is a bit repetitive. So I can see why this album sold as much as did on the strength of their hits alone. But the non-singles... half of the album has songs that never hit the air. If we compare this to other big albums (I keep coming back to Who's Next), half of the album I have never heard of. Does not say a lot about the album itself, the whole thing should be big, you know? So it's good for me, but not as great as the sales make it out to be.

I can't tell if these guys are trying to be funny or not. A number of the songs sound like the hidden track at the end of a CD. It's funny at first, and then you're like "OK, so what else is there?... oh, the song is the joke. <skip>" There are a few good songs on here, I particularly liked "Homemade." That felt like a conscious decision to make a song with lyrics that made _sense_, unlike "Elixir is Zog." But for the most part it still felt like a couple of guys in a cheap studio trying things out for the first time. I mean, I get the charm of that for lo-fi, indie rock, but you still have to have actual _songs_. I first got the sense they were trying to mash up Nirvana with something like They Might Be Giants, but TMBG are at least _witty_. These guys are just... dumb. And you can be dumb, but your music better be catchy. And aside from a few songs, this is not.

In a world where autotune makes a lot of women singers sound almost exactly the same, Joan Armatrading's voice sounds refreshingly different. I really enjoyed the soulfulness of the songs, how low some of the notes were she sang. Very emotional and really laid it all out there. Even though some of the songs did sound a little dated, I still enjoyed them. Definitely someone I would want to hear again.

Slamming beats. Political message. Catchy lyrics. There's not a lot more one can say to this. There are a few tracks that I am not even going to say aged well, but have never worked, like "Meet the G That Killed Me". And I still don't know why Duran Duran thought covering "911 Is A Joke" was a good idea. "Pollywanacracka" is a little cringeworthy, but not as much. And "Can't Do Nuttin' for Ya Man" is ust a goof (I find it interesting that both of Flava Flav's songs he wrote the lyrics while completely stoned....) So it is definitely a good record, but the homophobic track, and the one track dissing interracial relations kinda takes away from it for me...

This album feels like a cross between Soul Asylum and the Pogues. Lot of screaming in their songs (not a bad thing, just an observation). I've listened to the album twice now, and the only song that really hit me was "What Jail Is Like." I found that to be an odd yet interesting song. The instrumental at the end was pretty cool too, you don't hear a lot of bands ending albums like that (Pearl Jam's "Yield" one of my faves by that band comes to mind). I liked it, but there was nothing about it that really grabbed me. So a big "meh" from me.

It's light and... "frothy." I felt like it was a nice iced drink when you're sitting by the pool. It wasn't deep, but it was satisfying in the moment. And really, that's all you really need, right? Probably my favorite track of the album was "Lonely." I thought the driving rhythm of the song complemented her singing well. The only thing was that it was satisfying in the moment, but it was fairly forgettable afterward. The songs didn't stick with me too much afterward. But when you go for light and frothy, that's what happens, you know?

The first couple of songs sounded very demo-y to me. But I think that was kind of the sound they were going for. Once I got past the sparseness, the lack of production if you will, it wasn't bad. But I still felt the production values were significantly... lacking. I think probably my favorite song was "The Night I Heard Caruso Sing," but still the sparseness bothered me a lot. I kept thinking "they were going to take another pass at these songs, right? This is not the finished product...?"

The vocals on this album are so eerily like Thom Yorke's vocals on early Radiohead albums it's uncanny. I kept thinking that it was indeed a Yorke solo album. I think the last song on the album was a bit...rough. Otherwise, I liked this album quite a bit. There was a good deal of variation, it wasn't like he was singing old torch songs. Everything seemed o be in his vocal wheelhouse. I may have to listen to it again, but because of the Yorke soundalike, it does to get to be a bit... depressing. Still, I will give it a 4. I liked the overall sound and feel of the album.

I've heard "I Had Too Much To Dream Last Night." Did not know it came from this band, originally. I will also give the band props because they ranged their musical styles from a lot of different pieces on the album. I was also surprised as to how short the album was, only 30 minutes. That last track on the album, "The Toonerville Trolley", though. Yikes. That was dreadful. Wikipedia says that much of the album's content was out of the band's control, as producer Dave Hassinger brought in the songwriting team of Annette Tucker and Nancie Mantz. It probably explains why the album seemed a little bit all over the place. They wanted to see what fans would gravitate toward. Still, I dug the songs, but they did sound pretty dated.

I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the album. It wasn't until a lot later that I read the background behind it. I would say DO NOT listen to most of the bonus tracks, the demos are pretty bad. Even hearing their cover of "Vegetable Man" seemed... out of place. The instrumental "You'll Have To Go Sideways" was really impressive. That was probably my favorite of all the songs on the album. Definitely would listen to this album again, but the bonus tracks do not add to the album.

I'm having a hard time believing that any fan of the Bee Gees is like "this is the s**t right here." There are a couple times where you can feel they are trying to sound like the Beatles, but more important. But the rest of the time it's just... bad. And boring. "I Laugh In Your Face"... um, ok? 2 stars is just... being generous, ok? Wow.

I liken this to the Robert Johnson recordings. It's a very simple recording: the man and his guitar. That doesn't mean the recording themselves are simple. There's not much to add to what Elliott puts into it. The sparseness of the songs really doesn't matter. The album is only 30 minutes long, which I think was probably the sufficient length. Anything longer would start to be a bit much. I liked the album for what it was, a simple blues album. Once I realized what it was going to be I was not expecting it to be more than that.

This is probably one of the darkest albums I have listened to. But then, with a title like "Murder Ballads," you should probably EXPECT that going in. I'm glad I listened to this with the family not around, because songs like "Stagger Lee," YIKES. I felt a few of the songs did overstay their welcome, like "O'Malley's Bar" (14 minutes, really?) and "Death Is Not The End." That last song could have lost at least a verse and its poignancy would not have been diminished. I think I liked "Henry Lee" and "Where The Wild Roses Grow" best. The duets worked well. I find it interesting that "Where The WIld Roses Grow" garnered so much attention, and I wonder how many people bought the album because of the song and were horrified by what they got. I think this was a good experiment, an album of these type of songs. But it's definitely not something I would find myself coming back to. It's way too dark and depressing.

I think my biggest problem with the album is the falsetto. Not needed on the few songs it was done in. It makes the band feel... not as serious, like The Darkness-level serious. I did like most of the songs, although I still am uncertain as to why we needed two Pulp albums on the list. They sounded pretty much the same to me, and honestly that space could have been used for some other act that was not listed yet. But, Britpop seems to be heavily favored on this list, so... yeah. There's not any one song that stands out to me, unlike "Different Class," which had "Common People" on it. But I liked "Party Hard," the title track, "I'm A Man," and "Glory Days." Those were probably my favorite. "Dishes" just seemed odd lyrically. There wasn't any one song that I hated, so that's a plus. Just like the other album, I guess I would come back to it again. But I still don't see much of a difference between the two, so why have both on here?

First off, if you haven't heard the cover of "Changes" by Charles Bradley, find that and listen to it immediately. A very different and transformative cover of that piece. The original is very eerie with the mellotrons backing Ozzy. The other songs are pretty typical Black Sabbath fare hard rock / heavy metal stuff, which is fine and it works rather well. The two instrumental pieces were great. It's a big leap for them, musically and lyrically, I thought. I enjoyed it more than I expected to, compared to "Paranoid." Definitely considering picking this up. Not going to give it a 5 yet, just because I've heard it once or twice, but it's really growing on me. Not going to do coke because of it, mind you. But it's still really good.

For the most part it was ok. As soon as I heard the opening song I was like, "Oh yeah, I remember this song." But a lot of the other songs? Yeah, not so much. People mock some of the lyrics of the prog rock I listen to, but the lyrics to "Mystery" were as bad as I anything I've listened to. Some of the songs do really showcase Anita's ability, but the songs are pretty standard R&B fare. I was expecting more from this.

Hard to believe this 20 years old. And I'm sure this was cutting edge when this came out. Now, it just seems too... braggadocious. Of course the songs with Eminem are elevated and seem up another level. 50 Cent's delivery just never seems very impassioned in comparison to rappers like Eminem. He has some flow, but it just feels like it's all a game to him, like he's not taking it seriously and giving it his all. The songs that have the gun cocking noise are just... yawn, particularly the one that does it OVER and OVER. It got really annoying. I liked the steel drums in "P.I.M.P." that was cool. The album didn't need to be over 70 minutes though. That was just... way too much. So shorten the album up, and sound like you're giving more effort, I guess?

The band reminded me a lot of Radiohead's first album. My big thing about shoegaze is that the singers always sound like they're half-asleep. The contrast in the wall of sound music and the singer singing so drowsily... I thought the drummer did a pretty good job, as well. Songs like "Here and Now" he didn't just keep the time, he was all over the place. But he was able to keep the beat going, you know? But pretty much each song didn't really stand out one from the other. I wasn't blown away by any one specific song. They started to blend together to me, and that's never good.

I guess I thought of this band as more of a country band than they seemed to be on this album. The songs were a lot more torch song-y, which I enjoyed. The songs have that spur of the moment feel, which I liked. I enjoyed the performances, but they did start to sound very same-y after awhile. I was surprised because I really thought of the band as being something different than it was, and I'm going to have to check out more of their stuff...

I didn't realize there was such a thing as "progressive folk." But this guy fits right into that. I really enjoyed this album. Varied the songs throughout the album, so they didn't all sound exactly the same. Probably my favorite song was "Dreams By The Sea" and his take on "May You Never." Kinda jammy/70s feel. Yeah! Will definitely look out for more of his stuff.

Bob Marley is one of those artists where you he pretty much encompasses all you need in that style of music; it seems to be all that needs to be said. It's happened a few times: Fusion --> Mahavishnu Orchestra / John McLaughlin Reggae --> Bob Marley You listen to a "Best of" from him and that pretty much covers all of what you need to know for reggae. The problem is, when you hear older versions of those songs, they sound weird. For example, the studio version of "No Woman, No Cry" here sounds too peppy and upbeat. The slower, live versions I've heard, which the band jams out on more are much more satisfying. Most of the other songs on the album are at a good temp and such, but that studio version of "No Woman No Cry," it just... digs right in there as being so wrong. It's like hearing an upbeat, version of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah". Just on that alone I have to downgrade the album to a 4.

One of Elton John's stronger albums. Although "Indian Sunset" is probably a bit cringe-y now, I'm sure it seemed good at the time. Honestly, if you told me one song had to go from the album, it would probably be "Rotten Peaches." That one seems kind of weak. That title track, man. It's just such a good rocking track. I think I heard it covered by Bruce Hornsby first. But the original is even better. Then there are the two well-known tracks. I mean, if I go another day and never hear "Tiny Dancer" I probably would be ok with that. It has been definitely been overplayed on the radio. "Levon" probably too, but those lyrics are so great. Kudos to Taupin here. The two clunkers make me pause, it's a real strong effort. But not every song is a winner. (Rotten Peaches and Indian Sunset).

This had some pretty good moments. I knew "South Side" from before, but most of the rest I had not. For the most part I liked it, but again it just didn't wow me. Maybe I need to listen to it again, but there wasn't a song I would say this is the s**t right here. Saying that, it was very well-done and produced well. It's probably the best of the techno albums I've heard. But that's not really saying a huge amount, you know? Definite one I need to come back to.

When you have a song that's called "I Don't Mind If You Forget Me," that doesn't say much about the album, does it? It's just Morrissey being whiney Morrissey. At least it was short, and the band was semi-decent...

This album has my favorite early Who track: "I Can See For Miles". I always liked how the band is keeping the lead as one note, but the harmonies underneath it are changing. And the guitar solo of one note, too! The band is really hitting their stride, and the songs do not sound that dated in the 60s. A few have a moment or two, but they still pull it off for me. It's interesting to hear "Rael 1" and hear musical ideas that come out somewhere else, like on TOMMY. The ads at the tail end of the songs did get a bit annoying, I do have to admit. Probably the weakest song on the album was for me "Silas Stingy." Man, that was... yeah. Can't give this a 5-star rating even though it has some great tracks on it. It's not solid throughout (looking at you Silas Stingy), and the ads get annoying. I listened to the Expanded version of this album, so there were a few tracks I want to make a comment on: I had heard Melancholia before but it was just Pete Townshend, as he had released it on one of the "Scoop" albums he had. And "Mountain King?" really?

I will say I liked this a lot better than the last album of Nick Cave's "Murder Ballads." There's more of going for a rock style. I also liked the disparity between the 2 discs. A few times artists used to do that with two sides of their albums: have one side be harder-edged and the other side be more lighter. You can tell the difference between the two discs and what the band was going for here. I got a little tired of "The Lyre of Orpheus," even with its driving rhythm, which I liked. The "Oh Mamma" just started to get a bit too repetitive for me. I just wish Nick was a bit more... melodic. His voice isn't bad, but I wanted it to be more than it was. He was drifting more into a grunty snarl, when I wanted him to stay in tune. So much better than Murder Ballads, I just don't know if it's something I would definitely listen to day in and day out.

Wow, lot of deep cuts on this album. I don't think I have heard of it before... Seriously, I had a friend in college who was a big AC/DC fan. We went to see them back in the day. Let's just say it was... an experience. My biggest thing about them is that none of their albums have (at least to me) any marked difference. The songs are fairly interchangeable in that they could be on any one album, there's no progression of their sound. But man, that sound kicks some serious ass. You can't play this stuff at a volume any lower than 11. And the lyrics... let's face it, Gloria Steinem is not going to be singing any of this stuff any time soon. "Givin' the Dog A Bone," "Let Me Put My Love Into You," "She Shook Me All Night Long." Not for the faint of heart. I have students who told me that their least favorite band is AC/DC. I wish I had asked them to elaborate. Most of the negative reviews I scanned quickly don't really elaborate. The lyrics are simple? I mean, come on, you take any song lyrics out of context any they sound like bad poetry. Are the lyrics hyper-masculine? Sure, they're a bunch of rocker guys who want to party. What are you expecting? It's an undeniable album. Completely and totally.

The songs just seem so... sterile. That's probably the autotune, but there's no grit here. Even with songs like "Sexy Daddy" (yikes), they just don't have an earthy quality too it. "Survivor"... I always felt the chorus was WAY too repetitive on that song. "Independent Women (Pt. 1)" (didn't know there was a part 2, and there's probably a reason for that...) still works really well. The Gospel Medley... again, with the autotune, it just doesn't SOUND real. Listening to one of Beyonce's later albums we had rated... there is more of a bite to it because she wanted that there. This just feels so manufactured, thanks to that autotune and it just left me cold throughout. The artificial drum sounds didn't help either. So yeah, it just hasn't... aged well.

I can't help but wonder how these songs would sound with someone with a lower voice. Cee-Lo's voice always sounds... cartoony to me. I do like the give and take he uses with the hip-hop verses throughout the album. Definitely has some skill, and he gets a lot of good guests to work off of in each of the songs. The instrumentation is great, particularly in songs like "I Am Selling Soul." Wow! It's just difficult for me to take him seriously with that higher-pitched voice, he sounds like he inhaled helium before he starts singing. Regardless, I did like most of the songs, but I would have liked to hear him harmonizing with some lower bass-y voices in some of the songs. That'd be pretty neat. I am also wondering what made this album so ground-breaking it had to be on the list. Wouldn't Gnarls Barkley's album with "Crazy" be more apt? That's really where most of the public got to hear Cee-Lo for the first time.

Short, straight-forward, simple country, to the point. But when I mean "simple" I mean basic and no-frills. I'm not trying to put down the music when I say "basic", but it's not showy or anything like that. But even so, it still has to be catchy and good, right? Surprise there are some tunes that are here (unless, you know, you are not a country fan...) If you're not into country this would not be that great. And fortunately it's only about 30 minutes. Tacking on "Act Naturally" to the album was probably a good idea if you didn't know much about him. I have to wonder if "Wham Bam" was the first inference of "Wham Bam, thank you ma'am" put to music, and if so did Bowie get it from that for "Suffragette City"? Interesting to hear where so much of rock, country and the rest would come from by listening to this. When I was a kid I was not a big fan of country, but growing older I have learned to appreciate the classic artists: Nelson, Cash... So this grew on me pretty quickly. It should for you, too.

It's really an album that makes you think differently about Dion. If they had released it when completed, he could have had a different career in the mid-70s. Looking at the cover even, it gives you that sense of a different type of person than when you think of Dion. He wanted to be thought of us as a more mature person than "The Wanderer." A couple of the songs I really enjoyed, like "Only You Know" and "New York Song". He last two songs did fall flat for me, "In and Out of the Shadows" and "Good Lovin' Man". It's too bad he couldn't have pursued this direction more. I think it could have been an interesting path for him. I just wish the songs were a bit better, and maybe that's the production from Spector? Dion's singing was heartfelt enough. Definitely bringing it to the songs. Just... wasn't enough for me.

Wow, this was a pleasant surprise. I mean, it sounded definitely from the 80s, but it sounds really really good. It's like a cross between Duran Duran, Fishbone, and the Clash. It shouldn't work at all, but it does. Really well. I don't usually go to listen the longer anniversary reissue, but I needed to hear more and fortunately there is a 40th anniversary release with a concert. The sax I think is what really did it for me. The interaction with the rest of the band, was great! Definitely enjoyable. Will listen to this again.

Always liked Dusty's voice. Of course if you know her, you know the song "Son Of A Preacher Man." But I think she did a pretty good job on all of the tracks on this album. Obviously some of the songs sound a bit dated, such as "The Windmills Of Your Mind". But Dusty did the best with what she had there. An album that is definitely a nice change of pace for me. I will come back to this one, I want to consider the songs again.

Why did it take halfway through the album for me to be able to hear the vocals? Spencer distorted the vocals so much it made the vocals REALLY off-putting. I liked how the songs ran into each other, they're very improvisational. I dug it, but I am still trying to see the blues to them, though. I get that it's more "punk blues," but that's what they are. Very raw stuff, indeed. The vocals still bother me a bit, though. I mean you can distort them for a few songs, but half the album? Come on.

Cross punk with industrial and this is what you get. You can definitely see the roots of acts like Nine Inch Nails and other acts here. Listening to it a second time was helpful, because the first time I didn't quite "get" the sound they were going for. I knew the one hit "Eighties," and that was definitely different from where this album was coming. Still, I liked it and am interested in hearing more.

Even with Robbie Williams sounding a lot like Liam Gallagher (at least to me), I liked a lot of what I heard. Robbie seemed to be trying different things throughout the album. And eve though some of the songs (musically and lyrically) may not be as good as one was hoping, he at least was willing to try something new. Some of the songs that did not work for me: Angels, Baby Girl Window. I mean, forget the hidden track at the end there, "Baby Girl Window" still sounds a bit on the immature side. The poem at the end doesn't help, but I get why it was there. "Angels".... look I know it's a VERY popular song, but singing about loving angels, it's just... bleah. Songs that really worked for me: "Let Me Entertain You," "Old Before I Die." The first one was almost like him saying he could do a musical if necessary. "Old Before I Die" comes off a bit more tongue in cheek to me. Was there a bit of autotune? Possibly. The music is pretty positive for the most part, and done very well. The songs are pretty personal and I can see why he would leave a group to record them. I liked this album quite a lot, even with the few clunkers that were there. Definitely a surprise for me.

It's not even that the songs are dated. The two songs that I knew from before I dig ("Season of the Witch" and "Sunshine Superman") when they were made, and that's not the problem. The other songs that weren't hits are just... hippie ramblings. I'm just like, wow what were you smoking, a banana perhaps? Just... no.

About 15 years ago or so, a friend of mine sent me a tape of his band that was them screaming into mikes and singing about different ways to get killed. Obviously, it was a joke. The first half of this album is trying to be serious, and so the joke lasts for about 5 minutes. Unfortunately, the album is longer than that, but fortunately not a huge amount. One song is supposedly in the world records for being the shortest. Some of the other songs could have taken the hint from that. One or two songs had a guitar solo, I think? But all I could hear was the drums banging away and the dirge of the bass. I imagine this is what our parents thought all metal was. Way to ruin it for the rest of us, ND.

Common had a pretty good flow. I liked how each of the songs worked into each other. I would have liked if some of the intros of songs were at the beginning of the song (ex. the phone call which goes into "Peace Is A Grandmother" should have been at the beginning of the track, not the end of the previous track). That's just nitpicking, though. Common's topics ranged from the thoughtful to spiritual to vengeful. It was refreshing to hear someone with range and not someone so full of braggadocio. The lyrics... are what they are. Songs like "Heat" made me wince just because of the language. But the bet behind them made up for it, I guess? As the songs went on, they got better. "Questions" is great, but who doesn't love Mos Def. BTW, you write a line in "Thelonius" like "Dreamin' when I wrote this, box me if I go too wild" you better give more props to the Purple One, knowwhatimean? So I liked it a lot, a couple of the songs I winced at the lyrics, but only in that it's not something I could pull off.

They sounded a lot like what Nirvana was on "Bleach". Makes sense, since Nirvana opened for them a bunch of times. The second to last song "Don't" just got annoying, though. But I probably would have said the same about Nirvana listening to it for the first time now. I remember seeing the "Without a Sound" album all over the place, so I was surprised that THAT is not on the list, but the first two albums are. I mean, I guess those 2 albums helped to make that alternative sound in the early 90s. But still...? Ultimately, the songs to me started to sound very much the same except for the last 2. I couldn't give you titles after a while and that's never a good thing about an album. The songs just didn't have anything that was like "whoa." Granted they were there first, but others did it well and (arguably) did it better.

So this was definitely different than what I was expecting. Maybe it was the cover, I don't know, but I was expecting some kind of techno or new age-y type of music. It seemed a lot more folk to me. I was bothered by the vocals, actually. That was the weakest point for me. They were very ramble-y like Jon Anderson, going very stream of consciousness but not in a good way. I just was not clear on what he was singing about, and it started to bother me more and more. By the time I got to the end, I was happy to not hear the singer, although the music behind him I would have liked to hear more of.

I mean, of course this is incredibly dated. It was released in 1970. Having said that, there are some... interesting choices for covers here. The weirdest cover of "Help" I've heard in a long time. "Reason To Believe" as a white version of a samba, maybe? It's all just very... odd. And the last song... was kinda proggy? Very strange. The album definitely epitomizes soft rock, but it's all over the place in song choices. I mean there's the two well-known songs by the Carpenters, but the others are just... huh? Really strange stuff.

Although I like the group more with Neil Young, this is still a great record. It has some of their biggest songs, along with others I know from concert albums. It's been stated that CSNY is the "American Beatles". I think they were implying the four members all were good songwriters, but together it was something incredible. The only ding I would say is "Marrakesh Express" always felt a little cartoony to me. It may. be the guitars, but it just had that feel of something you would hear in a Fabulous Freak Bros. Cartoon. That and 49 Bye-Byes I always liked Stills' version on solo piano more. Probably because I heard it first? I can't pick a song specifically I love most. The Mrs. would say Suite: Judy Blue Eyes, I may say Guinnevere. There's just too many good memorable songs on it. Is it perfect? Abut as perfect as the Neil Young-less trio is going to get.

So... why is this one of the albums I needed to hear? I found nothing on it that was truly remarkable. One song ("Nobody Girl") would have been good with better lyrics, I think. Another song ("Somehow, Someday") that had an intro that reminded me of "Can't Find My Way Home". And I would have been happy with it being a clone of that song, but it wasn't. It all just seemed like middling songwriter fare. Seriously, am I missing something here? It was okay, but I just found nothing in it that wowed me.

I can't imagine hearing this album when it initially came out and hearing Adrian Belew's guitar for the first time. That solo in "The Great Curve", holy crap! My brother in-law told me once he has lived his entire musical life with Adrian Belew as his guide: from Zappa to Bowie to Talking Heads to King Crimson. I feel that's pretty accurate for me as well. Adrian Belew is probably one of (if not my top) favorite guitarist. He is just... amazing. There's no other way to put it. The first half oh the album: every song is just a 1-2-3-4 punch. They're all great. The second half has some lesser known tunes, but all four of them still have deep resonance. They're a little "artier," but I love them as well. It's probably my favorite Talking Heads album, it's just stellar.

I've listened to this album twice in a row. And I just don't "get" it. The narration on the second half for the concept is such a cockney accent, and the songs are so "look at us being goofy" that I can't really take the musicality seriously AT ALL. Psychedelic albums are always a problem because the songs themselves are more about giving an image and not meaning a lot in a literal sense. Listen to Cream's "SWLABR" or "Tales of Brave Ulysses" and you'll see what I mean. It was the same here for the Small Faces, they were meant to give some kind of imagery and I was just.... not seeing it. The first couple of songs are good, but even songs like "Rene" is just... it sounds like something you sing when drunk at a bar. "Song of a Baker" sounds a lot like The Who. Yeah, the accents, I just... can't get past it. Next.

It's interesting to hear the Beach Boys attempt to be socially relevant. Really, they're a surfer group and that's what people know them for. When they tried to expand past past that, it's not something people were all for. But that would probably have to do with the songs. Their manager wanted them to addresses environmental, social, and health concerns more than previous releases, So we get songs like "Take A Load Off Your Feet?" Sure, that sounds... fun? Hey everybody, let's go to a beach party and sing "Student Demonstration Time!" woooo, I'm picking up bummer vibrations! Yeah, I can't imagine anyone thinking this is the directionless direction the band needed to pursue. Looking at their later albums, it doesn't look like they bounced back a lot, either.

I liked the songs that were on this. I really did, and the historical significance of the album is truly important but... the album is just TOO LONG. 3 LPs? 2 CDs? 2 _HOURS_? It just started to blur together after the first 30 minute or so. Maybe I should have played it in little chunks, but that would have defeated the purpose of listening to the whole thing, right? And then they made 2 more volumes?! Yikes.

Of the three albums by Hendrix that are on the list, this is the one that I had always felt was the weakest. It's a great album, but in comparison to "Electric Ladyland" and "Are You Experienced?" I'm like... "Yeah, it's good. But I'd listen to the other two first if I had a choice." I mean, it has some great / good relistenable tunes to it: "Spanish Castle Magic", "If 6 Was 9," "Wait Until Tomorrow," "Little Wing," "Castles Made Of Sand," "Bold As Love". But for all those, there are some that you just don't think of: "You Got Me Floatin'," "Up From The Skies," "One Rainy Wish," "She's So Fine" (sorry Noel, this should have gone on your solo album). "Little Miss Lover" is kind of on the fence for me. I think part of is that it came out so close to "Are You Experienced?" it is really not noticed as much. It's good, but a lot of fair to good songs that are forgettable to me.

As much as I'm into the history of the album, the voice surprised me because it wasn't how I pictured Holiday's voice would sound. It wasn't until after did I read into the album and understand that this would be one of her last recordings. Her voice would be very raspy, very... not warbly, but fluctuating. It was a bit dizzying to me, actually. The strings and orchestration definitely put the album firmly in its time of the 50s. I was hoping for at least one more upbeat song, but I get why she was going for more slow, sultry songs. If a song from this came up randomly on a shuffle I would not skip it, but listening to all 12 tracks they started to sound a bit same-y to me. "I'm A Fool To Want You" was probably my favorite. So I liked it, but the songs did sound all of the same format and style. But I can't really blame the album for what it isn't, (this is what Holiday wanted) and talk about what it _IS_.

I had gotten into Anthrax from their last 2 studio albums. So "Among The Living" is definitely one I knew pretty well. It is definitely up there in defining thrash metal, along with "Master of Puppets." And it has a song about Judge Dredd in it? How could you not love that? I like their last two albums a little more because they got me in to the band, but "Among The Living" is definitely a good headbanging album for me. I would have to listen to it more to define it as a classic, though...

It just felt... sloppy. And not in a good way. The singer didn't seem to be really with it, he was kind of all over the place. I guess that was what he was going for, but it was just not impressive. You either go all the way, like Johnny Rotten did in the Sex Pistols, or you just sound drunk. The acoustic bit in the hidden track was nice, though. Remember those? Hidden tracks. They were always cool. So yeah, nothing overly impressive here. Reminded me a bit of Jet and "Are You Gonna Be My Girl?" but with less chops. Not memorable. Next.

This album is so ingrained into the classic rock genre. If I went a year without listening to a single song from the album, I would be fine with that. It's not that I'm sick of it, it's just always around. Every piece of this album is a classic moment in time for me. I've played it so many times, and there's a reason it's been overplayed. But to be fair, some DJs would put on side 1 or just side 2 so they could go take a break for 20 minutes: bathroom break, pot break, whatever. Even so, they couldn't do that if the music itself didn't hold up. As much as Waters wants to release his "own" version of this album, it was an effort with the entire band. He didn't do it alone. It was definitely the sum of its parts to make a classic rock masterpiece.

This reminds me a lot of Talking Heads, but it feels more soundtrack-y, more atmospheric. (Yes, I know that would be obvious considering who is involved, but not necessarily.) It's a shame that they got in to trouble with sampling, but they tried their best to pay people the royalties for the songs. I liked this a lot, I think my favorite is "The Jezebel Spirit." "Moonlight In Glory" was kinda goofy-sounding, but that might have been the sounds they used. Definitely something I am going to come back to.

I knew two songs on the album, which was 2 more than I was expecting. Even without the 2 tracks, I dug the album. It was pretty good. Both "Closer" & "Crawl" worked as opening tracks. They gave you a pretty good idea of what you were in for for the entire album. Then you have the one-two punch of "Sex On Fire" and "Use Somebody". Both pretty good songs, but having them right after each other, thae makes a pretty solid block of music right there. The singer is... limited, let's put it that way. He seems to be yelling more than singing, but at least he's in key. I didn't detect autotune, so that's a start. There wasn't a song on there that I would throw out, but because of the singer's limited range, some of them did start to sound the same. (Although "17" was a little creepy.) So if someone asked me where to start with the band, I would probably say this album would be your best bet. It has two of their biggest songs on it, so it should give you an idea of their sound.

The last album I heard of Cohen's I wrote: "It's a quiet album, something to play late and night and have a cup of tea with right before you go to bed. Not exactly the best bedtime album, but there you go. I don't know if I would listen to it (except for maybe "Suzanne") because it does get rather depressing." This one is not as depressing, but it is more somber. There's a little bit more maturity in these songs, 4 years later. "Songs of Love and Hate" does pretty much encompass everything, doesn't it? I think my favorite song off of this was "Diamonds In The Mine." It really had a soulfulness that I was not expecting. The guitar in the background really did it for me. Of the two albums I have heard so far, this one is much better. Definitely one I would listen to again.

I first brushed this off as sounding like a bit of a Duran Duran clone. But then I listened to this again, and I got more into it. Sylvain's voice is a lot different than in his solo stuff. It's a lot deeper there. The instrumentation with Barbieri was really good. "Despair," however, is one of the most morose songs I have heard. I got into in more and more, and my initial thoughts changed a bit. There was so much more here. It reminded me more of Missing Persons than anything else. I enjoyed it quite a bit.

Of course the singer is the mainstay of the group. He's only good for that raw whispery voice. And that only takes you so far. A whole album of it, blech. His voice reminded me somewhat of Neil Young's voice on "Unplugged," but there was more to Neil's; there was a weightiness that there isn't here. The lyrics feel like they're trying too hard. I needed someone who could sing at least in one song. I don't think that's too much to ask.

You can tell this was done in the 70s. It just oozed all the stylings of those 70s-era movies. I did not like the high-pitched singing in Mera Pyar Shalimar, it was rather nasally and grating. The opening song was good, but dripped that 70s style. The Romantic Theme, did not seem very romantic to me. I think the crossing over of some of the genres was somewhat interesting, but it was still a basic Bollywood soundtrack. I am just not sure why this was included as one of the albums to listen to. One, two, cha cha cha.

I've always enjoyed the Kinks. They've always had that sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek tone in their songs, like there's something more there than they're letting on. But honestly, I'm more into the later Kinks: 1976 or so to the late 80s. The early stuff, when the band were doing more concept albums, I never fully got into. Part of the problem is that I should have read about the concept album beforehand. I did not fully realize the story here and the album itself didn't really make it clear either. Part of it also might be because I'm not British, so some of the stuff I wasn't getting. The songs themselves? I liked most of the songs, probably my favorite was "Victoria" and "Australia." I liked how "Australia" went off in different directions. "Drivin' " kinda... yeah, I was not fond of that one in particular. So the songs separately I liked, but as a cohesive whole I did not see the story and the connections. And that's a problem for an album if you don't "get" it. Maybe I need to listen to it again. The songs were decent, and I liked them, just not enough to go "wow!"

Anyone who thought the Beatles were not influential at all just needs to listen to the Monkees. I mean, yes, at first it was a ploy to capitalize on the Beatlemania, but soon the members protested the songs they were given. THEY could write, too. And wouldn't you know it, the songs pretty much sounded like the Beatles ANYWAY. It's not like the songs are BAD, mind you. But it's very obvious where the influence comes from. Even so, the band experimented with tempo and such in songs, a bit more than the Beatles did. And the songs worked, but one has to wonder if they had been modeled after the Stones, what would they sound like? High points for me: "You Just Might Be The One," "Shades of Gray," "No Time." The album is probably their best effort. They claim to have sold more than the Beatles at one point, but which do people really remember?

It seemed like he was trying to take the hippie experience and translate it into something else. The problem is the translation was muddled. The songs themselves had some nice atmosphere to them, but it just didn't have anything under them. I'm surprised that the guy who was the drummer couldn't get someone else to lay down a solid beat. Because maybe it's me, but I didn't find it there. There just didn't seem to be a GROOVE. I guess that's what I'm looking for, and granted the British are not the GROOVIEST of people, but they have their moments. It's just not on this one.

I've always enjoyed XTC, but sometimes I felt it was a band that people were like "you should listen to XTC." Me: "Why?" And no one could give a great single reason. Is it their quirky lyrics? The hooks that suddenly go completely askew from what you expect? The fact that the songs sound like they're pop songs but from another planet? It's like aliens listened to the music of the 60s and tried to make their own version and so the music sounds a bit... off. Regardless, there's something about them I always enjoy. And then there's "Dear God", the non-album single that made its way back to the album. I like the song quite a lot, but putting it back on the album in repressings... it doesn't feel like it fits the overall tone of the rest of the album. A lot of the songs run together so well, and that's just... thrown on there. I remember hearing Rundgren on a podcast about this album and how rough it was because Partridge was so difficult. I like this album a good deal, but it's not my favorite: "The Meeting Place," and "Grass" are the two standouts for me.

It's a shame that the band didn't continue. The few tracks that were put together for the second album are really good. I think the biggest problem I had with the album was Eric's singing. Throughout his later albums where he had become more comfortable in his voice ("August", "Journeyman") there's a growl that comes with age. By that first solo album and this, his vocals still seem unsure. I'm glad he took the first steps to becoming the lead singer, but this album and the first solo album show he really needed the other singer to help beef up those vocals. There are a couple of songs that go on a bit, like "Why Does Love Got To Be Sad?" I always felt could have been trimmed down a bit. So what do we have here? An album that is basically one long love song to George Harrison's wife. Listening to it now, it seems incredibly apparent. But is it any good? The songs themselves and the guitar work by both Clapton and Allman are undeniable. But the vocals... it's what keeps it from being the 5-star album I want it to be. Live, the 4-piece without Allman worked pretty well. It would have been interesting to hear them with Allman live. If only...

You can tell the David Bowie sound just from the drums. I'll give it points for the music being done by him. Bowie was experimenting with the sounds he would later use for Low. Low I like the best of all three of the Berlin Trilogy. The Idiot has a similar set up to it: poppier songs on one side, experimentation on the other. The experimental songs feel like Bowie's working things out, and Iggy is just singing on top of it. Iggy's voice... ok, I am just going to come out and say it: I _NEVER_ liked Iggy Pop's voice. It's.... centerless. It feels like his vocals are all over the place when they should just be on one simple line, like a gnat you're trying to swat. He comes at your hand and then flies away at the last second. The only two songs of his I ever liked had to do with the music BEHIND him and not his singing in particular. "Mass Production" is a good example. I could tell this was a good idea for one of Bowie's "tone poems" he did on Low and Heroes. But Pop's singing over it just ruined it for me. "China Girl"... I knew it was originally an Iggy Pop song, but Bowie made it such a hit back in the 80s, hearing the original sounded weird. The plinking piano almost sounded like a toy piano. So the only reason I am giving it close to a 3 is because of Bowie's hand in it. He made it as least listenable.

I listened to "What?" twice and it took the second time to figure out the little moment of silence in the middle... I have all of De La Soul's stuff, so I don't know why I never picked up any of A Tribe Called Quest. But man, this fits a nice funky spot. Everyone is playing off of each other lyrically, they are really doing some cool stuff here. My favorites so far are "Excursions" and "Buggin' Out". I like the bass riff going throughout "Excursions" very jazzy. Definitely one I'd like to get into more.

I like the instrumentation, the xylophones as a counterbalance to the guitars. I think that works really well. But the vocals. I never liked that kind of style, it took me a while to get used to a few artists I like who use it in a song or two. A whole album gets tedious for me. I am glad I listened to it, it was a nice change of pace. But the vocals get tiresome to me.

Although I liked the groove to a lot of the songs, the lyrics really left a lot to be desired. It felt very "scat"-ty, that they were improvised mostly. I wish that he had a better lyricist. I mean, most of the songs were pretty obvious what they were about. "Get On Top." Hmmmmm. "Sweet Surrender" really felt a bit trapped in its time with the strings. Singing "Suurrender that love Sweet, sweet, sweet Surrender, Mama to love, to love to love..." yikes. It just sounds so...dated. Work on the lyrics man, really.

I mean... giving the Queen of Soul a low score? Not going to happen. Particularly with the song line-up on this album: "Chain of Fools," "Natural Woman." Standards. Covers of the time: "People Get Ready," "Groovin'". It's funny because we had just heard the original take in the latter recently. I'd ding "Ain't No Way" slightly, the background "whoa" effect has not aged well. But that's a quibble. I really wish there was a better personnel listing for the album, track by track. I only know that Eric Clapton played guitar on "Good To Me As I Am To You" because he put it on an anthology. The other players on the other songs, I have no idea who did what on what. I was saying about how the strings in the previous album I listened to by Tim Buckley really made the song sound like it was of that era. "Natural Woman"... it does too, but in a proper way. Like a document as important as the Constitution, it's of its era. I'm glad I got to listen to the album, it was definitely a great one by her. Bordering on classic, so I am definitely going to give it that 5-stars now.

Wikipedia listed this as alternative country, but I really just thought of this as country. I found the whole project interesting especially after reading more about it. Setting Guthrie lyrics to a whole new set of music seems like a daunting task, but this worked for me. Probably the weakest song was "Hoodoo Voodoo" the nonsensical lyrics made it difficult to take seriously. I am not a huge modern country fan, but this set as more "classic" country worked for me. I especially liked the songs with Natalie Merchant. I would have liked more of those works, really. It seems this idea started a lot of other acts doing the same thing, setting music to unreleased Guthrie material. If it's as good as this, I will be interested in hearing it.

I honestly thought this was going to be something different, like a 60s folk act. Probably because of the "Buffalo". Anyway for the most part it started off and it seemed like standard 90s alternative fare. But the the acoustic songs came in, and I liked those a lot more than the electric. It's just that the electric didn't have anything that made it stand out from anything else. At first I thought "The Hook" was going to be a cover of the Blues Traveler, but I found it pretty good. I hope that the band focused more on the acoustic side, because te electric stuff was just meh. So I can't really give a huge positive off of half of the album. 2.5 stars won't cut it, so 3 it is.

I keep WANTING to like Sonic Youth more. So much of their stuff is what a lot of bands I like is founded on. But there's just something about the actual songs that just never clicks with me. Songs like "Swimsuit Issue," just seems like it's unfinished. "Theresa's Sound World" sounds a lot better though. It's not the guitars, the crunchiness. I think it's just Kim's vocals, there's not a lot of melody to it. Hearing "Drunken Butterfly" I'm like, yeah it sounds like that to me. I just never seem to "get" it. The elements are all things I like, and yet...?

The Damned is my favorite punk band, of all time. I think probably is has to do with Dave Vanian's voice. As a singer in that bass range, it's something I always appreciated. The band had already broken up after the last ("Music For Pleasure" isn't bad, but it's more of the same from the first.), the revitalized line up (minus their primary songwriter Brian James) came out with a more collaborative and wide-ranging effort. It was filled with more psychedelic and harder pieces. "Smash It Up" became one of their biggest hits (although I prefer the live version I heard from 1980). But probably my favorite piece on this is "I Just Can't Be Happy Today". That keyboard solo gets every time. There are one or two clunkers in this, like "These Hands" (demented circus clown? Really?), and "Anti-Pope". But they are definitely out-weighed by the big pieces on this, including "Plan 9 Channel 7". Vanian's singing at the end is great ("step into the night...."). If I was ranking the albus, it would definitely be one of my top three ("Strawberries" and "The Black Album" see definite progression). And how can you not love an album that has Lemmy on it? If I was going to pick an album for people to start with, it'd be "Machine Gun Etiquette."

I have liked what I have heard from SoaD from the radio and such. This is a bit more... intense than I was expecting, though. Still, I enjoyed this a lot. "Soil" was... what WAS that? Most of the others I dug. A lot of people talk about a Zappa influence, but I don't see it as much on this album. The stuff I have heard off the radio I have seen it, perhaps that's why I dug it. It's weird, a little goofy, but not overly goofy. Definitely need to delve into more of their stuff.

I liked this more than I expected, mainly because of the percussion. I felt that Taaw was a bit long (eleven minutes?). But an album that was only a smidge over 30 minutes long with only 4 tracks? Can't be overly critical. Most people know Youssou from "In Your Eyes", but I'm glad that this wasn't just him doing that. I was hoping the music would have been more varied, though. It felt very same-y to me. I think his voice complimented the music well, but I don't know if it's something I would listen to on a regular basis. I can think of his voice as just being an instrument, but it wears thin after a while. Still, it was good for what it was.

Can is definitely a band I know I should listen to more. And I liked a lot of the music that I heard. I just wish the vocals and lyrics were better. Halleluwah's lyrics kinda made me cringe, along with "Oh Yeah." They were a little babble-y. So it's definitely something I want to listen to more, but I just hope the singing is better...?

The problem with the album is, like a lot of the "one hit wonders," the 'hit' is so catchy that it overpowers the other songs. The other songs are like the David Bowie tone poems in his Berlin trilogy, but they overstay their welcome and they feel more like "hey what can I do here...?" So they sound a bit more noodle-y. I get that he was there at the start of electronic music, but it just never gets anywhere. And the one song "Cars..." there's a countermelody going on whereas the others just sound... underdeveloped. You just wish the other songs sounded more like "Cars."

One of the things I really appreciated on this album was the vibraphone. It gave it such a unique sound. If it was keyboards, it would not have held as much interest to me. Besides the jam-session-y "Gypsy Woman," which harkens back to what I didn't like about the other Tim Buckley album, I liked this album more. I thought it was a more relaxed, jazzy feel (probably because of the vibraphone). I would like to have had more of this style than the other, which as I look back on I cared for less and less. So if I had to choose, definitely I would say to try this album first of his. The more I think about it the more I enjoyed it.

I was really surprised by the album, given the person behind it being the guitarist from The Jam. Not what I expected at ALL. The instrumentals like "Mick's Blessings" were really groove-y. Not groovy, man, but has a lot of groove to it. Really appreciated and enjoyed it. Definitely will listen to again.

I remember purchasing "Third" at a music festival. I listened to it once, maybe twice, and sold it back. Listening to it 20 years later, I know why. I also know why people mock "Tales From Topographic Oceans," which I like quite a lot. 4 songs, a double album is quite a lot. And if there isn't a lot of THERE there, it does tend to go on and on. There are some good bits in each of the songs, and some parts where I'm like "this could have been edited out." Easily trim these down to about 10 minutes each and it would have been much better. The songs just meander too much for me. Still, the good bits in each of the songs make me think there's something to them. So I feel like they have something better in them. This isn't it.

There were a number of tracks that either felt influenced by a band (particularly the Beatles i.e. "I Want You") or INFLUENCED another band. Blue Chair, in particular, sounds like the Smithereens could have covered this and done it really well. In general this was really good, although there were two songs that were a little weak. "Tokyo Storm Warning" was ok but I felt it went on a little too long. "Next Time Round" felt like just a lot of AAAAAAHHH!! Besides those two songs, I liked the album quite a lot. I didn't feel the volume level was over the top, EC argued about recording levels I think. It seemed fine to me. Definitely four stars at least.

Lou Reed puzzles me. The man CANNOT hold a tune to save his life. And yet he is held up on such a high pedestal. You listen to John Lydon, and the Sex Pistols' music is... not super-melodious. But you let it slide, because it's punk. It's not Sinatra, it's not the most croon-y. But you hear "Walk On The Wild Side," and most of the time he's not really holding a melody there. But it fits the song ok. But other songs on the album... doesn't fit as well (i.e. "Satellite of Love," "Goodnight Ladies"). Really needed to have someone who was really able to hold a tune. The two songs of Reed's everyone knows are on this album, and I will give him that. "Perfect Day" and "Walk On The Wild Side" are great songs. But other songs on it are real head-scratchers (I'm looking at you, "Andy's Chest."). They are just total nonsense. And maybe that's from Bowie's suggestions, turning this more into a glam record. Lou Reed's inability to keep the tune just really puts me off on most of the songs. Anyone else sings these tunes with this level of ability, and they're laughed at. Reed does it, and he's a genius. I just don't get it. But I'll give him 2 stars for those 2 classic songs, but that's all you get from me.

I liked the flow of the lyrics. lt sounded off at first, but coalesced as the song went on. I just wish the content was better. Alien gynecologist from the future? And all we get are pee-pee and poo-poo jokes. Maybe I'm spoiled, listening to Black Thought / Danger Mouse on "Cheat Codes". But it just feels like he could do better. The DJ is freaking SICK, though. The scratchwork, WOW. I just wish the lyrics held up, is all.

I am not a huge fan of country, but this was... efficient. It did what it needed to do. At least it wasn't Americana, or nu-country (rock posing as country). I felt Griffith's voice lent itself well to the songs she was doing, the lyrics were well-written and the music was sparse. But again, country. Just... not my bag.

Both this and “Kid A” are uneven albums for me. They both definitely have some of Radiohead’s finest work on it. But then there are some real head-scratchers on it as well. I had gotten “Kid Amnesia,” the anniversary release, but I have yet to listen to it. Hearing it all in one block, I am not sure if I will change my mind about the album. All in all, the band is growing and trying new things which is still great. And when it works, it’s truly an amazing moment. “Pyramid Song” is easily one of the most amazing things I’ve ever heard. So haunting, and the way the drums come in and completely turn the beat around… chills for me every time. “Life In A Glass House” seemed like such a grand experiment back then, now it’s also a song of theirs I really love. never got into “Knives Our”, it seems unfinished to me. I can imagine trying to follow “OK Computer” is not so easy. Moving into a different style seems very risky. But I think it works more in “Kd A,” even though this has some songs that are better, imo.

I enjoyed this more than I expected to. Thinking of the White Stripes and how... simple their music comes across sometimes, "Blunderbuss" is a major step up from that. There's definitely a wider range of song styles going form one track to the next. Definitely something I would listen to again. Favorite tracks: "Sixteen Saltines," "Hip (Eponymous) Poor Boy," "Missing Pieces"

The original album was simple and effective. A basic country album that works even now, almost 70 years later. The CD (and Spotify) also has their Gospel Bluegrass album on it "Satan Is Real". Each track has on its listing "religious overtone", as if you could not tell from "Satan Is Real" that there was a religious overtone to the song. As for the other songs... they were fine, your basic country songs, and they worked fine. It's nice to hear, a bit of a change of pace, but not something I'm going to hear over and over again. You would think the songs would sound same-y, but they didn't. Maybe it was because of their brevity, or how they told the story in the songs, but they did feel different. The "In The Pines" was interesting to her, to see how they took the song and made it their own. All in all, it was decent. But definitely not my go to.

I mean, I get the whole DIY punk attitude. But I always felt that there still has to be something there. The musicians themselves seem to be pretty good, but the singing is just so... extemporaneous. I don't need punk singers to be great singers, but they need to be able to have some sense of what's going on around them in the song. This person didn't seem to, I feel like someone like David Byrne or Chrissie Hynde could have taken the song to another level. This just seems so... nonsensical. Next.

For a rock singer, Ute is a pretty good stage singer. Her over-emphasis on a LOT of the songs made it feel like I was listening to a cast recording of some Broadways show. It was all... a bit too much.

Although I am not a big fan of late Aerosmith, this album has probably my favorite early Aerosmith song ("Back In The Saddle"). This is when the band was a rocking band and not (IMO) as much of an embarrassment as they became in their later years. Trying to go farther with what Zeppelin did, and it works really well. I always like the bass work here, too. Even the "b-sides" are great rockers on this one, I don't think I really have any complaints at all about this one. A good, strong rocker.

I liked the instrumentation a lot. I just wish the vocals were stronger. It's said Kurt Wagner is the staying force behind this act. Surrounding himself with different talents, he fits the puzzle pieces to what he needs. The problem is that he needs to step up to the music that he puts together, and he doesn't do that very well. Only one or two songs do his vocals fit the song ("Butcher Boy" is. good standout). But I can't help wondering what some of these songs would sound like with a better singer. It has more of that demo vibe than I wanted. DIsappointing.

This was a bit of a hit or miss for me. Why does the vocalist sound like he's strangling himself? It's too much of a strain for him or something? I like the children singing in the first track "Happiness Is Easy," and the next two tracks were pretty good, but still it felt like he was straining in his voice a lot. I have to wonder if he can still reach these notes today. Because of that, some of the vocals sounded garbled to me, like in "Living In Another World" and "Time It's Time". What was interesting was the keyboards had an almost vocal-like quality on "Time It's Time," and I almost thought they were singing something. I listened to this album a couple of times because I wanted to like the singer, but I just felt he was trying too hard. Maybe it was me, but that's how I took it. So it was just... ok. The few clunkers (to me, at least) were "Living In Another World" and "Time It's Time". Next.

I know that the Stooges are regarded as one of the founders of the punk movement, but I just have never been a fan of Iggy Pop. "Search and Destroy" I had heard before, and it was interesting to listen to both mixes. Iggy's made it sound more like a band from the 70s, where as Bowie's mix made it sound like a band from earlier, interestingly enough. The new members of the band did a good job; I should have listened to the whole Legacy Edition to hear how they played some of the older stuff live. Iggy's noises and such never impressed me, though. It just sounds goofy in this day and age. I guess then it worked but now? Not so much. Maybe if I heard it back when I was more into punk I would have appreciated it, but now it just sounds like garage DIY rock to me. Ok, but not mind-blowing.

Ah yes, the album with "the hit." I can't imagine what it's like to have a song so popular that it's inescapable like "Mr. Brightside." For me I think I heard "Somebody Told Me" first, which sounds like you could easily mash the two of them together and no one would notice that they were two different songs. (To be fair I also felt the same way with "Slow Ride" and "Spirit In The Sky", which are sung by two completely different acts. The feel of the songs sound very similar to me for some reason.) Anyway, on to the Killers. I liked this album a lot more than I was expecting to. I did not realize it was their first, but even so it has a lot of really good songs (besides, you know, the one...). Strangely, a couple of songs reminded me of the band fun and their hit "We Are Young." But apart from that I still liked the album a lot more than I was expecting to. I wish there wasn't the autotune on the songs (but that's my problem with all modern music right now, and I can't fault them for something the industry does to death.). One I will listen to again.

Of the four albums I would imagine being on the list, this is probably the least likely. It is a really good album, with some great stuff (the cover of "Freddie's Dead" is a great opener, and "Bonin' In The Boneyard" is just WOW that bass solo!). It's just that the albums that represent Fishbone more I would pick their title EP or "The Reality of My Surroundings." There are a couple of songs that are a bit... okay. "Ma and Pa" and "Pouring Rain" are okay, they'd be the weak spots. But the stronger songs are really good: "Questions of Life" (will I not pass the test?) or "Slow Bus Movin' (Howard Beach Party)" (the vocals are a little cheesy-sounding, but it's still effective.) "Reality" is the album that really got me into Fishbone, so it's hard for me not to recommend that one. "Give A Monkey A Brain..." has some of their hardest stuff ("Servitude" is such a different song from ALL of "Truth and Soul"). But I guess "Truth and Soul" is a good place to start. I do like the album a lot, I just don't know if THAT is the one I'd pick to put in the 1001.

I'm a sucker for mellotron. So when I heard that in the opening song, I was sucked in. Those first four songs just kept going from strength to strength. I really enjoyed what I heard. Wikipedia filed this under shoegaze, which I was not a big fan of, but this I enjoyed. Definitely would like to hear more of this.

Very improvisational feel. I wish there was more backing her, singing like she was out in the open was very vulnerable, and it made it hard to listen. The songs being so long made it tough, too. I know I had to check the status bar to see how much was left on each song, and that's never good. Strangely enough, the longest song felt like it took the least amount of time. In the end, I did not like it, but I give her props for doing something more unique than I usually hear. It's a novel idea, but wore thin after the first few minutes.,

Honestly, this just sounded like a lot of noise. I'm sure there was a point here, but I'm just not hearing it.

As a proghead, I know I should have heard more of Kate Bush until now. But for some unknown reason, I had not. Probably because the second thing I heard was her cover of "Rocket Man," which I found dreadful. Anyway, this was good. It reminded me a lot of Peter Gabriel's early work. The bass work (at first) made me think of Tony Levin, but I knew it was different than that. "Running Up That Hill" found a new life thanks to Stranger Things, but most of the other tracks are just as good. I didn't like the conceptual side as much as the front side, but it still was decent. This gives me the idea to listen to more of her stuff, I should just not listen to that "Rocket Man"cover. Sheesh.

Ah, punk. I was into punk a lot more in high school. But I definitely appreciate these guys. Also, a good 15 minute album is always a nice refresher (I have a number of songs longer than this album). Energy is a huge factor here. It was fun and definitely sounded fun, too. It would have been nice for it to be longer than 15 minutes, but not necessary.

I guess I felt that, although it was a bit of a punk-ish band, there wasn't anything overly distinctive here. What made the Clash the Clash was they were wasn't just a punk band. There was something more there. I just didn't feel it. It wasn't bad, but I just... felt it could be more.

Nick Cave always seems like such an angry guy. I can't imagine him singing a song like "Shiny Happy People" or "Perfect Day". It's just... you're not putting on Nick Cave at a party. It's not there to make you feel good. You're ready to start drinking and feeling terrible about yourself and everything. And while there is a place for that, I don't know if I was ready for 45 minutes of it.

I can say I liked the second half of the album better than the first, which is funny since Paul Simon didn't like the second side as much and felt they were throwaway tracks. I feel bad for Simon & Garfunkel, this being their fourth album they were trying some new things. You can tell Paul Simon was becoming complacent. But this album really brought them out into the limelight with the big tunes "Mrs. Robinson" and "Hazy Shade of Winter". The whole idea of the concept on the first side... it doesn't seem as coherent as it should. And the "Voices of Old People" collage, what was THAT about? "At The Zoo"...the Bronx Zoo licensed the song for commercials in the late 70s. I distinctly remember seeing those ads as a child. Fast forward to a few years ago and I heard that the song for the first time in 45 years. It turned me back into that little child, watching TV on a huge Zenith technicolor TV. So that song really holds a place in my heart. Like I said, the second half of the album is better, has the songs we all know. The organ sound on the first side sounds a little too pipe-organy which sounded odd. I don't know if it would have even fit in "At The Zoo." Still in the strength of the second side I really enjoyed this album. I was surprised at its brevity, though.

Wow, what an amazing album. I love all the different tones here. I know that he wrote this in reflection of the break-up of his girlfriend. But even so, there is a lot going on here. Once I heard "Lonesome Tears," which I thought was a cover at first, I knew I was in for a ride. This is the second album of his, after "Odelay" which begs for another listen. I am quickly becoming a big fan of his.

For some reason, the album reminds me a lot of the Flaming Lips. Which makes a bit of sense since the album was produced by David Fridmann. The song "The Youth" did put me off, though. It was just too... hippie dippy. "This is a call to arms, to live, and love, and sleep together". Yeah, ok... The rest is definitely fitting into that neo-psychedelic feel. It's not bad, but I feel like it's been done better by the Flaming Lips.

The vocalist is trying to do rockabilly a bit, and it intrigues me. It sounds like a cross between a few different vocalists, but not overly distinct. But in the middle, the songs did start to blend together. Maybe it was the guitar, I dunno. They just started to sound very same-y to me. I really did like the last song, though. "Are You Ready To Be Heartbroken?" The mix of acoustic guitar and 80s feel clicked with me, along with the accordion. More of that, please.

I've always liked Clapton more as a hired gun, and not as a solo artist (although the blues album he did back in the 90s is f***ing great). This is a very laid-back album, and really puts him in a more jammy kinda mood, which works really well for him. He was mellow, the drugs were mellow, everything was pretty mellow. "Willie and the Hand Jive" is a bit too nasally for him, though. I always thought he should have put it in a lower key or something so it didn't sound like he was whining while he performed it. "I Shot The Sheriff"... I mean, for a lot of us it was the first version we heard, so there is some slightly affection to it. But then we heard the original Bob Marley version and were like "well, yeah of COURSE this is better..." I wish more of his recent stuff had guest vocalists sing while he just played. I don't want to say "Shut and Play Yer Guitar," but... "Shut and Play Yer Guitar." Solid album, always good to listen to.

I was not expecting much. Really. The cover told me this was going to be dumb. It's like if you crossed the Beach Boys and the Stooges or the Ramones. This shouldn't work at all. And somehow, I find it remarkably stupid and charming at the same time. Things like "(I Live For) Cars and Girls" is just so on the nose, it's hilarious. It was definitely a fun time to listen to, and I would listen to it again.

It's hard to take Madonna seriously when you look at her now and think "geez, what happened to you?" There are the songs that most people know from this album, and really the title track should not have gotten the negative blowback if the video wasn't so incendiary. But Madonna wanted to be Madonna, so there you go. "Express Yourself"... I remembered the song back when it came out, but I never realized how... repetitive it is. It gets a bit tedious after a while, there's no build up, it's just that chorus OVER and OVER. "Cherish" is an underrated single, but those first two were such big songs for Madonna it's understandable how this one was missed. It's a pretty good song, too. "Love Song" was an obvious duet with Prince, and I thought for th emost part it worked, the two of them playing to each other's strengths. "Till' Death Do Us Part" felt like it was written for someone else. I imagine Cyndi Lauper doing this piece and would have felt more serious. Here it just doesn't match the gravitas Madonna was trying to put into it. I liked how "Dear Jessie" transitioned to "Oh Father." That worked really well. But in the end a lot of the songs had a late 80s / early 90s feel that the band could not escape. Things like "Act of Contrition" works, but it jst doen't feel as spontaneous as it should to me. So in the end, we have an album that feels a bit scattered. Songs that do not feel like they belong to Madonna, others that are interesting collaborations and "hits" that are good but not great. So it's not as good as people think, but ultimately it's not Madonna trying to shock you every 5 seconds, so that's at least something.

Always nice to hear a good Samba album. A good half hour of it, light and breezy. Enjoyable and not too overwhelming. A nice change of pace and sounded really good. Will listen to over and over.

After this album, Spotify recommended Kollaps by Einstürzende Neubauten. Which. I. HATED. Not good, Spotify. Not good at ALL. I get that this was the precursor to a lot of industrial music. But having those short bits in there, like "Death Threats" will only get listened to once, right? It's like the skits on rap albums. Funny once but not over and over. I liked this a little better than Kollaps. Songs like "Weeping" had a nice opening, along with "Dead On Arrival" I kinda dug. But all in all it just made me think of "Sprockets" on SNL and the pretension of that kind of German art Mike Myers was making fun of (like "Blood On The Floor."). So I will give it a little leeway, but not much.

I liked the challenge of this album. It was more challenging than I expected, rhythmically and lyrically. A lot of stressing on different beats, musical choices different than what you would expect. I had heard about this album, but it was definitely a different musical experience than I was expecting, as opposed to her first 2 albums. My only thing is that (to paraphrase Jurassic Park) just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you should. Some of the pieces seem a little too... arhythmic, if that's possible. Even so, it's definitely an accomplishment I will go back to it.

As the first song started, and we hear "the world... is sound..." I was reminded of Ross from 'Friends' and any DJ who thinks he can easily do electronica. Fortunately, this turned out to be a lot better than most of that, and that had to do with the instrumentation. I am always a fan of the tabla, so hearing it in combination with the music playing was a real plus and elevated the music some. Still, there were songs that had some minuses to them (the first track was too long IMO, and "Soni"... I have never been a fan of that type of high, nasally singing.). I would also have liked the last song too have been explored more. "Decca" suffered from being an oratorio, with only 10 seconds of music. An easy one to skip in the future if I ever listen to this again. Not a big fan of this type of music, but the instrumentation and Singh's singing made it decent. I would like to hear his work with other artists (except Yoko Ono).

As soon as Frank Ocean started singing "Thinkin' About You" and I heard the autotune, I was snapped right out of the music. It was a lot less on the other tracks, but man that was bad. Fertilizer was so processed that I'm glad it was so short, but I was liked "what WAS that?" I thought "Super Rich Kids" had a real catchy (if not overdone) chorus. That was pretty good. So was "Monks," and "Pyramids" was epic. "Pink Matter," man, I forgot how much I lived Outkast and Andre 3000. His rhymes were great. But then it was followed up by "Forrest Gump" which just seemed dumb. It felt like the album had these moments of brilliance, then followed by a moment of goofiness. I liked Ocean's singing once they laid off the vocal processing, but it took a LONG time to get past it. I mean, come on Frank, you're more talented than that.

I didn't get the overall theme of the opera. Maybe because the songs tended to sound similar? There didn't seem to be a lot of contrast. I liked the intro to "Wallace" and the song itself. Also, "Shut Up And Get On The Plane" was great. "Let There Be Rock" was interesting, but the AC/DC song is better. I mean, it was okay, but I feel like the opera part could have been told better. Maybe I just need to hear it again, I dunno.

This reminded me a bit of Deee-Lite. You can argue amongst yourselves if that's a good thing or not. Seriously, I did enjoy this quite a bit. Some of the later tracks on the album were a bit uneven ("On Hold," for example), but it opened really well. "Dangerous"" was good and "Performance" was haunting. Wish the album stuck the landing at the end better, though. Still it was short and didn't overstay it's welcome. Enjoyable.

The only thing I knew of this band was that the guitarist / vocalist's name was Randy California (there's a 60s name for you). And that his family had been trying to sue Led Zeppelin because Page used their song "Taurus" for "Stairway To Heaven". But this album is actually pretty good. It has a lot of those 60s psychedelic and proto-progressive things to it. I've listened to it twice now, and liked it more the second time. "Morning Will Come" is probably the song I am in a love/hate thing with right now. The whole "co-hum" where they start singing in that high voice, along with the horns definitely puts that song square in the 60s. But a lot of the other music has a bit of a forward thinking to it. Definitely made me interested in looking up more of their stuff.

This is probably a step up from their last album. I can feel the band is expanding more, trying new things. But you still have the limitedness of the voice for one. He can't do much with that, can he? But it's effective for this. And the brass and orchestration really works. A definite album to listen to while you're alone, whether on a drive. Or drinking. But not both. It's a refreshing change from some of my other musical tastes, but the one album is sufficient, I think. If it's not making me run around to listen to more, that's a sign something's up. Still, it's pretty good. I think I have ot be more in the mood for it.

I was not having the best of days. Teaching high school math to a number of students who don't want to learn high school math. So I put this on on the drive home and really a lot of my cares kinda melted away. It was a good album to center myself. I will say that some of the vocals (like in "Doralice") was a little grating. Perhaps if it was an instrument or if I thought of the vocalist as an instrument I would have liked those pieces better. I didn't realize how different the single and album version of "The Girl From Ipanema" are. A very stark contrast. It was really the kind of album I needed for the kind of day I was having. Just wish some of the vocalists (not all) were better.

While I will admit that the early ideas of sampling made some of the pieces more interesting, I still scratched my head a bit at this. The longer songs were an experiment where "you just had to be there, man." But the shorter songs felt more constructed and deliberate. Those worked better. I can't wholly recommend the album as it was just a bit too meandering for me, but there were some bits I liked, and other times I was like "skip a bit, please..."

Although I liked this album, again I have to question why an album that is not even a year old is on the list when there are easily thousands of albums that were release before that could have gone on the list. What makes this album more notable? I liked the instrumentals, and "The Animist" was pretty good as well. But then I get into "Starship N***a" and I'm like "Wait, what?" That last track "Feb. 4 '99" is just an amazing piece of vitriol towards the system. I didn't dislike it. I liked it even more with a second listen, but I just don't see why this is more worthy.

Man, if this was any more bleak it would just be a picture of the Dust Bowl. I mean, it's probably more of what I associate with Cohen, but... man. It is just so dark and depressing. Maybe it's the vocals? I was not expecting super uplifting, but it just... wow, super downer. For me, it crossed the line from darkly beautiful to overly depressing. Maybe I was just not in the right mood? I don't know. It was good, but just... man. Not something I want to listen to over and over again.

The first thing that always makes me cringe is that high-speed chipmunk vocal effects. I know it's supposed to sound like children, but it always is a bit off-putting. Besides that, I think Common did a real good job with this. Yes, even with Kanye in it. Common's lyrical flow really shines all over the album. "The Food" sounded a little different sonically from the rest, being a live track. It was a bit weird, like they recorded it from the TV. Probably my favorite tracks are "Chi-Town" and "They Say". There's not really a track that's a clunker throughout the album. I will definitely come back to this album.

It's weird that this album comes right after Common's "Be." They explicit lyrics in both are one thing, and both have great lyrical skill. Eminem's lyrical and structural skill is definitely beyond compare. But... horrorcore is just not something I am into. It's hard to be a fan of rapping about killing women, even if it's not "serious." "Don't Give A F**k" is definitely a good one, along with "My Fault" even with the comical feel of it. "My Name Is..." is (of course) THE song from the album, the one everyone knows. And then there's the skits, at least two too many. That does make the re-listenability difficult. As good as some of the songs are, the songs feel ... a bit TOO dark. It's hard to be like "Yeah, 97 Bonnie & Clyde is my jam." That doesn't make you sound like that good of a person, you know? Listening to this right after Common's "Be" gives you a bit of light and shade-y (pun intended), and hearing it makes you really hear the contrast. And I just found Common's album more entertaining and didn't make me feel as... dirty hearing it.

Stevie Wonder? Never heard of him. Seriously, it seems very obvious that Jamiroquai is channeling Stevie Wonder. Not that that's a bad thing, because there are some things in there (hip hop and funk-jazz) that are incorporated well into the songs. The 10 minute opus they had (Revolution 1993)... I did not feel like it overstayed its welcome. That's always hard to do with some of these tracks, and yet it just zipped along. Really enjoyable stuff, but if you are not a fan of Stevie Wonder this is not going to go over well.

Besides "Take Me Out", I don't think I recognized the other songs. Subsequently, they didn't stand out too much either. Does not bode well for the band. Songs started to blur together, couldn't really pick out any of them that really stood out. Just felt like any standard early 2000's band to me.

It was... OK. I mean, I get what the album was going for and there was a wide range of styles that were used for this first example of sampling. Interesting to see where "round the outside" comes from, I never would have guessed that from Eminem. But some of the songs did overstay their welcome a bit, like "Legba." "Double Dutch" I didn't get at all, either. Ultimately, it was an interesting experiment. But not something that I would say let's put that on again. And... Malcolm McLaren? Really?

Although this was at the point where the band was getting tired of playing punk songs, I found that most of the songs... were pretty much just punk songs. Yeah, there were a couple of songs that, like "Unsatisfied" and "Seen Your Video." But the rest didn't seem that far away from their punk roots. Some interesting ideas, though. And why "Black Diamond," of all of the Kiss songs they could have covered?

I don't know why I pictured the singer's voice differently in my head, but I did. Maybe I was thinking of UB40? Obviously 2 very different bands. Anyway, I was really surprised at how much I liked the vocals. They were different than what I expected, and made the songs more interesting. I really liked the interpretation of "Heaven," making more of a bluesy soul song. "No Direction" felt like a song that should have gone on a late 80s or early 90s soundtrack. It didn't grab me like a lot of the other songs did. And when "Holding Back The Years" came on, I was like "Oh yeah, I remember this one." So I was pleasantly surprised with this one. Don't know why I didn't listen to them more growing up.

I will have to give Morrissey credit, he goes off on America on that first track, but it's not just "America sucks." I think he encapsulates how a lot of people feel about America in "America Is Not The World." So this is the FOURTH Morrissey album on the list? And it's no longer on the list, even. Saying that, this is significantly better than "Viva Hate," the last Morrissey album I reviewed. The instrumentation is "harder," the singing is not as whiny all of the time (there ARE moments, though (looking at you "Let Me Kiss You")). So I'd say it's the best Smiths / Morrissey album I've heard. But that is not saying a heck of a lot.

I knew of "Sex and Drugs and Rock 'n Roll," but not that it was Ian Dury. The songs that were about a specific person got kind of tedious, particularly when the accent got more cockney. I assume that was what he was going for singing like that, but it just got tiresome. I've heard a lot of British sing, but their accents didn't come through as much as Ian's seems to. Maybe they were more singing and his was more of a talky kind of voice, I don't know. But that is sore of the punk mentality isn't it? That is doesn't have to be perfect (or even... good), but just that it can be done by anybody. Top tracks : Sex and Drugs and Rock 'n Roll, Blockheads, I'm Partial To Your Abracadabra

I knew this was going to be an album of inner pain and anguish but I never realized how much was going on there. There is a number of "hit" songs that have been on the radio, so I knew those. But still... man, what a lot to unload there. I like the interweaving of the different styles, I was impressed with how everything gelled together. I remember the tribute concert for Chester Bennington and a number of colleagues who held in him in high regard. He was an incomparable vocalist, I wish I had gotten more into this band when they were active.

I liked the songs more that incorporated some different time signature stuff to it, like "Lion In A Coma." Somewhere in the middle they kinda lost me. It dragged for me, I guess. But the ending finished stronger so there's something to be said for that...

After seeing him for so many years now on Law & Order, you still have to remember that Ice-T was the s**t. He crafted (what one negative review called) a real manifesto here. Yes, it's hard to listen to some of the tracks. Not because they're outdated, but "Straight Up N***a" is not going to be on any rotation for me. He has a lot of anger towards authority, which he should. Totally justified, and the last track took me back to the Iraq War and worrying about being dragged into doing that. Hearing "Body Count"... I'm more of a fan of metal as I get older (which is weird, because you'd think your tastes would go softer as you age). When his group first came out, I was not into it (not for any particular reason), but now I appreciate more of what he was trying to do. I thought it was weird that it was on a rap record, but hey it's record. 72 minutes is a bit much, though. The interludes at least weren't skits, which always bother me on rap records. So overall, I lied the album, but it was really too long. Favorite tracks: "O.G.," "MVP," "Body Count" I'm in between a 3 and a 4 for this. But the length brings it down for me. It's just way too padded.

Spotify described her as "honey-toned" and "lamb-like," which is pretty much on the nose. She's not going to belt out "Crazy On You" by Heart. The album felt like a soundtrack to a lost 60s movie. The whole thing was nice, although the kid duet at the end... I don't know if I would listen to that every single time. Still, nice change of pace and I'm always up for samba-esque stuff. Fun stuff.

It's a very different album than "What's Going On" I will say that. Reading about the context of the record afterwards... I wish I had read this before. A lot of the songs didn't strike me because I was listening to the instrumentation. They actually sounded a bit ahead of their time because I thought this sounded more mid-80s. But thinking about Gaye and his style and what would be the sound of the 80s, it should be placed firmly back there in the 70s (keyboards I think did it for me, I dunno). One of the stronger tracks (although I don't know if I needed to hear it three times) was "When Did You Stop Loving Me, When Did I Stop Loving You". Again, had I gotten the context that the whole album would be about their divorce some of the other songs would have hit me harder. But this one really did. "A Funky Space Reincarnation..." Yeah, no. That could have not been included... Stand out tracks: Anger, Time To Get It Together, When Did You Stop Loving Me, When Did I Stop Loving You .

The album feels like a bit of a hodgepodge, mixing some acoustic and rocking stuff together. I keep coming back to "Every Picture Tells A Story," and how that song would have fit so well on this album. The last song was a really good rocker, and I was actually surprised at it; it seemed a lot different from the other pieces, like it was a holdover from something else. Not a slight against it, it was probably my favorite track off of the whole thing. Hard to believe this was 1970, I thought this was at least 5 years later. Although there are a number of covers on this, I only knew two songs: "Cut Across Shorty" (from a later Rod performance) and "All Over Now" (from a Rolling Stone cover). Favorite track(s): "You're My Girl (I Don't Want to Discuss It)" and "Cut Across Shorty"

Hard to believe this album is 40 years old. But then again, I'm old. So there you go. Anyway, this being the first album and one of the foundational albums of hip hop and rap, I appreciate the album... ...but the electronic percussion gets VERY grating. The keyboards don't help either. You want there to be more of a variation of that, but because of the limited technology, it just isn't going to happen. So the songs start to sound a bit same-y. But you have to hand it to Run-DMC, the song topics vary greatly. So the songs... _feel_ different. It was groundbreaking at the time, I remember it vaguely back when I was a teen. But it was the next few albums that I remember better. Songs I liked best: "30 Days," "Wake Up," "It's Like That," "Hard Times" And if you find that you don't like my ways Well, you can send me back in 30 days...

I think there is a maturation of this album from "Vision of Love," which really just has her putting it all out there. My biggest problem is, she does a lot of that whispery, breath-y thing which is a bit frustrating. The Butterfly reprise... whoa, I really liked the high notes as a background, eerieness. If she was a different singer I could imagine her using that effect in some really dark songs (but I don't think that's something she would do). "Honey", although I had heard it before, sounds more like something that's played in the background of a party in a movie. It's background noise, like a number of the songs. Over 25 years later and "Babydoll" just feels all kind of cringe-y to me. Yikes on those lyrics. There are a lot of nice effects and she does her part really well. Some of the production style is very 1997, which really dates it now. But if I was listening to this a bunch back in the day I might not notice it as much. It's the equivalent of cotton candy, in that it just doesn't have a lot of filling or heaviness to it. It's light as air and maybe it'll fill you up but you will definitely get sick living off of it. Definitely in the middle ground for me, so that's a 2.5 rounding up to a 3.

Wasn't sure what to make of this, never heard of this band before. But going in to the first few songs it became obvious they were one of those indie rock / country-esque bands. The vocalist was not very distinctive, very easy to tune out which is not good. The lyrics weren't remarkable to me either. I just didn't feel like it moved me much. But it's funny because the next thing that queued up was Neil Young. I could tell he was someone they were trying to channel. Just not well. Next.

There is an honesty and a sincerity to the music, I will grant you that. But the delivery is so... dully depressing. Johnny Cash covered the title track, and even though his delivery is as depressing, there's something about it that's more... passionate. The songs definitely have something to them, but the delivery just needed more for me.

I went to this one after listening to an album which (at least to me) felt like Neil Young wannabes. I love Neil Young, I really do. There are so many great songs on this album. Ones that will make your hair stand on end: "Southern Man," "After The Gold Rush" "Don't Let It Bring You Down" But with it are some songs that are... okay. "I Believe In You" has probably one of the weakest singing Neil has done in his early years. He really needed the backing of at least Stills, but maybe more on that one. "When You Dance I Can Really Love" is one with some weaker lyrics, too. "I've got something to tell you, you make it show. Let me come over, I know you know..." What? Neil Young has a body of work that is just stunning, and "Harvest" maybe would be the early album I would turn to. This one has... a couple of clunkers that make the album really good, but just not (in my eyes) a classic. Sorry, Neil. Not a 5-star recommendation for me. The weaker songs just pull it down.

I knew about half of this album already, which is a good start. Good album to bop along to, it's funky and even though it;'s over 50 it does not feel dated. As for the second song on the album... Jane's Addiction & Ice-T used to perform it back in 1991. It still is a bit uncomfortable, but I guess that's the point, right? The rest of the album kicks butt, though. Skip the one song and you have a 5-star classic. But that one song... not something you can play more than once.

The vocals remind me a bit of Kate Bush, but a little too ethereal. Maybe I need to listen to this on headphones. I feel like it's too... thin. It could be the production style from the 80s, too. It just seems like there needs to be a bit more bass to it, like in a song like "Domino," it needs a big bass sound to it, and it's lacking. Many of the songs felt like they blended together. I couldn't really give you one that stood out over the others, which is never good. The vocals from one song sounded like it could easily go to another song. Really, it just didn't hold my interest. Next.

Although I like Jack White's work, I felt this was a bit weaker than the other White Stripes albums. The songs weren't as catchy to me. Except for "Take, Take, Take" and "I'm Lonely (But I Ain't That Lonely Yet)" I found White's voice to be a bit more nasally than he was in some of the other White Stripes stuff. Maybe that's what turned me off to the album, I dunno.

Totally not what I was expecting. (Can't explain why, because I'm not sure what I was expecting. Maybe more... country-like?) The instrumentation really augmented EH's voice. It was very sultry (for me) and fit well with the music. I don't think there was a song on this that I disliked, which is a big plus. The more I think about the album, the more I enjoyed it. Definitely an album I'm going to come back to.

I've seen the album cover a bunch of times, and it always creeps me out (big eyes and all). The quirkiness of the band makes up for the cover, I guess. Some of it feels a little forced, like they were doing quirky to sound quirky and not to be naturally quirky, like XTC. I wonder if that's who they were shooting for, particularly with songs like "Lucky Day In Hell." The vocalist grew on me, although his falsetto I could do without (like in "Manchild"). I dug it, ultimately. WOuld like to hear some of their other stuff. Favorite songs: "Rags To Rags," "Lucky Day In Hell."

It's probably the better of all of the ambient music I've heard. Probably because of the crossover with the hip hop. The songs vary, which is always good for this type of music. If the songs start to blend together and sound too much the same, it starts to sound like one drone. I like how the opening bit comes back at the end. Made the songs one cohesive whole. "No More Tears" started to sound a little bit like "Cruisin' " but with a "hey, we're going to make this sound reggae look at us!" feel. The contrasting styles really helped me get into the groove of the songs. I can say I liked this probably more than most other techno that have been on the list so far. Still, I don't know if it's something I would grab for a relisten. But if someone put it on I'm not going to walk out of the room.

I remember buying this on cassette back when it came out. I had gotten the "First Amendment" cover. The first side are shorter hard rock songs unrelated to each other, and even with more songs than the other side, there was still a lot of space, which at the time I didn't think much of it. Opens up with "Stop," which is such a balls to the wall rocker. That sealed the deal for me about them. I played that first song over and over so many times. I always liked the start and stop of that one. "No One's Leaving" and "Ain't No Right" are almost as good. The bass works so well with Navarro in both of these. Looking at the first side, the weakest song for me was always "Obvious". I always felt this song was like "hey, there's a piano in the studio, let's mess around with it during the song." And the ending is so poorly done, like the band had no idea who was ending the song. If it sounded any worse, it'd sound like a bunch of drunks playing it. Then there's "the song." Their biggest hit. It's almost unlike any other song they have ever played, with the clapping and Farrell's scat-singing. It seems so difference from everything else, of course it becomes their first big hit. The songs on the other side are, of course, interconnected. "Of Course" is the weakest song for me on this side. The "la la" of Farrell just do not work. I feel that song has lyrics that are a bit more improvisational. I think of it similar to Jon Anderson's method of lyrics, a bit more sing-songy. I would say this is as good an album as they got to, and it hits pretty hard. It's just two of the songs are a bit clunky for me. They just bring it down from 5-stars to 4 for me. Top songs: "Stop!" "Then She Did..." "Been Caught Stealing."

Of course I was going to like this. He's the son of Fela Kuti, who's "Zombie" I _adored_ on this list. One thing I did not like is the ending to one or two songs. They kind of just fizzled out, like there wasn't an idea of how to end the song ("Nawa" in particular). A lot of the songs seem to have just an A-A-A-A and not an A-B-A-B form, there's not as much variation as there is a buildup with nowhere to go. I still liked it a lot, but going from one form to another would have been a welcome change. Top tracks: "Changes," "Wonder Wonder"

I had forgotten how many of these songs I knew. (Dumb moment: I always thought "Love Will Never Do (Without You)" was called "They Said It Wouldn't Last". My mistake. The ultra-serious moment: "Livin' In A World (They Didn't Make)" seems forced right after "Love Will Never Do". There needed to be a better transition, which should have been interludes between every other song. And the ending (with the kids screaming) to it is creepy not powerful. Top songs "Miss You Much" (always one of my favorites of hers), "Escapade," the title track.

Isn't this supposed to be... danceable? I like the fact that he mixed a lot of hip hop beats to it, but it doesn't... groove at a decent pace. It's all at a middling tempo. The guy's genre is dance, and the music is not fast enough to dance to. It's more... shoegaze tempo. What's the fun in THAT?

I like hw the shorter songs are sandwiched by the jams. I imagine those live went on for a good deal. I had heard a few of these before (Audioslave had covered "Super Stupid" live and I heard it on a bootleg, and "Can You Get To That" has been on commercials. Weird.) Bernie Worrell and George Clinton? I'm sold. Sure the songs range all over the place, but that's what makes it great, it's wide appeal. There's something for everyone here. This is already a 4, and with repeated listens may become a 5...

After a bit, the singer reminded me of Big Audio Dynamite. I wasn't sure where this was going band was going. The songs seemed to have a lot of different influences (which isn't a bad thing). Again, I hesitate on a band that released an album so recently as the album I have to listen to before I die. Really? 8 thousand listeners on Spotify? Who _are_ these guys that they warrant such a coveted spot on the list? All in all, it was okay, but I didn't get what made it so significant to put it on the list.

Besides the two hits on this album, the other songs... feel like b-sides. They don't pop a much as "Church of the Poison Mind" and "Karma Chameleon". And I'll say it: "Church of the Poison Mind" is the better song. "KC" is overly repetitive, and feels like it's a good 30 seconds too long. The backup singer sounds more talented than Boy George, overpowers him in a couple of songs. THAT'S never good. And the drums have that manufactured 80s sound (I mean, yeah, it was the 80s, but still....). So it did not wow me to hear the other songs on this album. Not at all. Next.

When you listen to Led Zeppelin live, they draw out "Dazed and Confused" to an interminable length. It seems to go on for a VERY long time. I started to feel that way listening to the live version of "Whipping Post" on this album. It just felt like the song was going on WAY too long. The song itself is not known for its brevity. It's a pretty epic song, even the studio version at 5:17. But to take it and drag it on for over 20 minutes. I mean, you REALLY have to go somewhere interesting. And I am not seeing it in this rendition. The other stuff is still pretty good, even "You Don't Love Me" which is 19 minutes. The shorter songs are handled well, and the band is tight throughout. "Statesboro Blues" is the big single from this release, I guess. But man, 23 minutes. I like long songs and all, but this... I guess you had to be there?

At first, the female vocalist sounded like a cross between Kate Bush and Toyah. At first. By the third song, she was just annoying. Her vocal... limitations in "All The King's Men." Yikes. The music in itself wasn't too bad. But the singing was just not good. Really took me out of it. Trying to reach notes that they shouldn't try to reach. Probably the first and last song on the album were decent, but the rest was not. Mainly because of the vocals. Next.

I challenge Nick Cave to sing “Walkin’ On Sunshine” by Katrina and the Waves. When the first line of the album is “I don’t believe in an Interventionist God”… well. That’s pretty damn heavy, isn’t it? Buckle up, folks. This ride is going to be pretty dark. I will say I liked this album a bit more than the last Cave album. But… MAN. Lighten… up? Top songs: “There Is A Kingdom,” “Where Do We Go Now But Nowhere?”

Probably the most mature album of Madonna's I have heard. Obviously it's William Orbit that did it. His production took this to a whole other level. But Madonna trying to sing differently was a big step forward. I really enjoyed this album, although the last song kinda dragged it down a bit. I would definitely recommend it as one of her better albums if people wanted something of hers to listen to. Top songs: "Ray of Light," "To Have and Not To Hold,"

A funny thing happened with this album. I wasn't really thinking too much about it, it sounded a lot like Madness to me. "Rip It Up" (their big somg) reminded me of a cross between "Need You Tonight" by INXS and "This Must Be The Place" by Talking Heads. Suddenly about halfway through I got to "I Can't Help Myself" And I couldn't help but smile. It just made feel you so good. A song to get you in a real good mood. And that's not easy for a song to do, you know? And once I heard that one, the rest of the album just sounded even better. I enjoyed it more and more. So definitely a feel good album, but if it was a tape I would always be starting on side B first. Top tracks "I Can't Help Myself"

I watched "Straight Outta Compton" back when it came out. Hearing the few songs from this album on it, I would think they would be ore impactful. But some of them have lyrics that are just... sophomoric at best. (Looking at you, "Dopeman" and "I Ain't The 1".) Still, the bite of the first two songs alone, WOW! It's an important album, to be sure. But it's not something I can listen to over and over again.

Henry Rollins once said "The Clash is what U2 wish they could have been." I think of that every time someone brings up U2. Still, they had moments. "Sunday Bloody Sunday" and "New Years Day" are two of them. Some of the other stuff on the album... not so much. You can see why they are the not the big "hits" from the album (looking at you, "Refugee"). Still, it's a pretty solid album. But I just never "got" them. Top tracks: "Sunday Bloody Sunday," "New Years Day," "Surrender"

Only three songs. And yet, all three of them are key songs in their repertoire, ones that have been played now for over 50 years. And I never tire of hearing them. They are perfect songs to me, each member working in perfect sync. It's hard to believe that this was it for Bill Bruford, but really there's nowhere else for him to go in that band. The only flaw in this album is that "Siberian Khatru" fades out, when the live versions have a better ending (at least for me). This is the album I would tell people if they think they know Yes, they truly have not heard them. One of my favorite albums of all time.

Mindless, directionless energy. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I mean, it's Lemmy. What more can you WANT? I like the authenticity of a live album. Although many were overdubbed (which only recently I found out about), this one was not: "It still sounds good to me… We were in the middle of a 53-show tour, so by that time we were on automatic. We were tight, and you can hear that on the record… There are mistakes on there. There are always mistakes on a live album… that's life. Life ain't perfect, and I'm no different. I think I overdubbed a couple of lines of vocals on Hammersmith, but there's no false songs." -- Lemmy. The expanded version gives you the feel of a concert. I can't imagine a Motorhead concert going much more than like 90 minutes. Everyone would be exhausted. Still, the album was fun. And Lemmy is still God.

It's weird how the album just... cuts out. But the track being called "Quicksand," you just get... pulled under. Although quicksand really isn't like what we as kids thought it was. It's usually only a few feet deep. But the drama sometimes IS better than the reality. I enjoyed this more as atmospheric music, which is what I guess she was going for? Background type of stuff. You start listening to the words in things like "History of Touches" and you're thinking "wait, what did she just say?" I guess I'm getting more and more used to her type of adventurous style. You keep hearing enough of it, it's going to rub off on you, I guess. But the shorter songs were better. A 10 minute Bjork song? Yeah, no thank you. Top songs: "Stonemilker", "Notget", "Quicksand"

Hey, remember when Snoop Dogg was considered "edgy" because he was gangsta? Guess what? That was 30 years ago. I'd like to try to dismiss some of these songs by saying "eh, it was 30 years ago." But there was good music that wasn't so... hateful towards women. I like Snoop's lyrical flow, the way his voice sounds so casual. The keyboard effects over the songs, great. But the lyrics he and the other people spit out... it got to be too much. It was too embarrassing to listen to. I'm wavering between a 2 and a 3. And I want to give it the benefit of the doubt, some of the songs were something big at one time. But... I just can't. In the 21st century, it's too hard to do.

I'm not a big country fan, but I enjoyed this more than I expected. The songs were concise, and there was very little bloat. At first I thought it felt like a Springsteen album, and then the last song was indeed a Springsteen song. So... there you go.

Why does the guy on the cover look like Little Steven from the E Street Band? Anyway, it's punk, and the production is subpar. But it's still entertaining. But it does get repetitive "Gary Gilmore's Eyes," for example, was tiresome. I dug how "Bored Teenagers" shifted in the song a bit. "One Chord Wonders" is pretty much a punk anthem, but it's damn good. I liked the album, although I wish the production and sound was better. Top songs: "One Chord Wonders," "No Time To Be 21"

My first experience with hearing Black Flag was hearing the live album "Who's Got The 10 1/2?" back in high school. As a proghead who also liked punk, I thought it was great. So finally hearing some of these songs in their original form is interesting. The production on this is really... garage. Like it was recorded in a garage. But that's the punk mentality, isn't it? It's weird to hear Henry Rollins as a 20-year old. But he was young, too. Just like me at one point. Now he's ... older. Just like me. I was saying earlier about Motorhead's live album and how their sets couldn't be that long. I imagine Black Flag's were even shorter. Still, I dug it, but I wish the production on the album was better. Top songs: "Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie," "TV Party"

Damn. Just... DAMN. Amazing stuff here, but we already knew that Wu-Tang ain't nothing to f**k with. Hearing the first solo album from a. member of the Wu-Tang Clan is pretty amazing. I picked up their first album used, but it is still a statement. So is Method Man's first solo album. I was dumbstruck hearing the Gloria Gaynor sample on "Release Yo Delf". It worked so damn well. "Method Man (remix)" is also very catchy. Method Man's flow is just amazing, and the other Wu-Tang Clan guesting was pretty smart. Top tracks: "Mr. Sandman," "Method Man," "Release Yo Delf"

The weird thing about live albums is, you can either have the band play pretty much the song the way it's on the studio record (which is what a lot of people want these days...), or you can change it up, extend it and make it it's own. Deep Purple did it a lot on this album, but it made that one song sound a little weird (you know the one, da-da-daahhh, da-da-dah-dahhh...). Ian Gillian I first heard on (of all things) "Jesus Christ Superstar". It wasn't until much later I tied him to Deep Purple. I enjoy his voice a lot, but there are a couple of times on this album where he goes WAY over the top (particularly in "Child In Time" and "Strange Kind Of Woman"). Every time I hear this album (and I don't hear it often, but I do put it on every now and again) those spots make me cringe. But DAMN... "Space Truckin'" just blows the place to smithereens, almost literally. Definitely a really great album, but the vocals on those two songs... just knock it down a little bit for me. It's not an album I listen to over and over. That'd make it 5 stars. So 4 it is.

I'm just having a hard time because her voice is so... breathy. It's making it hard to tell what she's singing. And because of that, the songs blurred together a LOT. A lot of them had very abrupt endings, like she couldn't tell how to end them. I kinda liked the riff in "Closer". Otherwise... nope, not feeling it. Next.

I mean, there are moments here that I totally get what the band and singer are going for. But at the same time, the band feels like it's venturing close into Beefheart territory. It feels more like if Colin Hay was trying to sing The Shaggs. Are they brilliant? Or just brilliantly terrible? I'm veering more the second camp, although there was a track or two I liked, like "Real World." Still, not enough for me to recommend.

I thought the vocalists complemented the music really well. The songs themselves worked, the only one I didn't care much for was "Equator" which felt repetitive. "This Town Ain't Big Enough For Both Of Us" I've heard before (original and covered), but the rest of the album was almost as good as the one song. It's always worrisome that people like the one "hit" and the rest seems like b-sides to support the one song. But a lot of the tracks were as good. The starts and stops in the songs were unique (as were the songs themselves). I had watched a bit of the Sparks doc so I knew what I was in for. But I still id not know everything about them. I do think some of the songs start to sound a bit same-y, and I can see how the duo got tired of that format. Still, a good album. It definitely has some good stuff on it.

I was enjoying this as much as Tical. I felt GZA's flow was great, and he was definitely turning some pretty brilliant rhymes. But then GZA started rapping about God, and I kinda got turned off a bit. Still, most of the earlier stuff on the album was pretty good. And the other guys from Wu-Tang made it enjoyable as well. But if I want to hear about God I'll listen to Stryper. Which I most certainly will _NOT_. So I liked Tical a little bit better, but I will still give this a 4 on the strength of the earlier songs.

Leave it to Zappa to turn around and pull off such an indictment of the hippies. The collage of sounds on so many of the songs seems a little schizophrenic at times, but it's still pretty good. I was never a fan of the last song ("Chrome-plated Megaphone of Destiny"), though. Still it has some songs that I've always enjoyed: "Who Needs the Peace Corps?", "The Idiot Bastard Son," "Let's Make The Water Turn Black." I know a lot of musicians name this as one of their faves, but I always liked his first a bit better. Top songs: "Who Needs the Peace Corps?", "The Idiot Bastard Son," "Let's Make The Water Turn Black," "Mom & Dad," "Lonely Girl"

I've always liked Winwood, even if his voice is a little hard to understand. But listening to this album, I feel like I don't "get" Traffic. My biggest notion of them is "Dear Mr. Fantasy," and this doesn't feel like that at all. The first three songs on the album, my first impression was... sloppy. Like, they all had ideas and could have gone through some more rehearsal time before they put this down on tape. After that, it started to pick up some, and the ideas started to gel more, but I shouldn't have to listen through three songs to get to something good. It just was not impressive to me.

The range of the album is stunning. It's all over the place, but in a good way. Even with the range, the funk drips off of about every track. I was never a fan of Prince's higher range in his songs, so things like "If I Was Your Girlfriend" might have worked better in the Revolution for someone else to sing it, I guess. Having said that, "Adore" is just an aMAZing vocal effort. Putting this altogether himself is just such a stunning effort and it reminds you of what a musicl genius he was. A couple of times I felt his voice felt a little sped up, ("Housequake," maybe?) but this was an amazing effort and probably one of his best works.

When a number of the songs off the album sound like parodies you'd hear on sketches from Saturday Night Live, that's not a good look on the album AT ALL. I mean... Sex Dwarf? And the "hit" (Tainted Love) sounds nothing like the rest of the album. You can tell the sarcastic tone the act was going for, but 40 years later it sounds... ridiculous.

I liked the shorter songs better, the jams that went on for 7 minutes... you felt every minute of it. Some of the songs, making fun of Lyndon B Johnson specifically, really fixes it right in that time frame. I don't know if it really makes it more difficult for people not there to "get" the message. But it doesn't help. The band itself seems capable and songs like "The Masked Marauder" really shows off their skill. But those jammier pieces... just go on WAY too long. I wouldn't say it was music for the body, but there you go.

Post punk is always a hodgepodge for me. After that first initial atomic bomb of an explosion punk was, the bands had to pick up the pieces from what that effect truly was. A lot of bands didn't go for keyboards, but I'm really glad this band did. It really rounded out the sound. "Recoil" was really cool how the sound bounced all around the players, I wish more bands did things like that. A number of songs sounded familiar, like "The Light Pours Out Of Me" used that descending melody which is in "Rock and Roll (Part 2)". A couple of the songs were a bit repetitive, but still worked, and the vocalist is a bit limited. But still, most of it worked for me, especially songs like "Shot By Both Sides" and "Recoil". So it's something I'll come back to for sure.

I liked her voice, even though it did remind me occasionally of a lot of other singers (autotune perhaps?). The music varied from interesting to treacly. Something like "Caravan Girl" I could see other artists covering and it heralded as "groundbreaking" or somesuch. But ultimately there wasn't a standout. That breathy, bubbly singing is good for only so long. I need some primal screaming at some point and it just wasn't happening here. So I can see this as nice background music, but it just kinda washes over you and you forget what you're listening to, and that's not good. You want it to stand out a little, you know?

Gorillaz is an interesting phenomenon, and they have the hits to back up what they do. The problem is, that besides the hit on this album of Clint Eastwood, a LOT of this album felt like filler, or even veering into the demo territory. Very "hey, check out what WE can do". I like the stuff I hear of Gorillaz on the radio and such, but the album as a whole needed to be either punched up or edited down a LOT.

Two... hours? There are a number of good tracks on this, and it has the iconic "Bullet With Butterfly Wings," "1979" "Zero" (my son's favorite track of theirs). But... two hours of listening to Billy Corgan whine is asking a LOT. At least this isn't really a concept album; sure there's a thematic concept, but that's it. "Despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage..." It's such a great line, it's undeniable. Still... two hours? That's asking too much of me.

Man, I did not realize how many of these songs I knew. The only song I never really liked was "Tell Me Why". The little falsetto in the bridge never really worked for me, and quite frankly the song itself never really worked. I always liked the Beatles' later period, but this stuff is always good (except for the one clunker). A few of the other lesser known songs... you can tell why they are not as known. They're not bad, they're just not as memorable. So I will give this a 4, but it is so close to a 5 I can understand why people would do it.

This is another album that I liked more the second time I heard it. I don't know, maybe I wasn't in the right frame of mind the first time. The one thing that did turn me off was all the falsetto singing. Not a lot of people can pull that off well, and you shouldn't use it too much anyway. The song styles had a lot wider range than I expected. It's nice to see a band trying different things. It's an album I may come back to, even with the falsetto... Top tracks: "Family Tree," "Halfway There"

Standard Smiths fare. "I wish you an Unhappy Birthday, 'cause you're evil and you lie." Okay. Sure, Morrissey. "Death At One's Elbow" was a nice change of pace, though. And the first song "A Rush and A Push and The Land Is Ours" was pretty good, but the rest was just bunch of whining Morrissey. Nope, not needing to hear it again. NEXT.

Taylor Swift is a more effective pop singer than folk singer. That's not exactly a controversial take, but it's the first thing I'm thinking listening to this, as opposed to the first album I heard in this challenge, "evermore." I'm not saying she's a BAD singer, the songs pretty much stand well on their own as pop songs. I just don't think of her an "alt-folk" singer. Almost every song could have been hit; they're produced to sound like it. I like the synth-pop feel. I can hear the smidge of auto-tune (gah), but that's in everything now. All in all, this is one of her biggest albums, and it's Taylor doing Taylor. For what it is, the pop songs work and I imagine anyone could probably do these as well, as opposed to some songs you imagine only one person ever doing it ("Layla", "You Make Me Feel Like A Natural Woman"). They're catchy, and they do work. It's just... each song is missing something, something that makes it go from a good pop song to a great song. There's no quirkiness, nothing that makes it go float above the rest. The album is not a classic, but it's a good pop album. And for that it gets a 4. Top songs: "Out Of The Woods," "Bad Blood," "Shake It Off"

So many of these songs have been covered by different artists whom I know already, so that made a lot of this album familiar to me. The biggest problem is the back up singers still have that dated feel in their voice. But even with that, the quality of the songs (for the most part) break through. Just wish the back up singers didn't sound so dated, though. Still, 67 years later, it holds up.

I had this CD and sold it back. It just didn't hit me. Still feel the same way about it. But the performances are good. I felt a bit of 60s Motown in some of the choices of instrumentation. "Howlin' For You," one of the big hits, do sound more like other songs than originals. "Howlin'" sounds like "Rock 'n Roll (Part 2)" by Gary Glitter. It's that drum beat, you know? Still it has that drive... But besides those and "Sinister Brother" it was just not very memorable for me. It's listenable but I don't go running back to it. Very forgettable. Next. Key songs: "Howlin' For You," "Sinister Brother"

I liked this album quite a lot. Lupe's flow and style was done really well and the sampling was really cool. Until the last song, "Outro". 12... MINUTES of Lupe thanking EVERYONE he knows. You know where you do that? IN THE LINER NOTES. You DON"T do it on a 12 minute song that goes nowhere. It was just... filler that was TOTALLY unnecessary. It was tedious and boring and I just kept asking... WHY? Maybe it was a hidden track on the original CD, I don't know. But it was just... gah. Totally took me out of the moment. Still, the rest of the album was really good. I would definitely listen to it again. Except for that last song. Gah. Top songs: "Kick, Push (I and II)" "I Gotcha" "The Emperor's Soundtrack"

The Hard Times (a satire punk news poster on social media) posted once "Babbling 18-Month-Old Sued By Red Hot Chili Peppers for Plagiarism". I think of this every time I hear "Around The World" and Kiedis sings "Ding ding, dong dong, ding ding, dong dong, ding ding". He lyrics and singing blurs the lines between singing and rapping, and not in a good way. RHCP is maddening. For every song that has some sentiment and you think "Ok, that's pretty decent" like in "Scar Tissue" you get dumb songs like "Get On Top". Any rocker like "Parallel Universe" that's like "whoa that's kicking some ass" comes with "I Like Dirt". So there's probably about half an album that's good, an half album that's just stupid. Good and stupid don't really mix for me. Top songs: "Parallel Universe," "Otherside," "Scar Tissue"

This sounds so much like a bunch of unfinished demos. A bunch of guys throwing things together in the studio, seeing what's going to work and what's not. I have a bunch of demos from bands that I _LIKE_. Doubt I listened to them more than once; there's a reason they're demos and NOT the finished product. Same for this, there's just nothing in it that was like, oooo that's a keeper. Next.

A very meditative album. Something to listen to and maybe try to go do some meditation, actually. My biggest problem is that each of the songs just... end. It's as if the musicians didn't know how to finish the songs. In rock, a lot of times it's easy to just fade the song out. But here, it seems more like the songs were supposed to be so many minutes long, and at the "x" minute mark, stop playing. It's very abrupt and jarring. I'm not suggesting the songs should transition into each other, but a crossfade or two would have been a good idea for some of these, I think. Still, this was a really good calming album, and something I will definitely revisit.

Let's start off with the fact that the vocalist is Nick Cave, who has never sung a happy song to save his life. There was one song that wasn't just noise ("Several Sins"), which was decent. The rest just seems to be a lot of Nick Cave screaming in to the mike. Some of the songs... I couldn't tell if this was supposed to be a joke or not: "Dead Joe"? And there were TWO versions? None of the songs should have been longer than three minutes. PERIOD. And maybe, MAYBE this could have worked as a punk band. And I could have maybe given 3 stars. But nope, 2 stars. But as it is, it wasn't as bad as Beefheart. It is reminiscent of it, though. I teeter back and forth between a 1 and a 2, but there is more something there than the 1's. I just can't put my finger on it. Next.

I have listened to this twice, and the second time had something more to it. Martyn's vocals definitely needed a second listen to work for me. I'm still not sold on them, really. But I did like the echo-y effect he used, even on songs like "Dealer" which I didn't care for as much. Maybe a third listen I will enjoy this even more, it kinda grows on you a bit. But as it is, it's not on my "wow" list.

All I could think as I was listening to this was "How remarkably... UK." The sound, lyrics, instrumentation and even the cover you could tell they were from the United Kingdom. That's not an indictment of the album, just something I noticed. There was a very particular vibe here, the songs sounded very... restrained. Like the band was holding back, keeping their emotions in check. It was weird, but I kinda dug it. It did remind a little of Nick Drake in that aspect. Riming Sinister with Minister in the title track... I mean, that's really the only way to go isn't it? I liked it, but I wish that there was more vocal variation or emotion. Nick Drake's albums do it better, I think. Top songs: "The Stars of Track and Field," "Get Me Away From Here, I'm Dying", "If You're Feeling Sinister", "Judy and The Dream Of Horses"

I liked this more than I expected, although a couple of the songs ran together for me a bit. From the first few moments of "Sex Beat," I knew this was something a little different. I liked the experimentalism of "For The Love Of Ivy," I liked "She's Like Heroin To Me" and how it captured the punk vibe. Really I liked all of it. I'm going to have to listen to it again, definitely something new on my radar.

Slipknot are definitely talented musicians. I will grant them that. Their drummers / percussionists are great, and Corey Taylor switches from that growl to singing voice is spectacular. But... over an hour of it is just... exhausting. I listen to 2 or three songs and I feel... tired. There were at least a few slower songs as a respite, which were good too. I have friends who are death metal fans, and while a song or two is good, there has got to be some variation for me. Or else it just gets tiring. So there were songs like "Vermillion Pt. 2", I'd like to hear more of that too. But I guess that's not totally their style...?

Three? THREE albums from this band? That's... a bit much. The album after the big hit is always hard. You want to show you're more than just a one-hit wonder. You try something different. And this album is... very different than the previous album. First off, a number of members left the band. So it was down to 4. Second off, this was not something that had "catchy" pop songs. But I liked things like "The Waltz" and "The Occasional Flicker". I was bothered by "One Of Those Things" and how blatantly it ripped off Zevon. But it was still not a bad song. It's a pretty solid album, and definitely a departure from "Come On Eileen," I just don't see why it was something I _NEEDED_ to hear. Perhaps the author is a DMR fan? Look, I have a lot of albums of one-hit wonders and their follow-ups which I think are better than the one-hit wonders. (Tracy Bonham, Living Colour, Extreme). They really progressed up from there. And maybe that's the point for this one. I guess I would have to listen to it again to "get it." But how many times do you have to do that for an album to hit you before you're just being hypnotized by the album itself? That's why I only try to do one or two listens to get my initial impressions. And my impression here is that it's good, but I don't see why THIS is on the list. Or why THREE of their albums are, to be honest.

I've only heard the "Paranoid" album. Hearing the first few notes from the title track, I wonder how much Spinal Tap took from this one. I didn't like how the songs seemed to medley into each other so much. And some of the lyrics are a bit naive ("Wicked World" in particular). But I can definitely see the progression from here to the next album, and songs like "Black Sabbath" to "War Pigs" and "Paranoid" in the next album. The drum work, has a very jazzy feel at times. Reminds me of how Bruford was in Yes in those early years. I keep meaning to listen to more of Sabbath, get the origins of metal. Hopefully it's more developed than some of the stuff on this. Maybe I was expecting more hearing "Paranoid" so many times. But this is indeed the first step. So keeping that in mind, I'll give it a 4 for being so revolutionary. Top tracks: "The Wizard," "N.I.B."

This is such a key album for the band. It is not my favorite of theirs, but I am more of a casual fan of Maiden than a hardcore fan. But without this album, so many more could not exist: "Powerslave," "Somewhere In Time," "Seventh Son Of A Seventh Son"... It has so many iconic songs: "Run To The Hills," "The Number Of The Beast..." But I never really liked the ending to that title track. It always felt like they weren't sure how to end it. Because of the limited time constraints, it feels like they just ended it, and if they had a little bit more time it could have ended more grandiosely. Songs like "Invaders" feel like Bruce would be straining for this nowadays. It's not the album I go to, that'd be either "Somewhere In Time" or "Powerslave". But you couldn't have gotten there without "Beast." And "Run To The Hills," man... it is such a great metal song.

I knew at least half the album beforehand, so that's a plus. "I Heard It Through The Grapevine" should not be 11 minutes long. Nope. Sorry. "Long As I Can See The Light" = it's weird hearing a sax in this band, but it does signal how Fogerty wanted to stretch the band a bit. One of my favorite CCR bits is in "Looking Out My Back Door" when the band slows to half time. It sounds so weird, but just works so damn well. And the hits keep coming on this "Who Will Stop The Rain?", "Traveling Band," "Up Around The Bend" ... great songs. Definitely a great album for people to start with for CCR, even with the 11 minute cover of "Grapevine." It's just you can tell which songs that are definitely NOT the hits. "Ramble Tamble," "Ooby Dooby" (someone was in a bit of a rhyming phase?). They stick out. But even so, it's a really good album to listen to. A strong 4 for me.

Well. That was... an album. Imagine that 6 years later, this group would have one of the most upbeat, danceable albums of all time. EVER. At least the most well-known song was the first track. Imagine if it was buried deep in the album. You'd have to listen to all the other songs, which are just sooooooo melancholy and morose to get to it. Again, what makes this the album to hear before I die? Is it the album to hear to MAKE me die? Or the album I hear AFTER I die? Trapped in hell? Geez guys, ONE uptempo song. ONE. Is that too much to ask for? It does have "How Can You Mend A Broken Heart," which is an iconic song. But one song doesn't cut it for an album. I'd give this 2 stars because of that one track, but there are 2-star albums that have more merit than THIS. Sorry.

I felt there was a bit more variation in this album, even though the vocalists did not seem to range a lot in their emotions while singing. It reminded me a bit of The Human League (you know "Don't You Want Me") but the sound was updated for the 21st century. There was no one song that I rolled my eyes at, so there's a plus. Usually I get to this kind of act and it gets a little over the top. I just wish there was a bit more from the singers (except in "Night and Day," that was pretty good, although it could have been edited down a bit). In fact a few of the songs could have been trimmed. And WTF were they singing in "Flutes" in the background? No, that wasn't annoying at all... Top tracks: "Let Me Be Him" "Night and Day"

XTC is one of those bands that when you finally listen to them, you wonder why they don't get more love. They're so quirky but the songs have that Beatlesque feel. This album, however, is not my favorite of theirs. Although the acoustic feel is great, I longed for more songs of old from them. But there are still good songs here, but just not things like "The Mayor of Simpleton" or "Senses Working Overtime". It feels like an album you have when you're having a Sunday brunch, and I'm not sure if that was the aim or not. So it's good and I definitely like it, but XTC definitely has better. Top tracks: "Harvest Festival," "Easter Theater," "Your Dictionary"

It was around this album that the Beatles started experimenting a LOT more in the studio with how their sound could be shaped. And it was this album that I really got more interested in their stuff. Of course, the first few albums are great. But to me they sounded like a lot of the other bands from that era, doing early 60s pop songs. And they even covered a few, which aren't bad. But their later stuff is just... so great to me. Half of the songs here are just so well-known to anyone who knows anything about the Beatles: "In My Life," "Norwegian Wood," "Drive My Car," "Nowhere Man (probably my favorite)," "Michelle," "I'm Looking Through You," "In My Life." "In My Life" has become such a different song than probably what it was meant to be, and it's been covered by so many, but the Johnny Cash cover sticks out to me only because it changed the song a lot. It didn't make it his own, but it did make it a lot more reflective at the end of the road than (I think) it was intended. Lesser-known songs like "Girl," "Rain," "Think For Yourself"... any band would have killed for songs like these. And these are not even the hits on the album. Just a great album through and through. Why do I love the Beatles? It's pretty much all here.

"Bloody Well Right" was my intro to Supertramp, really. I first heard a live version of that on the radio. It had such a great groove and then the chorus came on, and it sounded so British. And the saxophone! Man, I love that song. I still don't know how Hodgson sings high like that on things like "Dreamer". True story: we had bought the greatest hits of Supertramp and were going for a drive. It was only then that we realized "hey, there's a CD player in the car!" and we christened the car with that. (This was about 15 years ago or so, mind you.) You know, you listen to Supertramp's hits and you don't get the "prog rock" thing. But then you hear the full album and you hear songs like the title track, where there's only a few lyrics and the second half of the song is a lush, instrumental bit and you GET it. Definitely something I will go back to, but "Breakfast In America" I still enjoy more. Top tracks: "Bloody Well Right," "Crime Of The Century"

If you have listened to classic rock radio at all in the past 30 years, you've heard Bad Company. The problem is that the hits are good to great, but they only make up 3/8 of the album. The other stuff is.... not so good. The lyrics are trite ("I get up in the morning and it's just another day, pack up my belongings and I've got to get away..."), and the songs almost sound like they're ripped off of other songs. "Don't Let Me Down" sounds almost like "Give Peace A Chance," which is maddening. One of the things that I did not know is the difference between this band and Free. There are a number of songs here that I thought were from Free (same singer, so...?). Of the non-hit songs, "Seagull" is decent, but the whole lyric "And you fly all around 'til somebody shoots you down." seems kinda... morbid. How many people are shooting down seagulls? What did they ever do to YOU? So I'm going to give it a middling grade because you can't have only half of the songs be good. So 3 it is.

How many versions of this did we need on Spotify? Anyway, the instrumentals were pretty decent. I was surprised at first, as I had read they were considered "post punk". The instrumentation worked well. The vocals, however... are just not good. It's like someone from a Cure cover band. It doesn't fit well with what the rest of band is playing, and at times he's SCREAMING over the instruments, which got extremely annoying. The instrumentals bumped it up to listenable. Next.

I find it weird that the guy who introduced Sarah Vaughan said she would be using lyric sheets, and on two of the songs she didn't know the words. Were there no rehearsals? Particularly if they knew they were going to be recording this show? That kind of took me ought of it a bit. Apart from that, everyone in the band did a great job. I wish there was more to the performance, apart from the two songs where she flubbed. I guess that makes it sound more "real", but it just made feel less like an official recording, which was what I thought they were going for, and more like a bootleg recording. I have no problems with a bootleg recording; but it just seemed contradictory to what they were going for. I dunno, am I being too picky here? It's just that if it's something I am going to listen to it over and over, I don't want to skip tracks because of flubs. So 4 it is.

I found that I liked the shorter songs better. The longer songs (like "Four Women") I felt were a bit overwrought. I liked the idea of the song "Four Women," and maybe it works better live. The studio version just seemed a little too much for me. Still, it's Nina Simone. That voice is pretty iconic. Top tracks for me: "Break Down And Let It All Out," "Either Way I Lose," "I Love Your Lovin' Ways"

His first album is a DOUBLE album? Two albums of this? And every song just goes on and on and on. Some of them have obvious breaks in them which I guess you can call movements. But I shouldn't look at a song and think "10 minutes?!". It shouldn't be a chore. The music itself is okay, but every song just went on WAY too long and was way too repetitive. Next.

After the first two of Peter Gabriel's albums, which has some good and great stuff in it, we come to the beginning of PG's run of top-notch albums. Ones with not a single flub in it (yes, even "Start"). There are at least 5 albums in the run, I wasn't overly impressed with "Ovo." It's a bold idea to not have any cymbals at all in the album, but they're not missed. The drumming by Marotta and Collins are exceptional. The otherworldliness basswise by Levin fits so many of the songs, like "Not One Of Us" and "I Don't Remember". Many people think "Family Snapshot" is about Lee Harvey Oswald, when it is in fact based on the diaries written by Arthur Bremer, the man who shot presidential candidate George Wallace in 1972. Weird fact: it happened in the town I live in, one of the bits of history here. "Intruder" I first heard on "Plays Live," so hearing the studio version is even creepier. I enjoy this album a lot, and it is such a quantum leap from his other work. I go back and forth on it being a 4 and a 5, but with "Biko" on there it pushes it in to the 5 category. The thing about it being here is that is the album relistenable? Do I listen to it and want to play it again? I don't know if I do right away, but there are definite tracks I love to go back to. Classic album for me.

I know a number of people that swear by Joy Division. But the singer just... he didn't connect for me that first time. But listening to it a second time, I am coming to appreciate him more. The music is still a bit bleep blorp, but I get the sound they were going for. I feel like it's something I should come back to, unlike other albums where I was like "no, there's nothing there." Maybe I will...

Even before the popularity of the title track exploded last year, this became a big album for me back after college. One of the guys in my dorm my freshman year would play this and "Ride The Lightning" every morning to get him going for the day. So it would creep into my head pretty quickly, but this album definitely had more staying power. You can't deny the whole first side and how for a metal band each song does sound very different. But it's definitely Metallica. I like "The Call of Ktulul" in "Ride The Lightning" a little better because there's more of an ending. As opposed to here where "Orion" just fades out. Still, it's a great piece to jam on to. Even the lesser known tracks "Leper Messiah" are well known by the fans. It's almost a proggy stomper. To me it's a classic, high energy metal must.

Wikipedia calls this one of the greatest live albums ever made. Although I don't know if I can go that far, you can definitely feel the electricity from the band. They are definitely "on". What's interesting is that some of the songs that we know well ("Domino") sound different, but still feels "right". The band reminds me a lot of the Blues Brothers band, actually. It's interesting that there's a box set of this same band with performances that are (supposedly) vastly different from this album, but just as good. This was such a fun album to listen to. Really enjoyed it.

You can't put curry on everything. It felt that many of the songs Sawhney forced a lot of things into his songs, and sometimes ... it just doesn't work. "Immigrant" is one of the songs that comes to mind, where the woman is singing and there's the Indian singing along with it. The two just didn't mesh for me. The first two songs felt. like they were the same tempos and drums, I almost thought it was the same song. Sampling Oppenheimer as well? It just felt very much like he was throwing everything possible into some of the music. And putting every spice into a food is just... overwhelming.

I've always enjoyed the B-52s. They're fun, and very danceable. It always feels like the song comes part for them, and they just make up random lines for the songs. Sometimes it works ("Rock Lobster" ("6060-842") but sometimes the lyrics are real nonsensical and kinda take me out of it ("Dance This Mess Around," "Planet Claire"). The worst culprit for me is "There's a Moon In The Sky (Called The Moon)". The lyrics just seem so dada. I hate when people say about a movie to "just shut off your brain when you watch it" but I think it really applies the B-52s. The song's music is really supposed to take over and you have to go with it. And for the most part, it's not a problem. Still... "Do the Hypocrite?" What kind of dance _IS_ that?

I like The Flaming Lips, but I wish their music was a little less... hippie-esque, and went a little harder. You can hear tinges of it in "Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots (Part 2)", but if they could just ... BOOM! That's what they need. They remind me a bit of Yes music, but Yes has more of a ROCK sound to it. Even the etherealness to "And You And I" has a bombast to it. "Do You Realize??" seems to be going for that, but it's all one note, and there's nothing more meaty behind it for me. Top tracks: "Do You Realize??" "Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots (Part 2)"

I wanted to be more excited about this album, as it is supposed to be very proto punk. But by proto punk, it seems to be more "DIY" than anything else. It doesn't mean that the songs themselves are overly catchy. Some of them got a bit annoying more than anything else. (Looking at you, "Cuckoo".) So yeah, the songs themselves were not that good for me. Next.

This feels like XTC would have been if instead of the Beatles the band worshipped more at the altar of Leonard Cohen or the Pogues. 1 album of this would be good to listen to at a time. 3 albums' worth? All at once? That's asking a lot. By the 3rd disc I had pretty much tuned out and it had started to sound very dreary. I knew the Book of Love with Merritt's, but I did not connect that it was on this. Nice to hear the original version. I would have liked these more if I listened to each disk separately. Release them as separate volumes, maybe. It's just way too much in one sitting. Top tracks: "The Book Of Love," "Nothing Matters When We're Dancing," "The Things We Did And Didn't Do," "You're My Only Home"

I have been putting off listening to Portishead for the first time. I'm not sure why, but I think I wanted to be in the right frame of mind and not dismiss them. Fortunately, that's exactly where I was because godDAMN this is some good stuff. It's just oozing sultry and lounge singer, and yet putting it firmly into a more modern-esque (I say modern-esque because it is 30 years old) setting than the singers from the 20s and 30s. You wouldn't really think the two styled would cross over so well, but they do in every single song on this album. Kinda wish "Glory Box" didn't fade out, but that's being picky. Wow, so glad I took the time to sit down and listen to this. Really, really good stuff.

The singer is awful. It reminds me bit of Tim Blake Nelson in "The Ballad of Buster Scruggs." But that at least had some moments. This just feels like a band that is trying to put together something, but not sure what. Why again was this put on the list? I feel like some of the songs could be done well by a band with a decent singer, maybe an alt country band. At least it's short. Next.

I was expecting her to sound a bit more like Adele, actually. She has a bit more of a torch song feel to her voice, and a lot of the songs lent to that feel as well. The second to last track, though, REALLY hit hard. More of that, please. I think she could go as a good rocker. Top tracks: "Dance Til We Die," title track

This seems like one of those albums where you had to be there, back in '72 to get its significance. Now, over 50 years later, it's easy to miss what makes it extraordinary. It seems just like a pop album from that time, which is all fine and good, but the fact that it was made by John Cale does bring it up a notch. I dunno, maybe I need to give this another listen. Top tracks: Title track, "Macbeth," "Antarctica Starts Here"

I was pleasantly surprised, these guys rock. I like how they seamlessly flow from one idea to another in their songs. Transitions are effortless to them, which is nice to see. Sometimes the songs fit in a few too many ideas, but I'd rather have that than not enough. Top tracks: "Bess St.," "Back At The Farm," "Street Joy"

I liked the songs that Sonic Youth did more than the soundscapes. They were more focused and concise. Things like "Madonna and Sean and Me" are just going to sound like a ramble. The spoken word piece "In The Kingdom #19" actually worked really well for me. Top songs "Bubblegum," "In The Kingdom #19," "Tom Violence"

Remember albums? Things that were 35-45 minutes long? Not this thing. Let's make it over an hour, with 2 extra mixes that were just as repetitive. "Stop That Crazy Thing" would have sounded like a guy with brand new looping software tech if not for Junior Reed. In fact, most of the featured performers really took the songs to another level. But I really did not need two versions of "Stop That Crazy Thing". That really got annoying after awhile. Top tracks: "My Telephone," "Smoke Dis One".

If these were the ones they selected, what are the works they didn't select? Anyway, the problem with electronica is that you hear enough of it, and it starts to sound a) the same and b) like anyone can do it. There's doesn't feel like there's any thing in it, and it got boring very quickly. Next.

Sixty years ago. SIXTY. For most of us, our parents may not even have met yet. For some people who may later read this review, your parents may not have even been born. I thought about that a lot when this album was playing. I had never head of this act, but not only was he huge in France but there was some crossover that spilled into the United States. Other musicians covered his work, and from the audience reaction he was huge. And yet, I knew nothing of this man or what he was singing. But the passion was obviously there. I would have liked more of the orchestra to back him up some, but that's more of a quibble. I gave this bigger leeway because of the fact that it was 60 years old, and obviously there was something to the phenomenon of Brel I had no connection with. He performed the pieces well, but I didn't have as much of a connection as someone who spoke French would have. He didn't just come out for 30 minutes, did he? THat doesn't seem like a long concert. Hopefully these were just some of the highlights. Anyway, for what it was, it was... okay.

And we're back to Dylan. I have heard at least one or two tribute albums, and a number of songs from this album have been on it. Not surprising, they're really good, well crafted lyrically and musically. Just... Dylan's voice, again. "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" is always a good song to sing along to. Nice opener. "Leopard-Skin Pill Box Hat" I heard on the 30th Anniversary Concert. The original I do like as much, Dylan's voice does work. "Sad Eyed Lady Of The Lowlands"... I had heard a cover done by Jon Anderson. I thought "wow this is long." Did not realize the original song itself is over 11 minutes! "Just Like A Woman" - the few covers I have heard sound like the original, except for Richie Havens. If you have not heard his interpretation from the Dylan 30th Anniversary Concert, you really need to. Chills every time I hear it. "Stuck Inside of Mobile With The Memphis Blues Again" does not win the award for longest title, but it is still pretty long. Fun track to listen to, just like "Absolutely Sweet Marie." So ultimately, it's understandable why so many people come to this album to cover Dylan. It has some classic tunes, easily coverable. I would like some good interpretations of the tracks with better vocalists. Standout tracks: "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35," "Just Like A Woman," "Lepoard-Skin Pill Box Hat," "Absolutely Sweet Marie"

True story - I accidentally listened to the wrong MG album first ("What's Going On"), which I find a better album. Still, this is definitely a good album. Besides the title track the rest has that vibe the title track wants you to have. But I kinda feel after the first song, the rest doesn't compare as much. It's still pretty good, but the first song just overshadows it. A little premature single-fication. It's ok, Marvin. It happens to everyone... Still, I liked it, but once you get past the first song, the rest is good, but not as good as the first one. Hard to live up to, I guess. But definitely... groovy. "What's Going On" is still his masterpiece.

I kinda liked some of the stuff they were selling here. They... _SEEMED_ like a light, breezy group, something to listen to and bop your head to. But some of the songs did feel VERY repetitive (I'm looking at you, "Smoke 'Em"). And even though the songs were gritty, they were goofy at the same time. The dichotomy didn't work for me as much as I was hoping it would. I mean, I got the idea from the first song, but it just wore thin after a while for me. ANd that cover of "All The TIme In The World," yikes. Top songs: ""The Fun Lovin' Criminal", "The Grave and the Constant", "Scooby Snacks"

When I was a kid, I had read a Spider-Man comic that made mention of “Mantovani”. “Mantovani? What group does HE play in?” At the time, I didn’t totally get the joke, but I understood the point: the character was out of touch and out of date. It’s what I felt listening to every bit of this album. Well, maybe not the first song. That kinda felt like it had a bit of charm. But after that, it just felt so… dated. Next.

It's interesting that Spotify has changed the album cover title to TTD's new name, but here it has not. Strange that there are also 2 versions listed in Spotify, but there really does not seem to be a difference between them. There were a couple of tracks that oozed 80s, ("Rain," "Sign Your Name") that had such a cheesy drum machine sound on it that it took me out of it. Still, "Wishing Well" is still a hummable tune and I'll give him that.

The problem with a solo album by the singer in a band is that the songs need to be further away than from what the band creates. It was a little easier for Phil Collins to start, as his solo albums were more pop but had some other influences that were not as proggy as Genesis was. (I know it's hard to think that way, but compare "Duke" to Phil Collins' first solo album.). There was one performance I saw of Genesis AND Phil Collins band somewhere where the announcer said "Phil Collins... Genesis... the Phil Collins band..." and it kinda made me think he was equating all three of them. So that point seems to come up here, with The Nightfly. Listening to most of it, it's hard to separate it from what Steely Dan did only 2 or 3 years earlier. Is that really fair in terms of what Fagen was doing? Steely Dan was only a duo, him and Becker. Obviously a lot of the material on Steely Dan is his. So making a solo album songs will indeed feel like Steely Dan, unless you purposefully make material different than the group sound (no one would say Peter Gabriel's albums sound just like Genesis, even the first album). Even the first song "I.G.Y." I knew and seriously thought it was a Steely Dan song. This is not an indictment, it's a good, catchy song. The next song "Green Flower Street" I had heard before, always a nice track. Ultimately, I get that he couldn't just call the band "Steely Dan", but the album feels so much like it to me. I wished that there was more of a deviation, what is the difference between Fagen and Steely Dan? Where is the line. Maybe I'm nit-picking. The songs themselves I enjoyed. Top tracks: "I.G.Y.," "Green Flower Street:

When an album makes you research more and more of the artist, that tells you something about the performer. It took me a few tracks, but I realized Wainwright sounded a lot like Thom Yorke. It doesn't really hit you until you hear "Go and Go Ahead," which was probably my favorite tracks off of this album. Definitely can see Radiohead doing this one, making a bit more in their style. But Wainwright's album does go off into different genres, which I appreciated, even when some of them didn't hit as much for me. ("Vibrate," for example.). Still, this was really enjoyable once I got into it after a few tracks, and I am definitely going to listen to more of his stuff, which says a lot. Top tracks: "Go and Go Ahead," "Dinner at Eight," "Oh What A World"

I used to like the Eagles a lot more. I had their two Greatest Hits Vol. I & II. But... the band can't decide what they ARE. Country or rock. And this album has too many songs that are so stuck firmly in country, it just... irks me. Definitely "Hotel California" should be on the list, but not sure this album should. The non-hit songs are kinda middling to me. And "Witchy Woman" was never a song I particularly cared for. Top tracks: "Take It Easy," "Peaceful, Easy Feeling"

I knew very little about this one. I like that they call their music "Desert Noir." (BTW, if you are going to listen to this album, try to hear the 20th anniversary edition, it has a good cover of "Alone Again Or" stuck in the middle of the album. Why it's not at the end of the album I do not know.) I did like the instrumentals more than some of the vocal pieces, but the range of all of the songs was all over the place (sometimes that's a bad thing, this time it was a good thing). A band I may explore more of. Top tracks: "Crumble," "Sunken Waltz," "Dub Latina," "Not Even Stevie Nicks..."

I mean, Miles Davis _AND_ John Coltrane? This can't be lower than a 4 just for the two of them alone. Unless you are not a jazz fan at all. Then why would you want to listen to this anyway? I feel there is a bit of sameness between the first two tracks, but that's probably quibbling. Most of the songs from this era have a similar feel: intro the theme, everyone solos, bring back the theme. But man, what those solos are here. Every single performer: Adderley, Davis, Coltrane, Evans, Chambers on bass and Cobb on drums... ALL firing on all cylinders. Quintessential jazz. Love listening to this one every so often, probably should listen to it more.

I don't want to insult the guy, but I just don't find this exciting at all. Considering we're talking about an album from almost 50 years ago, the technology of the time to produce an album like this is pretty staggering. But now? It just seems very noodle-y to me. At least he had the electronic percussion, which works with everything else. Makes it all sound... otherworldly. I can see where most of the other electronic music came from all of this. You decide whether that's a good thing or not. The fade out on the last track works for me, too. So... yeah, I can dig it. Just definitely not something I will come back to, and I appreciate it's historical importance. Next.

Even without the first track, that iconic first track, this album has so much going for it. So much that brings us into the world of prog (I world I dearly love). You've got "I Talk To The Wind," which is pretty much where we start with prog songs with flutes. Peter Gabriel, Tull, and so many others probably wouldn't have gotten very far without this. Then you have the dark keyboard mellotrons of "Epitaph". Such a great track that Lake revived it in the live set of ELP. "Moonchild"... the intro is great. The noodling... at first I didn't care for it at all, but when you realize this is where all of that 72-74 improv stuff the band did COMES from, it makes a bit more sense. Still, you feel like you had to be there. And back to the mellotron with the title track. Picturesque lyrics, grand vocals, acoustic guitar and flute solos. Great, great stuff. And can we take a moment to appreciate the drum work of Michael Giles? It's just stellar, on every track. Personally I like his work on "Moonchild"; it makes the intro that much more interesting. And now we come to "21st Century Schizoid Man". I have heard this song so many times I can't tell you how many. Live, studio, covers... it's one of my favorite tracks of all time. Without a doubt, I could listen to this track at least 2 or 3 times in a row. It's essential to this album, and essential to the history of prog rock. A must for me.

The band and singer reminded me of The Damned a lot. I think I was kind of expecting that, but they seemed a little... sloppier (didn't think that was possible for a punk band, but there you go)? Even so, I thought there were moments that reminded me of early Damned albums. But then there were moments of... yikes. I guess I've gotten old, but it just seems too over the top, like the cover of "Fever." Good, but not WOW good. Top tracks " I Was A Teenage Werewolf."

I think the whole idea of the "Who Do You Love Suite" is a novel idea. It's just that I've heard "Who Do You Love" done a bunch of times, and I keep thinking of Bo Diddley or even George Thorogood as a better version. The intro to QMS' version is just not as exciting to me. "Calvary" kinda peters out at the end for me, and I wish there was more info as to where each of the songs was played (Fillmore East or West), but it sounds like the band was so high they probably don't remember. As it is, it's good, but doesn't stand out for me. I had always heard of these guys, but if this is their best, I'm glad I hadn't sought them out before.

This is probably the album I would tell most people to start with is they wanted to know about Cat Stevens. I mean, it probably has the two biggest songs of his on it. And the second one I probably wouldn't have known if it weren't for the movie "Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2" (ok, to be fair I have probably heard it before.) Most of the others have that acoustic folk-y fare, but it's done so WELL. There are a couple of clunkers, trying to be more blues-y which doesn't seem to work as well ("Hard Headed Woman", "Longer Boats"). And I would have liked the title track to have gone on longer. But the opener really connects, which is always important. "Sad For Lisa" and "But I Might Die Tonight" are ok. So all in all it's a decent effort, something I might come back to, and that relistenability for me brings it to a 3.6, which rounds up to a 4. Top tracks: "Wild World," "Where Do The Children Play?" "Father and Son"

This being the first album of the Stones, I can't help but compare it to the Beatles' first album. And at least the Beatles' first album had some original material on it. This being almost all covers doesn't make it any less historically important, but I can understand how it's not as known to the non-fan. ("Where are the hits, man?"). There's not a big runaway single like "She Loves You". The songs in here are catchy enough, and comments about this being "the REAL" Rolling Stones seem false to me. You ask anyone to name a Rolling Stones tune, they won't be naming something off of this. I can see where all of the band's work comes from from this, but this is not the album I would say to start with.

Again, we fall into the problem where the "hit" overshadows everything else on the album. The other stuff is good, I like the opener along with "Brief Candles". But it just doesn't compare to "Time of the Season". Putting it at the end was probably a good idea, because putting it at the beginning would make everything else seem so much lesser. Still, the other stuff is decent and I liked it as much, but that last track is so good it takes away from the other songs a little bit. I know I would listen to some of those tracks again, so that's something. It's straddling the edge for me, around a 3.5. So rounding up it's a 4, I guess. Top tracks: "Time Of The Season", "Care Of Cell 44," "Maybe After He's Gone," "Brief Candles"

One of my favorite albums in college was PiL's "Album". Really, that seems like a John Lydon solo album. He assembled who he wanted and made some great rock tunes. This is a bit more experimental, and unfortunately, most of the tracks go on WAY too long. "Albatross," the 10 minute opener, gave me a good idea that I was in for a bit of a slog. Still, this is definitely a step up from their first album. I don't know what that really says. I did like "Poptones," and "Death Disco," but things like "Chant" _REALLY_ overstayed their welcome. Better than the first album? I gave the first album a 2, so this gets a 3.

The album is called a combination of country and rock, but I heard mostly country here. Not that there's anything wrong with it. It's a shame that Parsons died before this album could take him anywhere; there is a lot of interesting tracks. The harmonization with Emmylou Harris definitely stands out. The last track with Linda Ronstadt... you can tell it's obviously her. I'm interested in the tracks they culled from the album. I know it was mainly the wife's will, but still I am going to have to seek them out. I enjoyed it for what it was: a good , slightly quirky country album. Not something I will definitely go back to right away. Top tracks: "Love Hurts," "Medle Live From Northern Quebec"

The songs were just so demo-y. It's a shame, because I just kept going back in my head to "Piper At The Gates Of Dawn," and kept thinking of how much these songs would have evolved with a full band writing with him as opposed to him doing it all by himself. The lyrics definitely had that psychedelic feel, which give you no coherence whatsoever. It's one of the things that frustrate me about some of Cream's songs. I just would have. liked these to have been more developed. Not something I'm coming back to. As soon as I heard it, I wanted to hear "Piper" again.

The Go-Go's played at my college back in the early 90s. Honestly, I would have rather had seen the Bangles, they always seemed more rock to me. But the problem is that if you listen to their hits and not to the deeper cuts, you realize that the band was doing more than just doing "pop" songs. Songs like "This Town" had a bit of a punk feel to it, with one or two extra beats thrown in, which is interesting. I liked "Lust to Love", too. All in all, there was a lot to the album I dug, and not just the two "big" hits. The few songs I did not care for: "Tonite". It just kept reminding me of The Ramones' "I Just Want To Have Something To Do" (to-naht. Tooo-naaahhhht...). "Skidmarks On My Heart" (ew) and "How Much More" which just felt like a poor follow-up song to the first track on the album, "Our Lips Are Sealed." I enjoyed this album, even most of the deep cuts. It made me respect the band a bit more than I did even way back from college. So I'll give it a 3.6, which rounds it up to a 4.

"Genius" is always a hard word to put into a title. You start throwing it into things, it really makes you look at the work and think "is it REALLY?" My first reaction to a number of the songs was "where is the piano?" But looking at the wikipedia, I see there was a reason for the lack of it in the first half. It did how up very tastefully in a number of pieces at the end, like "Tell Me You'll Wait for Me". I wish that the pieces with backup singers didn't have the older sound to it. That vocal singing screams very old-timey. Aside from that, a lot of the songs do not sound like they were done almost 70 years ago. But that chorus, ugh. I had heard "Alexander's Ragtime Band" before, and I had always felt part of his singing was a little off. I think it's just his coming in on the off beat on that last line of the chorus, it just always seems a little jarring to me. I dug this a lot, the jazz and orchestra coming together, I just wanted the backing vocals to be more modern. Top tracks: "Let The Good Times Roll," "Am I Blue," "Come Rain Or Come Shine"

Even with the first song beig the title track, the rest of the album does not fall into the trap of being weaker than the one song. The band is very punchy and gives you that cross between jazz and soul which crosses between a lot of lines (and timelines). His version of "How Can You Mend A Broken Heart" grooves so much more than the original to me, which I always found a little on the slow side. A lot of the songs blended together, but in a good way. I found that none of them disrupted the flow of the music. It was always very smooth, even as Al Green was doing so many vocal gymnastics throughout. The only song I felt was a little week was "La La For You," but I enjoyed the rest pretty well. Definitely a great feel-good album. I will come back to this one. It's a 4 for me right now but I can imagine it going up to a 5. Top tracks: Title track, "How Can You Mend A Broken Heart?", "What Is This Feeling?"

I'm not sure about this album, it reminds me a bit like the Flaming Lips, but more of an independent band or even a one-person operation (which it seems to be). I dig the instrumentals, they seem to be a bit of a break and not too noodle-y. At first I was thinking this was a concept album, but I realize that was an error. What was the "Body Rap" track for, again? That was... a choice. "Once Around The Block" had a feel of a simpler band, but there was a lot more going on than you'd expect. Even though the title of the song is one thing, I liked "Pissing In The Wind". The sentiment was real, there. Interesting debut album. I think I have to listen to this again, and maybe more. That says something about the album, to me at least. Top tracks: "Everybody's Stalking," "Once Around The Block," "Pissing In The Wind," "Epitaph"

It's weird, because I know I have heard the title track before, but I can't place it. The etherealness to every track is amazing. I know it was something that Kate Bush was shooting for, but this definitely outdoes it in a lot of ways. I know thys was likened to shoegaze, but there was something brighter to it. I will say some of the songs did to start to sound a bit same-y, but things like the title track and "Fotzepolitic" were definitely interesting to listen to. I just wish I remember where I had heard the title track before. Top tracks: title track, "Fotzepolitic," "Road River and Rail," "Frou-frou foxes in Midsummer Fires"

Coming out of Seattle, the album reminded me a lot of Nirvana, but a bit... goofier. The lyrics, mainly. I don't know why I didn't listen to Mudhoney before. They're definitely in the same vein of the other Seattle bands I enjoy. It's something I am going to have to rectify, hearing this album which I enjoyed a lot. Top tracks: "Halloween," "In ' Out Of Grace," "You Got It (Keep It Outta My Face)"

This was not what I was expecting from the title. I was expecting this to be a bit more like a samba mix. Singers a different language I usually think of as just another instrument, but the music... I was expecting it to sound more latino. But it's not Latino, it's Brazilian / and African. They're two different styles. Having said that, let's talk about what the music WAS, not what it WASN'T. Songs like "Xica Del Silva" reminded me a little of "Jingo Va" from Santana, but in a more frenetic way. There were a lot more layers in some of these songs, which I dug. I did feel many of the songs started to sound the same, I was hoping for some of them to have at least a little bit of a different tempo and I just didn't get that feel. Maybe I need to listen to another time, I dunno. Top tracks: Title track, "Xica Del Silva"

In the competition between Aguilera, Brittney Spears, and their other contemporaries, I think this album shows she really threw down the gauntlet. The biggest problem I found here is that it's just too padded. There are at least two or three songs that could have been trimmed out to make this a single disc. OR release them as two different albums. Songs like "Thank You" felt too self-congratulatory. With "F.U.S.S." I understood why it was on the album, but again it could have been cut out to make one disc. Cutting this down to one record would give you a side each to showcase the different musical sides of C.A. Top tracks: "Ain't No Other Man", "Oh Mother," "Candyman", "Hurt", " Mercy On Me"

This was probably the best of all of the Morrissey / Smiths albums we've had so far. But... why so many? I mean, 3 Smiths albums and three solo Morrissey albums? That's a lot, isn't it? It opened pretty well, some more of a rocking feel and not as much whining as I was expecting. But somewhere halfway through I had an uncontrollable urge to just punch Morrissey in the face. Most likely because of titles like "We Hate It When Our Friends Become Successful" (If that's how you feel about your friends, you have serious issues) or "You're The One For Me, Fatty" (I mean... f**k you, man.) So the lyrics just got more whiny and mopey, but the music itself was pretty decent. Just... f**ing Morrissey, man. Top tracks: "You're Gonna Need Someone On Your Side," "I KNow It's Gonna Happen Someday"

I like that the Byrds were willing to stretch and grow as a band. The fact that they were one of the first bands to use the Moog is pretty cool (although the songs they used it on were not that interesting). I knew that "Triad" was the song that Crosby had a lot of dispute with the Byrds. His performance on the live CSNY album is spellbinding. This is pretty good too, but I was so used to the live acoustic performance this paled in comparison. The first bunch of songs really open the album well. "Artificial Energy" has a great horn set, and the cover "Goin' Back" works well. "Draft Morning" was a bit on the nose for me, but most protest songs usually are. "Get To You" has a bit of a waltz feel, but I dig the 5/4 time. ("White Room" is probably one of my favorite 60s songs.) Things I did not care for: "Space Odyssey." The effects just got really annoying, and the lyrics just felt like someone who had no idea what they were talking about writing science fiction. I wish the moog was incorporated in other songs better. It's funny how we think of the band as just "Turn! Turn ! Turn!" when they went on for a while with quality work. This is an example of it, I really enjoyed this album. Top tracks: "Artificial Energy," "Goin' Back," "Get To You," "Draft Morning"

The first couple of tracks, I started thinking it was a standard alt-rock album. But then, something weird happened. Somewhere around "Streets of Kenny," I started getting in to it more. The song felt like a cross between REM and Blue Oyster Cult (in a good way). And the sudden cutoff was a pleasant surprise. The quick transition to "Re-Instated" was cool, too. But it shouldn't take halfway through the album to be like "wow, that was cool", you know? I'm not always expecting the first track to hit (although that helps), but it shouldn't take THAT long. Top tracks: "Streets of Kenny," "Re-Instated"

You know, I can appreciate experimental music. But there should be at least some singing, somewhere. And improvisational music shouldn't feel like you can tell they're just making it up. There should be sense to it. This just feels... nonsensical. At least it's short. Next.

We were driving home yesterday, and I was already pretty tired. So this probably would not have been the best thing to drive and listen to. Definitely not something to operate heave machinery to. Saying that, it was great contemplative, meditative music. But you definitely have to be in the right mood for it. Top tracks: "Olsen olsen," "Vidrar vel til loftarasa"

I had not seen the film, so I did not know what to expect. Having said that, the drumming on this throughout is phenomenal. There was a bit of a combo of etherealness and prog rock, which I think was the drumming more than anything else. The spoken word piece near the end was a bit... odd, but "Word Hurricane" worked for me a lot. Top tracks: "Word Hurricane," "Dark Messages"

I enjoyed it, but it was difficult for me to single out Nusrat. I know his vocals from the few songs he had done for other artists that I know ("Signal To Noise" by Peter Gabriel). Still, the songs had slightly different tempos and moods so you could tell the difference between them. I did not like how the last song ended. It seemed like they lost the idea, and it just... petered out. I think I need a second listen to it, but I just felt like there are better examples of his stuff.

I wasn't expecting this noveau synth pop, it was pretty cool. I liked the vocals, there weren't as much auto-tune as I expected. The keyboards were... supposed to be overwhelming (duh... where are the guitars?). I liked that the males also had a chance to sing lead. Top tracks: "The Mother We Share," "Under The Tide," "You Caught The Light"

This is probably the best Roxy Music I've heard, and I'm not sure why. It's the same lineup. I think the big thing i the vocals. Bryan Ferry seems a lot more polished in the vocals, I guess. Maybe they just didn't rub me the wrong way like they did other times, I just dug them more. So 2 out of the 3 releases we've heard I have liked. I really don't know why I didn't like Roxy Music when I first heard them, but they never clicked with me. I think the best of I had at one time was a combo them and Bryan Ferry stuff, but songs like "Prairie Rose" really stuck with me. Top tracks: "Prairie Rose," "The Thrill Of It All," "Three and Nine"

Come on, three albums of theirs? I like the guy's voice, it's a bit more of a peppy Robert Smith's. And the horn line is fun, but a bit... canned? But I think that's more the recording than anything else. Instrumental track is pretty good. There are moments that I don't think the singer is just... not the right fit for the song, like "Thankfully Not Living In Yorkshire..." I want someone wiht a quirkier voice. "I'm Just Looking" works, although I wonder if it was sung by a torch song singer how much better would it be? But I guess if the album was done by rotating singers, it wouldn't be DMR, would it? It's a good album, but I don't see why this is so different from the other Dexys albums. Or what makes it a historic, "You gotta hear this" album. Top songs: "Burn It Down," "I'm Just Looking," Keep It," "The Teams That Meets In Caffs."

I had just listened to a different album with a horn line, and maybe it was the engineer, but the horns here seemed so much warmer. Loved the quick transition from "Shining Star" to the title track. I don't think it would have worked any other way. A xylophone in "Happy Feelin'"?! More of that, please! That was just so... joyous. I think the only thing I wasn't big on was the noodling at the end of "All About Love" although I liked the little extra bit at the end of "See The Light". This was just a damn good album, all the way around. I did feel the singing in "See The Light" was a little too falsetto, but I really enjoyed this one. It was just... fun. Top tracks: "Shining Star," "Happy Feelin'", "Africano"

I mean, there's the one song everyone knows if they have HEARD of The Verve. But what's interesting is that seemed to get more and more repetitive to me the more the song went on. The other songs on the album were more interesting to me because I hadn't heard them before. Which is different from a lot of other albums where I know the hit (or hits) and the other songs are not as interesting. (BTW, how much more Britpop is on this list? There seems to be an overwhelming amount.) Songs like "Weeping Willow" and "The Rolling People" I really enjoyed. The second of the two had a shuffle feel which was interesting. The singer reminded a bit of Oasis, but without as much bite. (Really, I thought "Bittersweet Symphony" was an Oasis song to begin with.) So I guess because of the incorporation of the orchestra? THAT makes it so relevant? Still it, had a few good tracks, but mostly standard britpop fare. Top tracks: "Bittersweet Symphony," "The Rolling People," "The Drugs Don't Work," "Weeping Willow"

I felt a bit indifferent about this album. I could see where it was a goth primer. But I wasn't that enthused about the album. But then I listened to it a second time, and I realized: you cannot have Nine Inch Nails without this album. Listen to "Flood II," and tell me you do not hear "Head Like A Hole." It really changed my thinking about this album. I really started to dig it a lot more. Still, "1959"... yikes. Would have liked to have heard the whole completed track of "Neverland" instead of just a fragment. Top tracks: "Lucretia My Reflection," "Flood II", "This Corrosion"

The album before this one was by Sisters of Mercy. The only reason I say this is I was expecting THAT music to sound more like this, and Ministry's music to sound more like Sisters of Mercy. Very odd. Having said that, most of the songs are... yeah. "Jesus Built My Hotrod," at least, you can TELL that was tongue in cheek. Most of the rest of the album is just VERY VERY intense. But at least there is some sense of humor in there with JBMH. You can tell the band's distaste with the church, which is probably warranted. I liked it, but not something I am going to come back to on a regular basis. Top tracks: "Just One Fix," "Jesus Built My Hotrod," "Psalm 69"

Rock historians have credited the album as one of the first rock/pop concept albums, with the loose common theme of social observation. I never liked the idea of something being a concept album just because the songs have a common theme. In my mind, a concept album tells a story. By that reasoning, any guy that sings songs about getting with a girl could call it a concept album. Saying that, (and I am a fan of the Kinks) a lot of the songs just don't stick out for me. "Sunny Afternoon" is catchy but I knew it from before. Most of the others felt kinda forgettable for me, and that's NEVER good. But the 60s Kinks never grabbed me anyway. I'll give it three because it's still the Kinks, but it just doesn't stand out for me at all.

Solid, old school, hip-hop album. Sure, a couple of songs are a bit goofy (looking at you "Milky Cereal" and "Jingling Baby"), but the first bunch of songs are so strong you can almost forgive their goofiness. Almost. One of the good things about the album, I wasn't waiting for the "hit," the title track, which is so undeniable. The first bunch of songs were just as good: "The Boomin' System" slams, "Around The Way Girl" is a great, cool song, "Eat 'em Up L Chill" is a good egg-em on song. The groove to pretty much every song I enjoyed, I can see how this album was such a success, even without the title track. The two songs I mentioned "Milky Cereal" and "Jingling Baby"... yeah, they're goofy. But I still kinda liked them. The album is replayable. There's no skits or goofy stuff that breaks up the song that you want to skip on a replay. Classic album, really enjoyed it.

I first heard the US 1979 version of this album back in the early 90s, probably. My sister dubbed it onto a cassette for me. So hearing the original version is weird, because the order is different from what I expect, along with some of the songs are different. Still, what a great punk statement. So many of the songs aren't even 3 minutes long, but they don't feel so short. Probably "Deny" and "Protex Blue" I am not as familiar with because they were not on the US version, but I'm digging on them, they feel like new Clash songs to me. The only band that matters? Maybe, maybe not. But still, a great punk album.

I never think of Rubén Blades as a singer because I first saw him on the screen in Predator 2 (I know, I know). Anyway, I enjoyed the performances. The latino groove was enjoyable, the only song I did no care for as uch was (interestingly) the only song Rubén Blades did not write: "Ojos". The rest was really good salsa. Definitely something I will come back to.

Imagine recording an album that people call "revolutionary," being called "the next Pink Floyd". What do you call for the next album? You make an album that is very different from Pink Floyd. An electronic / krautrock album, which still has its moments leaning in to Pink Floyd. But even so, this album, along with Amnesiac, has a one-two punch that is quite satisfying. I like "Amnesiac" a bit more, but both albums have great tracks that go on my top 10 Radiohead tracks. Songs of note: "Everything In Its Right Place" - A mysterious song that builds and builds. "The National Anthem" - what a chaotic, swirling tempest. And yet, it still works. "Optimistic" - it's weird that this was the first single, but it still works "Motion Picture Soundtrack" - the hidden track doesn't work for me as much. I know back then, hidden tracks were a big thing. And sometimes they were pretty cool, but this one is just... eh. So of the two, I like "Amnesiac" better, but this one is still pretty good.

The singer is from England, and yet all I keep thinking to myself is how... French this whole thing sounds. It's not punk, really. But "punk" shouldn't be just one thing. You can't (and shouldn't) put any music style in to an easy to fit box. Anyway, maybe it wasn't as much French as smirky to me. The music backing it was pretty decent. I liked the fact that ultimately it wasn't easily classifiable. Still, the vocals kinda put me off after a while. So I doubt I will come back to it. Highlights: "Glam-Racket"

The music (besides the title track) reminds me a lot of Simon & Garfunkel. But the poetry seems to be trying to much on some of the songs, like "Sister Fatima" and "The Grave". "Babylon" I liked as a canon, it fit well, and "Til Tomorrow" I could have used another verse of or two. So the album itself is a bit of a hit or miss. Then there's the title track. If you're of a certain age, there's no way you don't know this song. It was everywhere. I have heard a bunch of bands cover it when I was growing up, and honestly I thought tis song was longer. I didn't realize it was (only) 9 minutes, which these days is not a big deal. Back then, to be the single, it's impossible. But as with a lot of other albums, this song overshadows the others. Take it away and the other songs don't stand on their own as much. Some of them are ok, but it's a very different album, and lesser for it. Top tracks: "American Pie," "Vincent," "Til Tomorrow," "Babylon"

I have never heard the term "Dream Pop" before. It does veer a bit into shoegaze which is NOT my favorite genre of music at all. But I think the vocals have more to do with that than anything, and I was digging on the vocals here. I liked how they worked on this album, it's a pretty good intro for the band, it gives you a good idea of what to expect of them. A number of tracks did start to sound same-y. That's always a bit of a problem for these albums. But still, it was good for what it was, I don't know if it's something I will come back to. Top tracks: "Zebra," "Take Care"

A number of these songs I have heard live first, so the studio versions sound weird and quirkier to me. The band was still finding its sound, moving from the new wave quartet to the experimental collective that they would be. Songs like "I Zimbra" showed them experimenting with other musicians in ways not thought of. "Life During Wartime" I had heard the "Stop Making Sense" version first, so it was weird to hear the fade out while they were still singing lines. "Cities" & "Mind" I had heard live as well, but not much difference to them. "Memories Can't Wait"... I had first heard the Living Colour version and then the original. Both are effective in different ways and I love them both. It's not my favorite of their albums, but a lot of good tracks and a step towards the band that they would become and I would love. Top tracks: "I Zimbra," "Mind," "Cities," "Memories Can't Wait," "Heaven"

It's not that the album is too long (I mean, it is.) It's that there's so many tones and moods in the album I can't tell what the album is supposed to be. Is this supposed to be an electronica band? Is it an EDM band? Is it a rock band? It's all over the place. You listen to a song like "black screen," and it starts off as one type of song and suddenly it's something else. And a lot of times, I am fine with that. But there's something to be said about transition. It's also fine to vary what kind of songs you have. When "oh baby" came on, I figured it was going to a band that plays this kind of music. But then you hear a song like "emotional haircut," and the predispositions you had from the beginning were all shot to hell. The beginning songs were very noodle-y, and then you realize that although there was some noodling, there is a band and not just one person. And they're all jamming together as opposed to one guy in his basement putting this stuff together. I mean, I _GUESS_ that's better? The band could argue as to what's better, what could be cut? (I have to wonder what they thought was too rambling?) So yeah, I guess I just feel like the band could be more concise and precise as to the sound they're going for. Top tracks: "emotional haircut," "how do you sleep?"

Wow, what a dynamic voice. Even on songs where she was singing the background in certain parts, like in "O Que Foi Feito Devera (De Vera)" it stood out more than the person singing the lead. At first I thought the songs were a little dated, but then I kind of got more into it, realizing that that was the feel, being bossa nova. I dug it more and more. I liked the songs that were more out of the box, like "Saudade Eterna," that were very funky. The vulnerability of "Rebento" and "O Trem Azul" was very stark. I really enjoyed that. Such a robust, amazing voice. Definitely an album I would have not come across on my own, and will come back to again. Top tracks: "Saudade Eterna", "O Trem Azul," "O Medo De Amar E O Medo De Ser Livre", "Aprendeo A Jogar"

I will say this: it's better than "Trout Mask Replica." There's more of a sense of songs here, and not anti-songs, like in "TMR". I wouldn't call the album "Safe" by any means. There's still a sense of experimentation, but the songs still feel like there is a full band going through something here. Definitely the finished product is better than the bonus tracks. The instrumentals there go nowhere. I can see why the record company was so negative on "Electricity," but I would have been more "WTF" on "Abba Zaba". I'm a huge fan of Zappa, but Beefheart is to Dada for me. Still, there were a few tracks I liked: "Sure 'Nuff 'n Yes I Do," "Plastic Boogie" "When There Is Woman." Still, I can't recommend it. It's just too "we're being weird for weird's sake" for me, and not finding the actual song. But I didn't hate it.

I will never have a problem with a band putting a 19-minute song on an album. I will have a problem when it is basically a 19 minute jam. I mean, you don't even need to have the lyrics option on Spotify. (There's an argument about which came first: the Stones "Goin' Home" or this. Well, at least the Stones' song is only 11 1/2 minutes long.) Improvisations in the studio are tricky. They always have a "well you had to be there quality" to them. And one that's 19 minutes long?! Yikes. The big "hit" on the album: "Seven and Seven Is" fades out right at a cool guitar part. Kinda wish they kept that going. The opening track is not too bad, I kinda dug it, it had that off kilter moment like "Seven and Seven Is". "Orange Skies" was a bit too on the nose with it's psychedelia. Ultimately, I have the same problem with it that I do "Forever Changes". There's the one distinctive song, and the rest just seems... middling to me. And that 19-minute trck just meanders, yikes.

The album goes back and forth between instrumentals similar to something like Kraftwerk, and songs that have a bit of an experimental "let's just try stuff feel." I give them credit for trying different things, even if it doesn't work. For example, "It's A Bit Of A Pain" has an intrusive guitar bit that just sounds like... you know when you're having a discussion and there's one guy who has a REAL abrasive voice that cuts through it all? Or if you're in a comedy club, and there's the one guy who laughs so loudly it cuts through the comedian? THAT'S how it sounds. It takes your focus off the rest of the song. I mean, was THAT the point? A song you can only listen to once, you know? I was expecting the rest of the album to song like the first song, which would have been fine. The fact that it didn't was fine too, but having a song like "Giggy Smile" which just seems... goofy. It just didn't fit for me. I get that there are thing here that are the foundation of Krautrock, but some of these songs are head-scratchers for me. Not something I would come back to.

I mean... "I Wish I Had Duck Feet?" Zappa has a penchant for writing songs where the lyrics are meaningless to him. For the most part it was the music itself that was important. But there were songs where the lyrics had a message. So obviously an act that is doing electronic music where there are no lyrics can make titles that don't have to mean anything at all. But still... this just seems like a private joke that we won't get. Driving around in my car, the first few tracks had sound effects that made me wonder if there was a problem with my car. I had to turn the down the volume to check. "Philosophy By Numbers" - Technology... Philisophy... Technology... Philosophy... shut the f*** up, man. Quality Seconds was pretty good, I would have liked some more of that. I get the idea of maximizing the CD space for electronic music. But I would have rather to have the songs be shorter, as opposed to FIFTEEN MINUTE SONGS. It just felt like it went on forever. Next.

The first step was to skip THE SONG. (You know which one I'm talking about.). They made it easy enough because it's the first one on the album. The rest of the album is pretty much your standard 80s new wave fare. I will say Morten Harket (the singer) has a great voice. But without THE SONG, the album itself just sounds like any 80s new wave pop album and would have been lost in the record store. Try listening to the album without THE SONG, and see what I mean. Top tracks: "Take On Me," "Train Of Thought," "The Sun Always Shines On T.V."

Quick, which Beatle first had a #1 on the Billboard as a solo artist? Not John Lennon. Not Paul McCartney, either. It was George Harrison. I'm not saying the two needed each other to produce great music. This album has a lot of good to great songs on it, but as the first REAL solo album (not counting the experimental stuff he did), you have to wonder how some of it would have sounded if the others came in and tweaked it a bit. But on the other hand, songs like "Mother" would not have been done, I don't think. It was too personal and angry to be on any sort of Beatles album. About half of this album is on the John Lennon Collection / greatest hits album, which gives you a sense of how good it is, I think. Songs like "Well Well Well," "God," "Working Class Hero," all show you where Lennon's mind was at this point. He wasn't just angry, but he was frustrated and wanted to tell it to the world. I prefer the live version of "Mother," the fade-out does not seem as effective to me. Strong album, almost a primordial scream for Lennon, although I never cared for the drum sound on some of the songs. I know it's Ringo playing, but ultimately the sound doesn't work for me as much.

Of the the big bands of the 60s, this is probably the band I listen to the least. I enjoy a few of their hits, and I appreciate them for who they are. I think just... hearing "Kokomo" so much as a teenager got me very tired of them. But you can't deny "Pet Sounds" is one of the great albums of the 60s. Listening to "God Only Knows" and hearing some of the effects Wilson used on that and so many of the other songs... it's just so fascinating. I had just written about "Sloop John B", it's such a fun song. You kind of get a smile to your face when you hear every time. It can't be denied. One of the things I think about for a five-star album is will I want to listen to the album again? And I think that the album has that quality only because you're trying to pick out all of the things Wilson put INTO the songs. A classic album, even if they are not my favorite band.

I have always meant to listen to this album. I think it was really this one that got Trevor Horn to become the producer that he is. As an album it's... okay. I can't say it's my favorite style of music. I will say the singer is okay, but it's this trying to "modernize" a Cole Porter feel which doesn't really work. The elements were all there, I liked the bass, and the keys and such. It just... didn't do anything for me. "Poison Arrow" was probably my favorite of the songs there. The lyrics were cutting, and the music was fitting. The reimagining of the song which for the bonus track ("Theme from 'Mantrap' ") was neat, too. Production was great, but the songs themselves just didn't hit for me. Maybe this is another one I need ot listen to again, I don't know. Top tracks: "Poison Arrow"

Three weeks later, another album by The Fall. Surprisingly, I liked this album better. Or maybe not. It always seems I like the second album I get introduced by an act. Not sure why, really Maybe because some of the songs were more punk? There were still a few songs that went on a bit too long (looking at you, "Paintwork"). It feels like the band were a bit more confident in their sound here. Definitely a step up. Will definitely come back to this one. Top songs: "Spoilt Victorian Child," "Rollin' Dany," "Petty (Thief) Lout"

It sounds like any thrash punk / skate punk band. Reading the wiki about their live acts, those must have been... interesting to be a part of. Anyway, let's get back to the actual music. Short, punky songs. I dig most of them. That last song, though... just went on and on. Longer songs like that need to have some kind of change in them. Can't just be three chords and go on for nine minutes, very tedious. Still, I would have to read the lyrics because its hard to tell what he's saying. A lot of people on this ho either became famous or are famous-adjacent. Something I may come back to, not sure. Top tracks: "We Must Bleed," "What We Do Is Secret"

The band itself can play, but you listen to the lyrics, and you just can't tell how sarcastic these guys are trying to be. Wikipedia has a description of them as: "Radio Birdman meets Venom in an institution for sexually abused r****ds." And I mean... I guess that's a good description. Punk isn't always super-serious, there's a lot of tongue-in-cheek. But when you got a song called "Rock Against Ass," you're obviously going for the 12-year olds (fortunately I've been called that by my wife on a perpetual basis. But I digress...). Still, they do a damn good cover of "Suffragette City." And I am pretty sure they're in on the joke of it all. Top tracks: "Monkey On Your Back," "The Age Of Pomparius," "Prince Of The Rodeo"

I remember having this on cassette back on the day, probably close to the time it came out. It rocked back then, and it still rocks now. Astbury really channels The Doors and Steppenwolf (obviously with the cover there), but kicks it up a notch or two. I had forgotten how much I enjoyed this band, I think it's the "yeah"s that I got a bit tired of in EVERY SINGLE SONG. But if that's what you got, that's what you got. Really goo hard rock album, everyone seems to be clicking on each track. Top tracks: "Wildflower," "Born To Be Wild," "Love Removal Machine"

Not a big fan of country, but I respect and am a fan of Johnny Cash. The fact that he wanted to record a concert in a prison is an amazing idea, especially for 1968. Saying that, the songs themselves are still standard country songs. So if you hate country music, this is not the album for you. Some of the songs were pretty funny, like "Flushed From The Bathroom Of Your Heart," and "Dirty Old Egg-Sucking Dog". And you had the classic songs, like "Long Black Veil" and of course, "Folsom Prison Blues". I teeter back and forth between 4 and 5 stars. I think the album is such a seminal, important album, but it's not one I keep coming back to and listen over and over, which I feel is important for an album to be a 5-star album. And the warden announcements, which makes it feel like a real event do get annoying. (I've always liked the "25 minutes To Go" studio version better anyway.) So as much as it is a classic album, it's just not a 5-star one for me for the reasons I mentioned above. Top tracks: "Jackson," "Folsom Prison Blues," "Long Black Veil," "The Wall," "Flushed From The Bathroom Of Your Heart"

I didn't realize how many of IP's songs that I knew were all on this one album: "Fall In Love With Me," "The Passenger," and of course the title track. Nice that the title track is frist, so that can be put out of the way. It's not that I dislike it, it's just overplayed. Anyone who mentions Iggy Pop, "Lust For Life" is normally the song that pops into one's head. The other songs had a bit of a bravado / punk-ish vibe to it. But they did not hit me as much as I was hoping. As for "The Passenger," I had heard the song a bunch of times in ads and such but did not place it even was Iggy Pop. So there you go, you learn something new every day. I enjoyed the album and the songs that I knew, but the other songs did not hit me as much as I was expecting. So... three it is.

I will say this: the "skits" were really just short experiments of some sort. So they were something I am not just going to "skip" if I decide to come back to this. For the most part, I dug this. I thought M.I.A. did a good job producing beats throughout. I liked some of the ideas used for sampling, like in "U.R.A.Q.T." It was better than I was expecting, because I was expecting something along the lines of 40 minutes of "Paper Planes," and this definitely a lot more than that. Not sure if I would come back to it, but it is better than I expected. Top tracks: "U.R.A.Q.T.," "Galang," "10 Dollar," "Bingo"

There is definitely a step up here from Arular to Kala. But at the same time, not all the songs are "Bangers". I mean, "Boyz" is one of the more insipid songs I have heard. Random thoughts: "20 Dollar"... I am still torn on this track. I like the vocalizations, but then I grew tired of them. I felt like I needed more off of it. "World Town" seemed like the anti-"Hollaback Girl". It took the vibe of that song and made it much more. "Come Around" was a pretty good ending for the album. It's interesting in that the randomizer had the two M.I.A. albums selected sequentially to listen to. I might have been more annoyed if they were separated far apart. But listening to them one right after the other you really hear her growth as an artist, and why this album is the one that stayed on the list. Top tracks: "Bamboo Banga," "Jimmy", "20 Dollar," "Paper Planes," "Come Around"

I can't help when I was listening to this, I likened the band to Steel Panther and how that act is a tribute to metal but in a tongue in cheek kinda way. I mean, this is an obvious tribute to the Bee Gees, right? It's not just me. That's all I kept hearing in every song, not just the "Comfortably Numb" cover. And they're not just covering the disco era but things on their more weighty side, like "Trafalgar." Granted, disco isn't so blatant with a song title like "Tits On The Radio," but I think they had songs that were pretty much on target with all what Scissor Sisters is trying to do here. As for the "Comfortably Numb" cover... look, I will give them points for trying something different with the song. It's a pretty iconic song, and covering it is WAY difficult without it sounding exactly like the original. So the reinvention is a novel idea. It's just so hard to hear it as an upbeat song. So rather than the tribute, I would rather just listen to the Bee Gees. Top tracks: "Mary," "Return To Oz," "Filthy / Gorgeous"

You start off the album with a slammer like "Them Bones," and you know you're in for a ride. Really, every song of this SLAMS. "Sickman", "Iron Gland" and "Junkhead" are a little iffy, but it's probably that I have not listened to this album enough. It's hard to believe this is over 30 years old. Enjoyed pretty much every track on this, and would definitely come back to it. A 90s grunge album must.

It's hard to think of the band outside of "Don't You Forget About Me," but Simple Minds was not a one-hit wonder. They had numerous success throughout the world, but that one song is all people think of. (To be honest, I always confused them with a few other 80s pop bands. The instrumental piece "Somebody Up There Likes You" surprised me. I was not expecting a longer piece without vocals, but I dug it a lot. The production was really good, everything sounded like it came out a few years ago as opposed to 40. Top tracks: "Somebody Up There Likes You", "Promised You A Miracle"

I liked how the opening of the first track starts with the riff, and then extrapolates a bit from there. Obviously the keyboardist had fun soloing over this stuff. The biggest thing is that no one song stands out for me. Most of it can definitely be thought of more as background music than anything else. It kinda makes it hard to pick out any one thing that's like, wow! They all had the same vibe to it, which made it 40 minutes of one track, spilt into 8 smaller pieces. I wonder how it would sound on shuffle. The last track seemed like an epilogue, which I thought was kinda weird. You could tell the band had fun putting this together. It was well-constructed for me, though. Just not a big thing I was into.

My biggest problem with “modern” country is that a lot of it sounds like middle of the road rock songs but with steel guitar and a country twangy voice. Lucinda roots her songs a bit more in older country, at least it seems that way on this album. I think I had a Lucinda Williams album at one time on cassette, perhaps it's time to change that and buy one of her albums. The songs themselves were well-crafted, and there were a number of them that I enjoyed. I could do without songs about angels, but that's not her fault. I mean, it's country and that's usually something that comes up. It's not like she's writing "the South will rise again" or anything. Definitely something I imagine listening to again. perhaps on a nice walk outside. Top songs: "Right In Time," "Car Wheels On A Gravel Road," "Can't Let Go," "Metal Firecracker"

I enjoyed the first three songs, but that last song... Critics called the track "expansive," but it just felt like it was... meandering. And since that's half of the album, that's a problem. Top tracks: "Spray," "Moonshake"

The only album with Clapton AND Hendrix on it? There's something I didn't think even existed. The first time I heard the opening song, (probably one of Stills' most well-known pieces) I had borrowed an LP and taped it from that. Unfortunately, the player was at a slightly higher speed, so he felt a little Mickey-Mousey. It wasn't until I heard a live version I was like "oh, THAT is how this supposed to sound." I feel dumb that between Hendrix and Clapton I could not identify who played who. I got their songs mixed up, and I would have thought I would have been able to pick them out. Stephen Stills is not my favorite of the four in CSNY, but he is a part of a whole, and you can hear what he brings to them with this album. There is a wide variety here, but still within Stills' wheelhouse. It doesn't sound like him trying to reach too far, Probably one of the few songs that was just okay to me was "Church (Pt. of Someone)" and even that after a quick relisten makes me rethink my thoughts about it. The other song that I could not pick out as "wow" was "Cherokee". Everything else I really enjoyed. Top songs: "Love The One You're With," "Old Times Good Times," "Go Back Home," "Black Queen,"

One of the interesting things about the 70s is how there seemed to be more freedom in what songs could be. I mean, yeah, "hit" singles had to be about 3 or 4 minutes. But then you have the albums that seemed to be a lot more experimental about song lengths. Which brings us to "Hot Buttered Soul". Isaac Hayes seemed to have a lot of freedom here to record what he wanted. But that isn't always a great thing. I felt the opening and closing songs were WAY too long. A 12-minute interpretation of "Walk On By"? No wonder they came out with a single edit. Someone needed to let him know that shorter can be better. And "By The Time I Get To Phoenix"... I felt the whole opening bit is something that works live. But in the studio it just felt like padding. I did like "Hyperbolicsyllabicsesquedalmystic", and the length was just fine for it. "One Woman" was a little over the top, but that's not always bad. But when two of the four songs overstay their welcome, that's a problem. Top tracks: "Hyperbolicsyllabicsesquedalmystic"

You can really hear the punk / new wave sensibilities in the songs. My feeling was that they were throwing a lot of things to the wall to see what would stick. I find it interesting that it wasn't until Adam Ant went solo that he was really recognized by the non-punk population. I also didn't know the original line-up left Adam to from Bow Wow Wow. It's just that the songs themselves don't break out to be... catchier. They all seemed pretty forgettable. Top tracks: "Dog Eat Dog," "Killer In The Home"

The vocalist sounds like he's trying to channel Tiny Tim and Thom Yorke, and sing in a serious manner. Maybe I would have enjoyed this more if the singer didn't overemphasize the vibrato. The cover is also incredibly creepy, a woman in her deathbed? Yikes. Way too depressing. Next.

A very straightforward album. I dug it. Hard to believe it is almost 60 years old. The instrumentals were really good as well. I don't think I needed them all medleyed at the end. And "Angie"... I did not need a live version, although it was interesting to hear it different than the acoustic version. Recording on it was bad as well. It reminded me a bit of Nick Drake, but I found myself enjoying this more than that. Not sure why. Will definitely come back to this. Top tracks: "Strolling Down The Highway," "Needle of Death," "Veronica"

Man, this album hits pretty hard. It seemed like "Uprising" was on the radio all the time a while back. I'm glad to hear they are more than that song (which I hate). Some people compare the band to Radiohead, which I do not see that much of a comparison, actually. Maybe a little with "OK Computer," but if they were really a Radiohead ripoff all of their songs would sound like it. Really enjoyed it. Top tracks: "Starlight," "Supermassive Black Hole," "Hoodoo", "Knights Of Cydonia," "Assassin"

I do not like R.E.M. Stipe is too whiney, the guitars are too jangle-y. This album is not convincing me otherwise. Top tracks: "Radio Free Europe"

Although I am not a fan of electronic music, I rather enjoyed this. It felt like background music, something to kinda have on and let it sweep around you. I did think the songs ended a bit abruptly, there's no finality to them. But when you have it on in the background, that's probably wise to not have a song that has a BIG FINISH to it. Top tracks: "Phaedra," "Mysterious Semblance at the Strand of Nightmares"

All reggae always seem to have the exact same tempo. A lot of the songs on this album seem to feel the same, too. There never feels like there's any variation from one song to another. Having said that, this album still had Marley as the factor that separates it from most other reggae works. But even with Marley, the songs did not stick out for me as much as I was hoping. Top tracks: "Stir It Up," "400 Years"

The thing about blues albums for me is that a lot of the songs start to sound the same. It's the same with Muddy Waters because the harmonica comes in on just about every single song, and it makes the sound of all of them tend to get a similar sound. Saying that, it's Muddy Waters. That he was producing this good of an album at SIXTY YEARS is pretty cool. And it's not like he changed his sound any, every album has the same style and feel (again, not a bad thing). Top tracks "Mannish Boy," "The Blues Had a Baby and They Named It Rock and Roll" (for the title alone), "Crosseyed Cat," "Deep Down In Florida"

At first I was a little confused why this album didn't have things like "Jolene" on it. Helps if I look at wikipedia, right? Solid album by Parton, although "The Mystery Of The Mystery" seemed redundant. The other songs... sound like what I think country is, as opposed to the country music we have now. Not a bad thing, just... it makes it feel slightly dated to me. Top tracks: "Coat Of Many Colors," "Traveling Man," "A better Place To Live," "She Never Met A Man (She Didn't Like"

It took me longer than expected to dig the vocals. Maybe it was the doubling with one in falsetto which irked me, I dunno. The production of the album seemed very... canny. Like they were playing a tin can or something. So the SOUND of the album, along with some of the vocals, kinda turned me off to it. Although a couple of songs I liked ("Poppy," "Staring At The Sun," "Bomb Yourself") it wasn't enough to make me like the album. Top Tracks: "Poppy," "Staring At The Sun," "Bomb Yourself"

I found the first song a bit... tedious. But what was weird is that album got better and better as it went on. The songs and styles varied, which I think helped me like the album more. I will say a couple of songs had lyrics that were a bit repetitive. (Looking at you, "Pristeen" and "If You Loved Me At All"). Even so, I still enjoyed it. There were some pretty interesting ideas in most of the songs. And I'm all for interesting. Top tracks: "East Easy Rider", "Safesurfer," "Leperskin"

I enjoyed this, but the vocalist was a little lacking. I think replaying it made me like him more. "Merchandise" makes me think of Offspring. They could probably do a serviceable cover of it. The instrumental "Brendan #1" was great. The title track "Repeater"... I didn't totally get. I liked how all of the songs segued together. Enjoyed this album a lot, will definitely come back to it.

I know that this album was compared to Prince and Madonna, but I kinda feel it's closer to Prince. There's a wide range of music here, which is always a plus. It's hampered a bit by the dated production, but it still resonated with me. She has a goods flow, and the beats (although a bit dated) still rocked. I had always seen this album back in the day. I probably would not have enjoyed it back then, but now I definitely do. Top tracks: "Buffalo Stance," "Outré Risqué Locomotive," "Here I Come"

I had to listen to this a second time, it didn't really stick with me in the one listen. The guitar work was pretty good, but I honestly did not care for the vocals. That kinda put me out of it. Top tracks: "Amandrai," "Bonde"

Look. There are good pop albums, and there are just... pop albums. This album falls into the second one. It's hard to believe it's 25 years old. But listening to some of the songs and production, it shows how 90s-sounding the album is. Britney Spears is a fairly decent singer (Christina Aguilera has a better voice, IMO). It's just the material she was given to sing is just so... pedestrian. I mean, "E-Mail My Heart"? That aged well. The title track is still decent, but it can't carry the whole album. Next.

I honestly thought these guys were a bunch of psychedelic rockers. Little did I know... I dug it, but you can definitely see where the country/rock crossover comes from. I can't say I will come back to it, though. Top tracks: "Dark End Of The Street," "Uncle," "Hippie Boy"

For a band with the name "The Thrills," I expected the band to be more... thrilling. More... hard-rocking. Instead, they sound a bit more like Gram Parsons, I guess? There's a bit of country I hear there, but a little more... dreamy. I can see where the influence comes from, though. I guess I wasn't expecting it to be as "poppy" as it was. Still, I liked some of the songs on there (and then there's that hidden track thing, which was cool in the 90s and early 2000s, now it seems... weird.) It was just... ok. Top tracks: "Santa Cruz (You're Not That Far," "Plans"

Musica Tropicale. It was so refreshing to hear. There was such joy in the singing in this music, not something you hear much of a lot of time. I did feel a few songs went on a bit too much ("El Cuarto de Tula"). But the musicians still kept me interested even when the song went on a bit. Recommended, a good palate cleanser. Top tracks: "Chan Chan," "De Camino a la Verada," "Pueblo Nuevo"

I liked it, but I felt that a number of the songs were kinda same-y. And “Voodoo Dolly” just went on WAY too long. Siouxsie I liked as a singer, but the guitars were it as audible as I hoped. They needed to pop out a little more for me. Top tracks: “Spellbound,” “Night Shift”

I liked the instrumentation. But MAN they were repetitive. I don’t care about Rafferty becoming a serial. Although the comics line in the one song made me smile. If you’re going to be that repetitive, maybe your songs should be shorter. Top tracks: “Second Head”, “Poppies In The Field”

I really enjoyed the groove of these songs. And having the two different vocals was very effective. It was quite meditative for me. I was surprised when it ended. I was expecting a song with finality: “Here’s the end.” You know? Enjoyable. Top tracks: “Islands,” “My Heart Skipped A Beat”

It was too… stream of consciousness for me. Maybe it’s the vocals, I dunno. After the first song or two I just… zoned out. And if I want that, I’ll listen to new age music or something. Top tracks: “Heaps of Sheeps,” “ The Duchess”

Morrison: "I am the Lizard King, I can do anything." Rest of the band: "Yeah, that's great and all, Jim. But can we just jam?" Morrison: "... yeah, sure. Sounds good." You can tell the band was pretty loose and were having fun. No 10-minute Oedipal stuff here. It's interesting how this and the first Doors album are probably the ones I liked most. It's like bookends to the band, and shows their evolution. I think the only song I did not care for was "L'America" and "The Changeling," which sound a bit pretentious. Regardless, I liked the album a lot. Top songs: "LA Woman," "Riders On The Storm," "The WASP (Texas Radio and the Big Beat)," "Love Her Madly"

Just a man and his guitar. It’s all Bob really ever needed. A couple of songs, it’s the first time I’ve heard the original version. I’ve heard covers, mainly from the Dylan 30th Anniversary Tribute (a must). But the original versions are just as effective, if not more. Definitely recommended. Top tracks: “Blowin’ In The Wind,” “Masters Of War,” “Don’t Think Twice, It’s Alright”

So I was driving yesterday, and listening to music. I was getting annoyed by the traffic and the weather. But a funny thing happened. I put THIS album, and I felt a LOT better. It was very therapeutic for me. The cha cha medley of "Billie Jean" and "Eleanor Rigby" was... interesting. I did enjoy this, but it seemed a little TOO quiet. It may be the production, but I shouldn't have to crank up the volume to WAY past 11. Top songs: "Get Out Of Town," "Terra"

This album is just... so country. And I don't mean that in a good way. It's of the era of when I was a teen, and my parents had control of the radio. So of course, my Dad would play country music. It annoyed me because I wanted to hear rock and roll. So yeah, this is from an era I did not care for, with songs like "I Got Dixie" on it. "I Hear You Knockin'" makes me think of the Dave Edmunds song. Next.

There is a lot of bombast to this album, I will definitely give them that. And those big moments were pretty cool. It's just... the vocalist seems a little TOO melodramatic for it. I wanted to like this more, but the vocalist has these moments where I can't tell if he's taking this seriously or not. Top tracks: "We Are The Band," "Heroine," "The Wild Ones"

My first impressions of this band was that the production was not great. It felt like a lot of Casio noodling. Having said that, sings like "Stay" were pretty catchy. But some of the songs did feel like they went out on a little too long, like "Tinsletown In The Rain," which just felt repetitive after a while. Still, I keep coming back to songs like "Stay", "Easter Parade" and "Heatwave". So... interesting ideas, catchy (but long)* songs. * = When I say "long," I feel that a few just overstay their welcome. I've listened to and enjoyed songs that are over 20 minutes long, so length is not normally a factor for me. Top tracks: "Stay", "Easter Parade" and "Heatwave".

I liked her voice more as the album went on. Definitely a lot of bedroom type of music, VERY sexy. Somewhere around "Blue Light," I was really impressed with the instrumentation as well. I don't know if it's something I will keep coming back to, but the more I listened, the more I enjoyed it. Top tracks: "Jupiter," "Blue Light," "Turn To Dust"

First off, f**k the Velvet Underground. I never liked them. EVER. I always hated that rock critics thought they were so amazing. The garage DIY has to come with a bit of skill. They're sloppy, too sloppy, and a bunch of druggies. Then there's Lou Reed, who can't keep a tune if his gloves were covered with velcro. So now we come to this album. And quite frankly I couldn't help but wonder if the songs would have hit better if either the singer was in a higher pitch, or used some vibrato. As it is, it sounds like someone assembled a band and the producer brought in the girlfriend to sing. Maybe she would have been better with punkier songs. She doesn't fit the mood of the songs they're playing. NEXT.

It felt a lot like Neil Diamond to me, but with less groove to it. The first half of the album, it felt like there was no BRIDGE to any of the songs. It was just A-A-A-A. Very repetitive and tiring. I read that Walker does a lot of experimental stuff later on in his career. I don't know if that is the thing that should have been on this list. Either way, it just did not interest me. NEXT.

I liked most of the instrumentals better than the songs with vocals, although "Kowalski" was pretty good. The other songs with vocals just didn't hit me much. The instrumentals had some groove to them, but it's not a good thing to dislike the singing. Did not even recognize "Motorhead." That's not good. Top tracks: "Kowalski," "Star," "Long Life," "Get Duffy"

Vulgar Display? Not really. But DEFINITELY a display of power. I am not a big metal guy, so I never listened to Pantera before, really. But I can definitely see where people are coming from when they talk about this band. Metallica^2, at the very least. I had heard "Walk" before, but in the context of the album it definitely hits harder. Very crunchy and harsh, really dug the groove. Will definitely be one I go to again. Weird, I listened to it on youtube and a number of songs had a good minute of space at the end. Top tracks: "Walk," "Rise," "F**king Hostile," "Mouth For War"

I think I have only heard the single version of "Black Magic Woman," so the extended outro jam was interesting to hear. I had probably heard at least half of the songs on the album. So I was pretty familiar with the album. It's a good jam, but I always feel "Oye Como Va" sounds a little... dated. But apart from that, it's a solid album. Top tracks: "Hope You're Feeling Better," "Incident at Neshabur," "Black Magic Woman"

"Living For The City" is just such a perfect song. Sounding light (with those keyboard), but the lyrics tell of the dark struggle to survive. And the break in the middle is just so... damn, that's good. "Higher Ground"... it's so weird that the cover by RHCP is where so many people hear this song first. I thought "Too High" had a weird ending, like he didn't know how to end the song. And "Jesus Children of America," where he sings about TM? Yeah, I could have done without that. I felt "Golden Lady" was a bit repetitive. They could have cut a little bit of time out of that one. Maybe the same for "He's Misstra Know It All," but that one didn't bother me as much. The keyboards are so 70s, I loved it. Great album to walk to. Top tracks: "Visions," "Living For The City," "All In Love Is Fair," "Don't You Worry About A Thing"

The lyrics and music seemed very quirky. But not in a great way. It’s hard to believe this is the “I’m Not In Love” band. It definitely is one of those “of the time” albums. It was just kinda meh for me. Second side was better than the first. Top tracks: “Somewhere In Hollywood,” “Baron Samedi” Too tracks:

A while ago, someone made the comment on Facebook "punk bands do not make double albums." I countered with The Damned's Black Album (a punk/goth classic imo). But everyone else countered with "London Calling," which I should have thought of first. What an amazing album. A punk band that shows range all over: reggae, jazz, swing. To some it may seem a little all over the place, but punk IS all over the place. It's such a fun album, and really is a classic. Top tracks: (I could say all of them, but my favorites are): "The Right Profile," "London Calling," "Clampdown," "Spanish Bombs," "Lost In The Supermarket," "Train In Vain," "The Guns Of Brixton," "Rudie Can't Fail"

After the first couple of tracks, I found myself scratching my head. I couldn't tell if the frontman was rapping or conversing. But the whole discussion he was having with his girlfriend in "Get Out Of My House" was quite annoying. Although the album doesn't have to be completely relevant to me in every way for me to enjoy it, I had a hard time to connecting to this. There's a joke about "Cotton-Eye Joe" is what would happen if you give a redneck meth and a drum machine. This felt like if you gave a limey a pint of Guinness and a drum machine. NEXT. Top track: "Blinded By The Lights"

Over 2 hours? Yikes. This shouldn't be a chore, really. There was a lot of good stuff on it, but I just felt like this could have been edited down to maybe 90 minutes: lose the interludes, the "Where Are My Panties?", maybe "Roses" (roses really smell like poo poo. Deep, man.) You can definitely feel the influence of other acts before them, especially Prince. So many different styles in each of the songs, which is always good. It's not hard to believe "Hey Ya!" came from this, but if people were expecting a whole album of that, they are in for a surprise. I hover between a 3 and a 4 for this album. It's just that for every 2 good songs, there is at least one song that... yikes. The fact that it was over 2 HOURS long probably turns it to a 3 for me. Top tracks: "The Way You Move," "Bust," "Flip Flop Rock," "Valentine's Day," "Prototype"

A second listening was required for this one. I don't think I was fully paying attention to it the first time, and the second go around I liked it a lot better. Although I am not a huge fan of britpop, this easily ushers the way in for them. There was a very DIY feel to it, not overly produced. And that rawness really shows off in some of the songs. An album I may come back to, I really enjoyed it. Top tracks: "Wild Wood," "Shadow Of The Sun," both instrumentals, "Sunflower"

On the plus side, all of the songs are original compositions. I mean, as opposed to the first Rolling Stones album. This one has one of my favorite tracks "Paint It, Black" which seems like it's in almost every Vietnam War movie. Some of the songs feel a bit Spinal Tap-like to me, like "Going Home". I know the Stones songs came first, but it gives you an idea of what I think of when I hear the Stones. Always cool to hear a xylophone in a rock song ("Under My Thumb"). Their "hits" are the hits for a reason. The rest? Not so much. Top tracks: "Paint It, Black", "Stupid Girl", "Under My Thumb"

Okay, then. I had heard later Marianne Faithfull works, where her voice had gone downhill pretty badly. I didn't realize it all started pretty much here. That last song "Why'd You Do It?"... there are a number of rap songs that I have listened to for this experiment that I was like "it's good, but I feel uncomfortable listening to it." This is probably the first non-rap song I had that feeling about. The music itself had a very angular feel to it, almost Frippian at times. The "Working Class Hero" cover was really good, her voice really gave it more gravitas than Lennon's at times. The title track was good too, a good opener for the album. The more I think about the album the more I enjoyed it, even the last track. (To be fair, it's not bad, I liked the groove, and you DEFINITELY remember it.) I'd probably give it a 3.5, which rounds up to 4. Top tracks: "Broken English," "Working Class Hero," "The Ballad of Lucy Jordan"

At first, the album felt a little overly melodramatic. But then "If..." came on, and WOW. I understand that a lot of these songs were released as b-sides, and it was a very spontaneous type of thing. But it really doesn't feel like, it feels a lot more rehearsed. I think that if the album was shorter, I might not have been so up for the album. But it gets in, hits the feels, and gets back out again. I did feel a few of the songs were a little pedestrian, like "Everybody Knows (Except You)". But for the most part, simple can be pretty effective. Top tracks: "If...", "Timewatching"

First off: we, as a society, did this woman a disservice. We should have listened. The album, the one that made her a star in America, because of "the song", is a lot more than the one song. In fact, the vocals on "Nothing Compares 2 U" always sounded a little weird. The vocal effects... it seems to be the only song with them, it makes it sound a little alien. But the other songs on the album really showed her range, and it's a LOT. I did think the title track went a bit long, though. Top tracks: "Feel So Different," "I Am Stretched On Your Grave," "Black Boys On Mopeds," "You Cause As Much Sorrow"

Chickens cannot speak human words. They can respond to our voice, and will make noises in response. But if they could speak human words, or sing, I imagine a chicken singing in our language would sound just like the lead singer of Pere Ubu. The vocalizations REALLY distracted me from the music, which was a bit chaotic, but could have been interesting. It's just... not good. Not awful, but not good either. NEXT.

I feel like I should like the Flaming Lips more. They have a lot of the stuff I like, a very psychedelic feel, big bombast... And yet, there's something about it that puts me off. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I think it has to do with the singer, Wayne Coyne. He sounds more like a hippie than Perry Farrell, and the lyrics feel... very hodgepodge. Sometimes I think he writes lyrics just to make sure they rhyme ("The Spiderbite Song", for example. "Hey, what rhymes with hand... BAND, yeah that's it." To me, it has a bit of the psychedelia of "OK Computer", but it's just... off. The drums / production is pretty early to mid-90s, for me. It feels... dated. I've listened to a few Flaming Lips album, and I have a friend who is hardcore into them. I just... never got it. Top tracks: "Race For The Prize," "A Spoonful Weighs A Ton," "Feeling Yourself Disintegrate."

I think I liked this better after the second listen. I do not listen to a lot of these albums more than once because I really want to go with my first impression. Having said that, my first impression of this was... WTF is this? It sounded at first very much like a bunch of guys noodling in the studio. But the second listen gave me a bit more of the design behind all of it. I still wouldn't say it's great, though. The Beta Band broke up because they had critical success, but not commercial success. And this album kinda gives you an idea why: the songs are mostly b-side material; there's not an a-side in the whole album. Having said that, it's not bad. I didn't hate it, but I can see where critics will like the quirkiness of the songs, but it's not something that's going to widely popular. Top songs: "Broke," "Dragon," "Gone"

The vocals reminded me a bit of Debbie Harry, but more raw. "Little Babies" felt a bit too... simple. But otherwise, I dug pretty much most of it. I had heard of Sleater-Kinney before, but I never listened to them before. This album made me want to listen to them more, and that's a big thing. Really enjoyed it.

The back up singers killed it for me. The vocalizations sound so... dated to me. I want this work to be more timeless, and ... gah. Having said that, one of the songs had a very interesting bit, and that was "I've Got A Tiger By The Tail". I thought the song itself, obviously a country classic, really changed with their singing. Even with that, I still enjoyed it a good deal, but you can tell this was done almost 60 (!!) years ago, Top tracks: "I've Got A Tiger By The Tail," "Light Out Of Darkness," "Blue Moon Of Kentucky"

Enjoyed this a lot. Although not a big fan of shoegaze, this had a bunch of other things mixed into it, which was good. "I Love You," however, could have been cut. WAY too repetitive and drone-y. The instrumental at the end, "The Creep Out" was sufficiently creepy. Thought it was effective. Lots of good stuff here, really enjoyed it. I had heard of the DW, but had never listened to them. May have to change. Top tracks: "Boys Better," "Not If You Were The Last Junkie On Earth," "The Creep-Out"