Before I even spin the first tune, I'll say this is a band I consciously avoided. Not sure why. Let's see if I denied myself something fabulous. Oh right... now I remember. Fred Durst may be the biggest little bitch in music. Jesus, he's insufferable. Did you know he doesn't give a fuck? I just Googled "how many times does limp bizkit say fuck on chocolate starfish," and apparently, the title track is noted as having the word "fuck" 48 times. So multiplied by 15, that's 720. So, I still listened to the album (how some of these songs have over 200 million spins on Spotify is confounding). "My Way" has something that resembles a hook, "The One" is actually not offensive or juvenile, and the blend of electronic and metal has promise, but the message in the music is so self-focused and inane, and it's so flat and uninspired, it's hard to endure. I guess some folks feel differently. Great. Makes me wish I rated When Teardrops Explode as a 2 because this sets the bar for a one-star rating. Next?

As if the star rating didn't say it already, this was a dramatically more enjoyable experience than listening to "Automatic For The People." While I struggled between a 4 and 5 on this one, this represents REM at it's peak, IMO, so it gets the 5. It's the most benevolent blend of Michael Stipe — you can understand the words he's using, but I still don't know what he's taking about, and he's painting just outside the lines of his range and sweet spot as a vocalist. The pacing of the album is excellent, paring REM at its most playful (End Of The World) with its most earnest (The One I Love) — at least on this album — and it all works really well. It's also the band at its best in terms of sharing vocal duties. Whoever produced this did a good job with the talents of the band members. Bill Berry's drums sound great (love the gated bass drum on "Lightnin' Hopkins"), Michael Mills is used to his best effect, Peter Buck has loads of different guitar sounds going on — good stuff. This, for me, is where everything coalesced and it never got better for the band.

I turned this on with every intention of giving it a chance. Three minutes in, out of respect for myself and my sanity, I stopped. This band managed to seal the deal in that short amount of time. From the tones of the instruments to the meandering disjointed playing, I cannot abide.

Here's one I don't get. This album gets accolades for being some work of genius, and I think it's terrible. I've played in some dumpy rock venues in my day, and I've heard my share of terrible bands. I mean awful. And this sounds like a lot of that — the band that's playing before you and, once they start, you think, "how the fuck am I going to get through this set?" and you have nowhere to go. Mediocre riffs, mediocre performance — and that's not even it. The whole point seems to be not to play well. In fact, I was feeling pretty certain that the players on the song "Ace Of Spades" were not the same as the rest of the album (it does not appear to be the case). "Ace" has a musical acuity to it that just disappears after the song ends. It's noisy as hell and just on the edge of musical, but the playing is tight, the tones are massive, and the riff's alright. Then "Love Me Like A Reptile" comes on and the whole things falls to pieces. Somehow, through it all, there is an honesty to the music, the band attains a sense of purpose and cool, which must be what people are reacting to, because the music is lousy.

From the stark paranoid android landscape of OK Computer, we come to the party-time metronomic robot blues/pop of Eliminator. What a weird premise. Super processed guitars, thick sequencers, Frank Beard's syncopated quarter-note drumming, and blues-infused guitar producing some of the biggest hits of the '80s. Not to mention the entire album centers around Billy Gibbons' obsession with chasing (and catching) dirty women. But when it works, it's really good. The super-thick-slick sound is an accomplishment on its own, and when the riffs are good and the songs are solid, and Gibbons' incessant guitar work is flowing, this kills. But then there's the rest of the material. Some of the B-sides are just fine, but when Gibbon's sings "TV dinners, they're going to my head," it's really clear that the band is out of ideas. Where most of of the misogyny and adolescent lyrics are delivered with enough of a wink to excuse it as one big party, the weaker material makes the high points a lot less glossy. When this is great, it's a 4+, but the weaker material drags this down to a 3.14159265359...

Modern listening experience on this one. Started with an MP3 at my computer (through external speakers), continued listening to a CD in my bedroom, finished the album streaming Spotify in my car. Without question, it sounded best on the CD, but that patented mid-range buzzsaw guitar came through in every medium. Found I enjoyed the album more than I expected I would. While I own this on CD, I always preferred Mellon Collie back in the day, so now I'm going to go back and listen to that front to back to compare. Nice blend of dynamics on this, though mostly defined by the angst-fueled signature wail of Billy Corgan — vocally and musically. I appreciated Jimmy Chamberlin's drums more than ever on this listen. At the end of the day, I find myself losing the thread of the song with The Smashing Pumpkins — it's more of a vibe than a collection of songs to me on this album. I remember moments, and a couple of standout tunes, but ultimately, three stars because I don't expect to keep going back to listen to the album. Sidenote: I once stood next to Billy Corgan at a concert in NYC, Ric Ocasik's solo band — dude is tall!

This is one of those albums that I probably have never listened to front to back before, but I knew every single track. Always appreciate hearing tracks in the context of an album, and this is an impressive collection of songs and performances. I know Stewart has made some choices in his mid and later career that undermine his standing as a pillar of pop/rock/folk history, but this album is evidence of his talent as a singer, writer, and arranger. As iconic a vocalist as he is, surprisingly, Stewart is not the best at harmonizing with himself — he sounds more powerful/musical when paired with another vocalist, and the women performing on this album bring it, big time. Last thing thing, for the hundreds of times I've probably heard "Maggie May," I somehow missed the amazing bassline in the tune until this listen.

I appreciate the band and what they're doing more than I enjoy the music — certainly over the course of a full album. I would dig these guys in a live setting and the arrangements are impressive, especially coming from a listener with a decidedly non-traditional-Irish musical background. But I was tired of the album before it ended, and while I think it merits more than two stars, I'll let Marianne's higher rating pull mine up to 2.5 or more. Glad I listened, I wouldn't have picked this out of the list on my own.

While this may come as a surprise, I'm not a huge metal fan. I sure do like my heavy rock in general, but I had this album on cassette back in the mid-'80s and didn't bother getting it on CD when I was building my collection, so that says something. But damn, you have to love the scope of these tunes. Everything is majestic, tight, and while the songs wind and stray, this band is fine-tuning the art of bringing it back to repeated and recognizable themes on this album and there is a musicality and songcraft that sets them apart from their peers. And Lars on drums is pretty darned good, in addition to all the other noise this band makes. This was the album that started Metallica's acceptance into the mainstream, which, unbelievably, did not alienate the band's ultra-dedicated fans. They found a way to maintain the metal majesty and attitude and just kept sweeping more people into the fold by writing songs that resonate and brandishing an attitude that straddles the best of metal and "popular" music. Even the cliché lyrics — sanitarium! — ring as honest, and I've grown to appreciate the dry drum sounds and how every instrument sounds isolated from the others. It's a lot to take in as a whole, but this landmark album holds up, in my estimation. Master! Master!

This was good music to work to, but does that make it a great, must listen-to-before-you-die, record? I'll admit, I don't know what sets a noteworthy trance/ambient-pop album apart from schlock, but I sometimes felt like this record was scratched. I'd be waiting for a song to progress to the next part and it felt like it just stayed in place. It might be the best album ever for its genre, but that's lost on me.

While I love some '80s English synth-laden pop (Duran Duran, Psychedelic Furs, A Flock Of Seagulls), there's a flavor of this genre that does not connect at all. This falls into that latter category, along with groups like Roxy Music, Depeche Mode, and a host of other bands that I sidestepped in my most active era of musical discovery. I had never heard of this band — the name alone would have made me avoid them back in the day — but I went into this hoping to love the album. Alas, not so much. "Second Hand" had a promising bassline, and there were plenty of musical moments that I was enjoying, as immersed in an early-'80s production sound and writing aesthetic as they were. Ultimately, it's the vocalist that made this a one-star rating for me. I was going to give it two, but I was repeatedly turned off by the lyrics, melodies, and choices, and then when "Use Me" came on, that sealed this as a one-star listen for me. Another album I'm glad I listened to, but not one I particularly enjoyed.

This is a difficult one for me to rate. I really do like the band, and maybe even more than that, I appreciate how innovative and groundbreaking they are. But, I don't know what any of these songs are about. I enjoy this album, more than the two preceding it, but OK Computer stands as the high water mark for me with this band. There is almost something deliberately obtuse about some of this music, which I also appreciate. I'm vacillating between a 3 and 4 on this (it's a 3.5 damnit), but saving a 4 for the Radiohead albums I'm more likely to better understand. So many great moments on this though — I love how Yorke uses his voice as another instrument in the arrangements.

Before I even spin the first tune, I'll say this is a band I consciously avoided. Not sure why. Let's see if I denied myself something fabulous. Oh right... now I remember. Fred Durst may be the biggest little bitch in music. Jesus, he's insufferable. Did you know he doesn't give a fuck? I just Googled "how many times does limp bizkit say fuck on chocolate starfish," and apparently, the title track is noted as having the word "fuck" 48 times. So multiplied by 15, that's 720. So, I still listened to the album (how some of these songs have over 200 million spins on Spotify is confounding). "My Way" has something that resembles a hook, "The One" is actually not offensive or juvenile, and the blend of electronic and metal has promise, but the message in the music is so self-focused and inane, and it's so flat and uninspired, it's hard to endure. I guess some folks feel differently. Great. Makes me wish I rated When Teardrops Explode as a 2 because this sets the bar for a one-star rating. Next?

Another album — another band! — I've never even heard of. Definitely a cool feature of this adventure. Punk was never a genre I particularly connected with, Siouxsie and the Banchees and a couple of others were exceptions, and for a minute, I heard a similarity with Siouxsie and Wire. That didn't exactly last, and I won't consider this a band I've fallen in love with, but they were cool and did this right — short songs, no bullshit, bing, bang boom. I did recognize "Strange," though it took a quick Internet search to realize that's because R.E.M. covered the tune on Document. Funny how those lyrics triggered that "I know this from somewhere" switch in my brain. And what the fuck did we do before the Internet? I was there, but what did we do? Just go crazy trying to remember things we couldn't look up in 12 seconds? I would not have put the R.E.M. connection together. So... a 2? A 3? I don't see me going back to this album or this band a whole lot, but maybe. I'm going with a 3. Right down the middle.

Piper Down is covering "Paradise By The Dashboard Lights," and I still have this album on vinyl (I think, gonna have to check). But when was the last time I listened to this front to back? Today, apparently. Let's go! OK, so I was planning to save 5-star ratings for "flawless" albums, and while I think "Heaven Can Wait" could have sealed it had it been a little less melodramatic, that's clearly the driving aesthetic sensibility of this album and damned if they don't pull it off. I'll admit, I thought Jim Steinman produced it, but this is a Todd Rundgren production and it's a real feat. The trio (Rundgren, Steinman, and Meat Loaf), along with some quality musicians, pull off a minor miracle in producing an album that's kitchy, over the top, and delivered with dramatic sincerity, while being clever, adolescent, and self-aware all at the same time. The album totally holds up, and stands alone in genre and classification. From the somber ridiculousness of "Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad" to the mini-opera that is "Paradise By The Dashboard Light," this album had big aspirations and managed to get it right over and over again.

k.d. lang is one of those artists I've always thought had something special going on but I never dug into her catalog apart from knowing some of the big hits (and she and Tony Bennett were the choice for Marianne and my wedding song). So this entry makes me want to go and buy the book this whole endeavor is based on. Why this album? I don't know much about her catalog, but I know this is not her best album. It's fine, it's like a glimpse into what she'd later blossom into as an artist, but this is pretty raw, not terribly well produced, and sounds more akin to a well-crafted demo than a shining example of an artist at her creative apex. So why this album? It's a 3 in my book, and just barely.

Well, I've been wrong about The Clash for a long time. I never understood why people consider them "the most important band" ever, and still don't get that, but I always thought they were just another punk-adjacent band who scored a few hits and were blown way out of proportion. I was expecting to not enjoy this listen very much. Turns out, this is one of those rare instances where the hit songs are my least favorite on the album (not entirely, but there's a lot more here than the hits). I was really struck by the quality of the songcraft, which was a major surprise, and also by how tight this band is. I wrote them off as being average players at best, and they decidedly are not (the drummer is really good). It's funny, the image this band fostered and the mythos surrounding them dissuaded me from checking them out, and I had a mis-perception of who they are. All that said, this is not entirely in my wheelhouse, but this is a 4-star album, and I have a new take on this band.

I really know nothing about jazz. I know I like it live more than on record, and while I own some notable jazz CDs, it's all about catching some killer riffs and solos here and there as opposed to studying the compositions and having any real understanding of the history or the significance of anything I'm listening to. So with Miles Davis, I know he's a pioneer, legend, visionary, difficult personality, brilliant player, but that's not because I listen to a lot of his music or know anything about how he changed the form over the course of his storied career. I appreciated the short compositions on this album, it made it easy to stay with a tune through it's duration, and I was struck by how every player seemed to be as accomplished as the next — no one instrument stood out as the focus or the virtuoso among the ensemble. I later read that these sessions were actually recorded in 1949-50, though not released until 1957, and are credited with ushering in a new style of jazz, called cool jazz. That all makes sense having listened to the album, and I guess I'm a fan of cool jazz. A three? Four? I'm going with a four-star as I can see me teeing this album up again and getting more familiar with it.

Wow. Talk about catharsis. I was not particularly digging the first half of this two-album set. Marvin Gaye is unquestionably in a special, elite league as a vocalist. I marvel at how effortless his delivery is — though he also went for some moments of vocal strain in places on this album. But the opening five tracks were like him singing his sad diary in real time with a divorce (I later read a little about the album and that's pretty much what we're hearing). So, from an artistic, "I'm leaving everything out here on the field" perspective, this is pretty bold and probably groundbreaking when released. But I didn't find it made for a great listen, and I was thinking, "this is the kind of material you might regret having released five years after the fact." Things shifted after that with "Everybody Needs Love" and "Time To Get It Together," and I started feeling differently about the album. Still, it's a little hit and miss, "Sparrow" was a low point, but as the second half of the album wasn't so literally glued to his day-to-day airing of grievances, I thought the material was stronger. It's an uneven record, in my estimation, and the hyper-focus on his personal upheaval at the expense of songwriting on half the material makes this a three in my book.

Oh no. Alright, let's see if I have a new take on this cat. Going into it, my bias is strong. I always found Morrissey impossibly whiny, verbose, and just plain unlikeable. Not the guy I'd like to get stuck talking to at a party. And god damn... another revelation. This album is pretty damned good. Morrissey is nowhere near the insufferable git I remember from The Smiths. I'm hearing a quirky crooner with a bit of an attitude and a penchant for the creepy, which I have to admire. The songs are fairly straightforward on the surface, which is just fine, as it lays the foundation for some cool textures and arrangements that are well done and interesting. And Morrissey uses his voice to great effect, with his melodies sometimes going in odd but familiar directions and his lyrics painted just outside the lines of what most any other writer might arrive at. I'm teetering on a 4, but thinking it's a 3.5. The fact that I'm considering a 4-star review for a Morrissey album is the most surprising thing about this endeavor to date. Couple that with McCormick going low on Marvin Gaye and Marianne buying Limp Bizkit merch and we're about to open a portal to the Upside Down. It's freakin' apocalyptical.

The sounds on this album are really pretty amazing. The breadth and depth of the synths, the vocal tones, even the synthetic drums, it's well produced for sure. I was never taken by the band's material, and on this album, while I found myself enjoying the ride more than I thought I might, I do not connect with the songs or the emotional pitch of Depeche Mode, which is why I've never really paid them much attention. Glad I listened, I appreciate the craft, but not an album or a band I'll dig deeper into.

It's difficult rating an album when you don't understand a single word of the lyric. I enjoy hearing this type of music. The interplay of the percussion is infectious, I can't resist moving to the rhythm. I was struck by the muted tones of the horns. No sharp edges at all, the horns were always a mellow, round sound. I also really like the dynamic between the lead and backing vocalists — the call and response was a feature I enjoyed and it didn't wear out its welcome. But all that said, I'm not sure how to rate this. I enjoyed it, but it's like an island in my musical experience, I have little else to compare it to. I'm going with a 3, partly because if I heard a track from this album again in any other context I don't know that I'd recognize it from any other song in the genre.

Another difficult album to rate, and not because I don't like it. I think these guys are brilliant, and this and "Speakerboxxx/The Love Below" are two OutKast albums I own on CD, but man, this is a lot to take in in one sitting. The songs are so dense, I need an hour or so to digest what I've heard after three or four tracks and then come back for more. It's hard to believe this album is 20 years old — I'm not a student of the genre (whatever genre that is... you try to classify them) — as this album would be pretty groundbreaking if it were released today. [Side note, this and Speakerboxxx/Love below won Grammies for "Best Rap Album," so that's how the "industry" defines them.] The effortless (and adventurous) mix of styles, the guitar solo and entirety of "B.O.B." is a great example, is a feature of OutKast that drew me in from the start: the band just doesn't sound or act like any other in the rap/hip hop space. Andre 3000 and Big Boi are like Prince's younger brothers, artists who won't let convention or precedent determine how to create music, and while I don't relate to every moment on the album, it is all really good. It's a long album, with a running time of 73 minutes (taking the CD medium to its limit), but there's nothing to remove to make it leaner, even the interstitial interludes work to give the album cohesion and flow. I guess that settles it, this is a 4, closing in on 5 territory. Glad I had the weekend to explore it.

Always cool to listen to music outside of my wheelhouse, and this fits that. I was focused on the bass and thinking how I'd tire of playing the identical riff over and over and over and over in this band, and that didn't aid in my enjoying the music. It also speaks to why this is not music I am drawn to. It's impressive, the band is really good, but the redundancy of the material wears on me. It's not my bag, baby.

I can't quite put my finger on what it is about this band I don't enjoy. I appreciate their honesty, but something leaves me flat with this band. As in the case of "Otherside" — I was thinking, "hey, this is a really nice tune," but before the song was over, I was less smitten. Kind of emblematic of how I feel about the RHCP. There are plenty of great moments, and while Anthony Kiedis is a singular presence as a vocalist (and Flea as a bassist), I prefer him when he goes with a "less is more" approach, and that's not usually his style. I also wasn't knocked out by the guitar work. I guess this is just not a band I love. I've had bandmates (bassists, specifically) who love this band, and they've been on my radar from early on (1985's Freaky Styley), but I've never been drawn in. I like them on a song-by-song basis, but not enough to go all in.

Going in totally blind on this one... "Your lunacy fits nicely with my own." That's a funny lyric. And that's a seriously strange outro (Sea Song). "Hey Robert, we're not going to be able to afford a trumpet player for 'A Last Straw.'" "No problem. I'll just sing the part. 'wah wah wah wah wah.' How was that?" "Fuckin' NAILED it!" "We're going to need a guitar solo." "No problem. Just record me tuning up." "Fuckin' BRILLIANT!" "I just binged 'Tomorrow Never Knows.' Hit record and let's play this song backwards." There is something strangely compelling about this. Can't exactly say I enjoyed it, it sounded like it were being composed as it was being recorded, but it seems like a peek into the very cluttered mind of a mad genius. This dude must be a trip to converse with. "Mr. Wyatt. Are you off your meds?" "I'm fighting for the crumbs from the little brown loaf. I want it. I want it. I want it. I want it." "So that's a 'yes'..." This is the first artist from this venture for whom I immediately listened to another album just to hear what the hell else this guy recorded. Pretty much a continuation of this album. I feel a little bad now knowing his story about the accident and his loss of the use of his legs just before recording this, but it seems to me that this artist would have recorded a similarly bizarre album regardless. I give it a tuna fish sandwich. A star rating just doesn't apply.

I bought this album when it came out, and it was on steady rotation for a while. Now — as I was then, I'm impressed with the songs, performances, vibe, and the sparse but adept production. The experience held up on this listen, the first in many years. This is just a plain solid album, and that's without delving into the fact that Kravitz apparently did most of it himself. I was never again enthralled by anything Kravitz released, he seemed much more focused on being a rock star that a music artist, and I felt the next bunch of releases were devoid of the things that made this album so great (good songs and honest performances). I've pretty much not listened to anything since 1998's "5," which disappointed me (I did buy the CD, though I no longer have it). But that's a tangent, this album is really good. 'Nuff said.

It's kinda crazy to admit, but I've never listened to an album by The Roots. I do know a little bit about them, and the blend of musical elements — from the live players to the hip hop and R&B flavor and a general disinclination to stick to any one approach — did not disappoint. I listened to the album twice, once with more focus and later as background music as we worked on the kitchen (currently being renovated, I can literally hear the nail guns and saws as I write this). Maybe I'm a prude, because I found that the predilection for sexual references got stale and that ultimately prevented me from loving the album. I enjoyed the less focused spin more. Musically, everything was really inspired and enjoyable, and this would otherwise be a 4+ star review, but lyrically I was less enchanted, which brings this somewhere between a 3-4. I'm going with a 3. Maybe there's another Roots album I'll love more. I'm going to give them a listen and find out.

With so many classic artists and releases, I realize that I'm missing the context of the work in terms of its impact and contribution to its moment in time. What sounds cliché now was novel at one point — things I take for granted in songwriting and production were at one point unheard of. I don't know if any of that applies to this album, per se, but I did find the production and ideas on this album a bit clichéd, certainly taken as a whole. Ultimately, while I'll assert (again) how much I admire Marvin Gaye as a vocalist, this album seemed to skid along the same vibe and subject matter — I didn't feel like the album took me anywhere. "Let's Get It On" is not a subtle reference, and it's used three times (including the album title) and then we have "You Sure Love To Ball," and it's pretty clear what Marvin had on his mind. I imagine this must have been pretty racy at the time of its release, for a number of reasons, but strip that away and I found this to be one long sexy track. Nice, but not an album's worth of interest for me.

Another one I'm going into with a pretty extreme negative bias. I actively dislike "Wonderwall," so I'm girding myself for this album. Immediate thoughts — musically this has energy. But I can't help feeling this is a band that's just trying too hard all the time. Maybe that's mostly true of Liam Gallagher. I had to skip through the end of Wonderwall because of his incessant wankering. How did that become the biggest song on this album? It's the weakest of the first three. 1.5 BILLION spins on Spotify. Confounding. By track #5, I've hit my wonderwall with this sound. I Wanda, if someone did an analysis, does Liam Gallagher hit and hold the same note in every song, because that's what it sounds like to me. The band seems to be running out of ideas... #6... fastest selling album in UK history? The same populace that brought us Brexit. Had to skip past it midway. #7... Oooh, lousy arrangement to add to the cacophony. Not able to save the unimaginative vocal melody. Skip midway. #9... pretty good, I made it about 80% through. #10. Paused. Breathing. Searching for videos of people running fingernails on chalkboards to cleanse my palate. This one has 1.2 million views, so not in the same league as Wonderwall, but respectable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13d5d6LVEpU "Champagne Supernova" is probably the song I liked most — disliked least? — despite the trite lyrics. Gallagher isn't as abrasive on that one. So yeah, didn't like it. Is it a one or a two? Gonna sleep on it.

As a serious David Bowie fan, it pains me to go with a 3 on this album, but there it is. There's a lot I like about this record. I love that Bowie is a pop music artist but there's not a song under four-minutes long on this album. There's also something so strange to this production, and I mean that in a positive way. For all the emotive singing, wailing sax, and perfunctory soul-laden background singing, Bowie sets an eerie, detached vibe to the entire album that's just so unique to him. The problem is, the material isn't awesome. "Fame" is one of my favorite songs in Bowie's repertoire, and "Young Americans" is just a great tune (what it's about, I couldn't tell you), but the rest of the material sounds like Bowie feeling his way through the Ziggy-to-Thin White Duke transition, trying to find his voice in this new musical experiment. It's part of what made him such an amazing artist — his willingness (compulsion?) to go to entirely new places. This record is just a curious choice for this endeavor, as I think Station To Station (the release that came after this) is just a flat-out better album. I will say, I think Bowie's coif on this album cover may be the look Donald Trump has been chasing after.

Damn, what a voice. And k.d. lang knows how to use it to beautiful effect. She's got an impressive range, but doesn't spend any unnecessary time finding reasons to impress with vocal acrobatics. She hits notes with authority, with a shimmer of grief even, when it's the right emotional pitch for the moment, and she sings sweetly and quietly when it's right. She sticks to her sweet spot most of the time, and there's a lot of it. She's a singular singing talent, to be sure. The production is just as spot-on as her performances. Great harmonies, expert instrumentation — not a sour note on the entire album. The only reason this isn't an easy 5-star is that the songs do blend together. There's not much of a change of gear from start to end. That's intentional, certainly, but that's the one key that holds me back from a "perfect" score. It's an 8.5-9 on a 10-point scale in my book. One weird point, how did "Constant Craving" get chosen to close the album? Seems like it should have been placed way earlier in the mix. Easy to say after the fact, but it's so clearly the most accessible track on the record.

I was nominally familiar with Harry Nilsson going into this — but here's one of those artists of whom I knew more of his material than I realized. In addition to "Coconut" and "Without You" (I'm most familiar with Heart's cover from their "Magazine" album), it's apparent Nilsson's influence is huge. Hard to tell who influenced who in some instances, but from McCartney-styled vocal melodies to Beach Boys harmonies, I also heard some Rundgren in there and imagine Ween listened to Nilsson as well. This is pretty inventive, non-formulaic pop that features as many song drafts as it does full-fledged songs (IMO), but that's all the more reason to admire the final product. This is cool stuff.

I've always admired Costello's craft as a songwriter. His arrangements are often unconventional, his gift for creating vocal and instrumental melodies is exceptional, and he's got an edge to his lyrics that gets your attention, even if I don't always know what he's getting at. I've never listened to this album in its entirety, though I was familiar with a lot of it. I didn't love every song, "Senior Service" as the second track seemed like a misstep after the haunting last minute of "Accidents Will Happen," but this is a really strong album. Despite Costello's range as a vocalist and gift for melody, he does have a vocal tone that tends to wear on me after 30 minutes or so, but that didn't detract from my enjoying this album (more than once) today.

I was surprised to see Fishbone's name among those included on this list. I owned "The Reality of My Surroundings" and "Give A Monkey A Brain And He'll Swear He's The Center Of The Universe" and saw these guys live a couple of times, but that was the extent of my explorations into the band and I don't own either of those CDs anymore. Let's do this. Damn, these guys are woefully underappreciated. This album deserves a 4-star rating based on the bass playing alone. I had to look up John Norwood Fisher's name because I should know it. He's badass. But it's the whole band. The blend of styles, the musicianship — these guys are on fire. It's at least a 3.5, but I think I'm going with a 3 because I like the songs better on "The Reality Of My Surroundings" (I listened to most of that right after this was done). It may be a matter of familiarity, though it's been a long time since listening to that album. These songs were a little more of a springboard for Fishbone's antics, and I definitely enjoyed it. I'll be listening to more from their catalog just to explore some more.

Full disclosure, this is my favorite Joni Mitchell album. Haven't listened to it in a while, and never noticed the penis on the album cover before. Learning something new all the time. "Coyote" is such a great opening track. Lyrically, it is just fantastic storytelling, the bass tone and playing set the expectations for the musicality of this ensemble. I love it. "Amelia" has such a sense of longing. Mitchell has a gift for putting pain to melody. And on this album, it's the perfect lyrical blend — high-minded poetic construction that tells rich, beautiful stories. Whether Mitchell set out to create a concept album, I don't know, but there's something so cohesive about these songs, like we're spending a week on the road with her and the band. Quiet moments crossing the middle of the country. This album just transports me. I can listen to Jaco play like this all day. He's a master on the bass. And then comes "Black Crow," which is a clinic on how to be the coolest motherfucker on an instrument possible. Seriously. I get that this may not be her most accessible album, but it's brilliant. Road dick!

I totally enjoyed this album — need a bit more time to get a firmer handle on it, but this band was like a perfect cocktail of a whole swath of British pop/rock/punk that came before them. It was as if I could hear every influence (well, there's plenty I wouldn't know) but it never felt derivative or phony. Dug the sense of humor, liked the overall attitude. Not necessarily music I'm drawn to — I'm mostly unfamiliar with blur — but something I was happy to get turned onto. 3 seems like a low score, but I'm not at a 4, so that'll have to do.

I didn't hate it. That's progress.

I genuinely try to understand what it is about Bob Dylan that gets everyone so excited. I mean, he's a hero to so many great songwriters over generations. So I went into this thinking, "If there's one tune I know by Dylan, it's 'Like A Rolling Stone,' and it's a great song, so maybe this is the album that's going to turn me around." Alas, I struggled to stay invested in "Like A Rolling Stone." By the time the fourth verse came around and there was no change to the intensity to the vocal and no deviation from the musical structure, I was starting to feel physically uncomfortable. The same thing happened in "Tombstone Blues." I was forcing myself not to fast forward to the next track. Dylan's vocal stylings are definitely part of the issue: I just do not enjoy listening to him sing. In fact, it's a more profound reaction. It agitates me. (There are other vocalists who do the same: Eddie Vedder, Van Morrison, Adele.) I also can't abide his harmonica playing. So let's face it, I'm not a fan. It is a dagger in the heart of my beloved, but we'll just have to live with the reality that Bob Dylan and Madonna will never be my cup of tea. OMG, the harmonica solo between verses 2 & 3 in "From A Buick 6" made my testicles pucker. "Queen Jane" has got one too. The slower tracks ("It Takes A Lot To Laugh, It Takes A Train To Cry" and "Ballad of a Thin Man") were more palatable to me, for what it's worth even though the title of the first contributes to my belief that Dylan has been playing everyone from the start. It takes... what? Honestly, respect for my wife and the songwriters who obviously hear this differently than I is what makes this a 2. I simply don't get it.

While the Foo Fighters, on paper, seem like a band I should be all over, I really don't know the band's music at all. I mean, yeah, I've heard some songs, but I've never explored their music in any depth. This is a solid album. When you take into account that Dave Grohl wrote and recorded the whole thing on his own, it's all the more impressive. But, man it's difficult to do that and come out with a masterpiece. It's been done, and this highlights just how complete a musician and songwriter Grohl is. It also explains why this is the Foo Fighters' album of choice for this project, as I suspect it's not the "best" from the band's catalog. But a "must listen" as an account of who is the foundation of this band makes lots of sense. Props to Dave Grohl, lots of good music on this album, and I'm inclined to start digging into the band. I was wary, considering every time they release something it results in multiple Grammy nominations — that just fills me with apprehension. My favorite work of Grohl's includes Them Crooked Vultures and Queens of the Stone Age, but maybe that's because I don't really know this band. I started listening to Wasting Light after this played out, and that was very promising. Rock on.

I wasn't able to listen to this album in its entirety, just a matter of a busy day, not a statement about the music. It's interesting, listening to older albums and hearing things that sound so cliché — in terms of songwriting and production — while recognizing that this was probably pretty novel at the time of the release. Hard to put myself in that place and hear it as new. That said, I was surprised to recognize at least one song ("Cool Water," from "The Ballad of Buster Scruggs") and found this to be a pleasant listen. Not expecting I'll be pulling this album out to spin just for enjoyment, but who knows? Robbins has a great range and tone as a vocalist, and there's something soothing about this music, even if it is about outlaws and gunslingers and the dusty trail.

From the outset, this struck me as a blend of Flaming Lips and Black Rebel Motorcycle Club and Beck — though I get that this might be the precursor to most of their music — and I'm not sure I like it. There are times when I dig a repetitive riff/melody/groove, as well as simple musical motifs that build and swell, but there's fundamentally something uninspiring to the base melodies on this that make me not want to go on the ride. It could be that this needs more time to percolate, it may require a more focused listen (which it did not get in my case), and it's probably better than a 2-star, but I didn't connect from the start and that's how I'm feeling about it.

Learning new things everyday with this experiment. I had never listened to blur before the 1001 album exploration, and while familiar with Gorillaz (my kids dig 'em), I had zero idea that Albarn was the creative force behind the band. So yeah, I dug this album, though I wasn't really able to home in on the details (we all listened to it in the car on the way to Dayton this weekend). I'm going to investigate the band further for sure, I think the concept of a virtual band itself is such a funky idea, and I liked what I heard, though I did feel like it played on longer than necessary.

Well here's another revelation. I've long been a fan of Pete Townshend, but I've never been a big fan of The Who. Daltrey and Moon — while I recognize and respect their artistry — have never been musical voices I've enjoyed listening to, and so I've never really dug into the band. But here we are, a gem hiding in plain sight. This is a bit trippier than may be my typical album choice, but this highlights so many things about Townshend's writing (in particular) that are inventive and distinctive. These songs are so unlike anyone else's music, there's a fierce assuredness to the whole affair. And a sense of humor, which goes beyond the album title and adverts within. This less bombastic version of The Who is one I enjoy. Moon's drumming is interesting, if not characteristically loose, Entwistle is brilliant but not overbearing, and Daltrey serves the songs, as weird as they are.

First impression... what a crappy album cover. Okay, I can't claim to know the details of Crosby's life at the time of this recording, but if Rumours stands as the high-water mark of cocaine-induced genius, this album appears to exemplify how cocaine can derail genius into rambling nonsense. The songs meander — one after the next — the recorded tones are not great (the solo guitar tone is awful), Crosby doesn't sound so hot. A 1-star rating seems a bit harsh, but I couldn't find anything that salvaged this.

Reggae is a genre of music I typically only enjoy in small doses. I appreciate, as best I can, the larger cultural importance of artists like Bob Marley, but when it comes to the music, I find that the similar tempos, rhythms, and song structures get monotonous after a few tunes. I think three (at least) songs on this album begin with that identical steelpan drum intro that is like the reggae version of the Intel logo — you know what's coming next. So with that caveat/admission aside, this is clearly a brilliant album by an artist in his prime. Lots of enduring classics, a band in great form, and an interesting blend of religious/social themes and personal stories of a man looking for love. I never considered that Prince might be a big reggae fan, but that juxtaposition of spirituality and sexuality struck me as I listened to the album. Whether or not I'm inclined to return to listen to this album in its entirety, I appreciate that it's really damned good.

I like the album cover. Fatalistic vibe, kind of the Bizarro Welcome to Asbury Park. First song starts... OK, it's the '70s I guess, different social clime, but still, pretty sleazy. Next up... maybe this is kind of sexy? But I'm not feeling it. What's up next? Nope. This is like all the stupid impulses of an asshole, serial cheater put to music. He can sing. I mean, maybe if the lyrical content were different. But even the songs started sounding similar. How did this album make this list?

Yeah man, this kills. Jeff Beck is just so damned good — just watch any live video of him playing and enjoy. Rod Stewart does everything he can to hang with the band — and he does a fantastic job — but honestly, he may be the least impressive member of the group. Mickey Waller, who I'll admit I didn't know by name (even though we've listened to him on Every Picture Tells A Story) is killer — there are other drummers credited (including Keith Moon on "Beck's Bolero), but Waller plays drums on the bulk of it, displaying the abandon of Moon and the control of Gene Krupa — or something like that. Just a great combo of chops and and a long leash and the musical intuition to know when to let loose and when to rein things in. Dug in a little after seeing Jimmy Page is credited as the writer of "Beck's Bolero," which on its face seems difficult to understand — whose Bolero is it? But I'm getting into the weeds... Beck is a magician on the guitar, and while blues is not my all-time favorite jam, this is excellent. The rhythm on "Rock My Plimsoul" is evidence of how this band can take a standard form and inject some grooviness that you might not even catch on a casual listen. And this is 1968. Love it.

No shit! I wondered if this would be the album of the day as I was getting dressed this morning. On the short list for my all-time favorite album period. It's not perfect, but it's a five. Twice. When I bought this on vinyl back in 1979, I felt almost a mystical connection to this album. Listening to it now is taking me back. Great headphone listen. At the time of its release (as a 12 year old) I was not thinking about what a wild departure this was from Rumours, the album that preceded it, the biggest-selling record in its day. But in retrospect, that album's success had monumental influence on what Fleetwood Mac would do next. I LOVE that the band, and most specifically Linsdsey Buckingham, went full-on White Album and produced the strangest follow-up possible. Double album, sprawling in scope, sonically a massive departure... it's the album where (IMO) Buckingham found himself as a producer. And to have the exceptional combination of talent to work with gives this album such beautiful depth. All of Christine McVie's songs on this album are fantastic. I love the opener, "Over And Over," and the swell of ghostly harmonies totally lets you know early on that we're not in Rumoursville any more. "Think About Me," "Honey Hi," "Never Forget," and "Brown Eyes" are gems, and even at her sappiest ("Never Make Me Cry") there's an honesty that just works. Buckingham, beyond the freaking magnificent production and arrangements throughout, pens some of the oddest pop songs on this album, and I love them all. "I Know I'm Not Wrong" is just magic, and "Walk A Thin Line" is equally excellent and odd. The fact that "Tusk" is the most enduring song on the album tells you something. Any other pop tunes feature jungle rhythms and a marching band? Not many. "Sara" may be Stevie's finest tune — hard to say, she's got a lot of great tunes — but what a mood she sets (again, Buckingham and the band have lots to do with that). But this is where my "not a perfect album" comment comes in. "Sara" apparently had 14 verses and a running time of 14 minutes when first written. Every one of Stevie's songs on this album tends toward excess in regard to sheer length. Each song on its own is pretty excellent, but an album (or two) full of Stevie in long-form gets a little tired. Still, "Storms" and "Beautiful Child" are both marvelous and sad and are reasons I was among the millions who fell in love with Stevie. Like, seriously. Mick Fleetwood is an underappreciated drummer. He always serves the song, and has an uncanny knack for accenting beats other drummers wouldn't think of. On this album, it sounds like he recorded more tracks in a closet with a snare drum and a turkey leg than behind a full kit. And so be it. That's the aesthetic of this oddball record. And John McVie is another unsung hero — player of myriad memorable bass lines — "Brown Eyes" is a great example of his ability to sneak a sweet bass line into a rhythm track and make a song better. I could go on, but you get it. I bought the 1001 Albums book soon after we began this adventure, and this was the first album I checked in on to see if it was included. So happy it was. I hope you all enjoyed it.

OK, so I didn't have a premonition that this would be the album of the day, but I was JUST thinking about a scene in Fear Of A Black Hat where this group of women, who are in a group called Parsley, Sage, Rosemary and Thyme are dissing Salt 'n Pepa – "they're only two spices... we're four!" So yeah, Nostra Calilhanus strikes again. My guess for today... Peter Gabriel... OK, that aside... 12 songs in 28 minutes. What is this, punk? As familiar as we all are (as humans) with Simon & Garfunkel, it's possible I've never listened to an entire album from the duo. And yes, it's great. Well written, beautifully sung, great arrangements, everything you could ask for. And it's an interesting blend of songs. For whatever reason, I'm trying to talk myself out of awarding my third "5-star" rating in a row, and after the hour-plus effort of Tusk, can a 28-minute album warrant the same? Well, yes, I suppose it can.

Unfortunately, I was not able to give the the listen it deserves — just too many meetings and work yesterday and this morning. That said, I own this album, so it's not unfamiliar territory. This is a mammoth endeavor, and chock-full of amazing material. To my ear, the hits leap out of the speakers with a greater intensity than much of the other material, which is as much a commentary on the serious nature of so many of the songs here. The two-punch wallop of "Sir Duke" and "I Wish" are just awesome — Stevie is at his best when he matches fantastic riffs with rollicking melodies, and those songs have that in spades. But this is a lot to take in in one listen — it's like three albums in one. That, from one perspective, is a testament to the brilliance of this album. But it is part of what makes this less than five stars in my book. It's hard to take it all in at once. But a great talent at a high point in his career and one that certainly belongs on the list of albums you need to hear before you die.

The opening measures of "Planet Telex,", with the bass drum keeping time with the guitar (keys?) delay is super cool. It's been a while since I've listened to this — easy to get caught up in the bounty of material that came after that somehow seems more "important" because it's so innovative and strange, but god damn, the first three songs are so great, and then comes "Fake Plastic Trees" which is immensely beautiful and depressing and dystopian — you feel pain for for the poor girl he's singing about and then about the dude singing. It's a haunting masterpiece of a song. And the performance, especially the vocal performance, is so moving. The melody and delivery give the lyrics a whole other level of weight and meaning. It's really really good. Up to song #8, "My Iron Lung," and there hasn't been a sour note on the album. Yorke and company manage to create an eerie sonic landscape that is at once totally cohesive and unmistakably them, but the album never gets repetitive — the songwriting is just excellent. It's something of a marvel. And this, their second album ... wow. (And not to dis Weezer, but as I was listening to this for the third time on Spotify, a Weezer track came on after, "I'm Tired of Sex," and it was like... "what form of art is this?" It didn't even sound like the same medium.) I'm way less familiar with Pablo Honey, but I can confidently say this is a quantum leap forward in terms of using the tools at hand to create music. At the risk of undervaluing the "5-star" rating — I feel like I've been throwing them out (I would like to revise my "Truth" rating to a 4, please) — this is as close to a flawless album as it gets.

This was an enjoyable listen. I heard sections that sounded reminiscent of Radiohead and Elbow — turns out Doves and Elbow are both from Manchester and both formed within a year of one another, so I guess this was the Manchester sound in the late-'90s early 2000s. I also heard a track that made me think of Simon & Garfunkel, which could just be a product of having heard them recently. I listened to this more than once this weekend, neither was a particularly focused session, which may account for the 3-star, but I think its more that while I enjoyed it, nothing landed as particularly striking. I'll likely listen to more from the band, but it didn't rise to the level of immediate connection the way Elbow did when I first discovered them.

First off, I love this band name. I've heard of them, I assumed they were more techno/dance/high-energy based on the name, but having listened to this, I know I've heard them before. Anyway, clearly not enough to have made me super curious. I like this vibe, reminded me of Morcheeba (not a band I know a ton about, either, but an album I reviewed years ago and kept as part of my collection), but much like Doves, while I enjoyed the album (I actually listened to it twice), I'm not a convert or on a mission to explore the band's catalog. It was cool — I'll probably turn them on if we ever host a party as vibey background music to set a mood. But that's about the extent of the impact the album had on me. Not sure if the live version of "Light My Fire" was on the original release, but that was pretty unnecessary and easily my least favorite track.

If there were ever an album that we, listening in 2022, can't fully appreciate in regard to its immediacy, honesty, and courageousness, this would be it. I just can't imagine what people thought of this when it landed in 1974. That said, this is a musical form that requires a lot of the listener. It's provocative, and "H20 Gate Blues" is particularly captivating, but after a couple of poem/songs, I found my concentration lagging and found myself missing what Scott-Heron was communicating. Is that on me for not being focused enough? On the performers for not being engaging enough? Is it a challenge of this format? Hell, I don't know. I am familiar with some of Scott-Heron (and Jackson's) material, though I cannot remember the last time I sought it out to listen to. For that reason, I'm glad this is on the list.

Truth be told, I'm still listening to this one, but I was in on the 4-star review early on. How do I not already have this guy in my regular rotation of music? I've been familiar with Nick Cave from just about the very beginning — I remember knowing who he was when I first saw "Wings Of Desire" (one of my all-time favorite movies and one I saw in the theaters when it was released ... Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds are performing in a club in one of the scenes). Anyway, point is, I've known about him since the '80s and never really explored his catalog. I've seen him described as "post-punk," which I guess makes sense, but he always seemed too cool for punk in my estimation. In the long line of tone poets — Dylan, Morrison, Smith, Waits, et. al. — this music and his songwriting have an immediacy and relatability (and the aforementioned "cool") that I totally dig. Definitely going to dive deeper into his extensive and continuing body of work.

This was an interesting ride. First time listening to this band, and I was swinging — practically song by song — from "this is a 2" to "this is a 4." Some of the material was really strong — great melodies, interesting songs, cool arrangements. Others were hard to get through — there were definitely times when the vocalists inclinations to vacillate between full voice and falsetto got to be a bit much. But it wasn't just the vocals. There were many moments where it just seemed like the band was trying too hard to impress with Mario-cart keyboard sounds and complex arrangements, and those were the times this album dipped to unenjoyable. I wasn't listening with the song list in front of me, so I don't know which tunes were the ones I enjoyed, but this is one of those albums where I could cherry-pick half the songs and put together an impressive album. But taken as a whole, this was uneven, at least as it relates to my personal tastes.

Here's one I don't get. This album gets accolades for being some work of genius, and I think it's terrible. I've played in some dumpy rock venues in my day, and I've heard my share of terrible bands. I mean awful. And this sounds like a lot of that — the band that's playing before you and, once they start, you think, "how the fuck am I going to get through this set?" and you have nowhere to go. Mediocre riffs, mediocre performance — and that's not even it. The whole point seems to be not to play well. In fact, I was feeling pretty certain that the players on the song "Ace Of Spades" were not the same as the rest of the album (it does not appear to be the case). "Ace" has a musical acuity to it that just disappears after the song ends. It's noisy as hell and just on the edge of musical, but the playing is tight, the tones are massive, and the riff's alright. Then "Love Me Like A Reptile" comes on and the whole things falls to pieces. Somehow, through it all, there is an honesty to the music, the band attains a sense of purpose and cool, which must be what people are reacting to, because the music is lousy.

I'm not sure what to make of this album. Throughout, it was like a splinter in my mind trying to figure out who The Killers reminded me of. I don't want to call it derivative — I mean, maybe it is — but it was more of an immediate connection to something I couldn't define. And it sounds good. Clearly this is a band that goes for big production. Big sounds. The one tune, "Somebody Told Me," reminded me of Blur's "Girls & Boys," and truth be told, I liked The Killers tune a bit more because it didn't hammer on that same lyric/chorus past the point of clever. But on the whole, the songwriting and production started melting into one another, and it began to be difficult to tell one track from the next. Certainly repeated listens and more familiarity would likely remedy that, but I wasn't enamored enough to want to dig deeper, at least not immediately. I'd be more inclined to delve into Blur's catalog, thanks for asking. So yeah. 3 it is.

From the first notes of "Deceptacon," I was already penning a review — "this is precisely the type of music that is NOT for me." I've never been a huge fan of low-fi production and aesthetic, unless in the hands of a really ingenious artist, and this didn't seem to be heading in that direction. But, then I paused and listened with intention, trying to set aside any musical prejudices. There's an undeniable knack for songcraft going on here. Some clever things are happening in the way the songs unfold, some interesting lyrics — you know, there are some decent songs here. And the drummer is pretty damned good. Tight, confident, capable. It gives the proceedings a grounded foundation. But then, there's the guitar. The tone is unpleasant. The playing is — well, it's fucking terrible. It was starting to make me a bit angry. It certainly made the album increasingly unlistenable, despite the other elements that were showing promise and taking this somewhere interesting. At the end of it all, I kept thinking, "why listen to this when I can always spin the B-52s?" So, this was a 2 when I first started listening, then I thought, "no, there's something better going on here," but the guitar playing brought this back to a 2. But it's a thoughtful, gentler 2. Can we call that progress?

This was cool. I feel woefully unequipped to bring a studied review to most rap, based on my lack of familiarity with the genre on the whole. But like wine, I can tell you when I like it and don't, even if I can't describe the subtleties I'm tasting. So it is with Method Man. I enjoyed this album. His smooth, understated delivery speaks to his confidence as an artist, the beats kept me moving throughout, and maybe with another few listens, I'll have a better grasp of what he has to say. I did peek in on the AllMusic bio and album review after listening just to ground myself a little more in where this album stood in the Wu-Tang chronology (this was the first solo album from anyone in the collective), and learned that Method Man and I share a birthday. He's four years younger. Ain't that a bitch.

If I were to have ranked Radiohead's albums in order leading up to this experiment, OK Computer would have topped the list. It's a captivating, moody, eerie sound of paranoia at its best, and it boasts notable, numerous classic songs. (Side note, Sylvia was present while I listened to this — more than once in the past 24 hours — and kept commenting on how this song and this song, oh and this song are popular these days. So yeah, this album has a good chance of being BIG). But damn, The Bends is all those things, and even better. So flim-flam! This album, great as it is, just toppled off the top spot from Andre's coveted list of Radiohead album rankings that doesn't exist into the #2 position. And since we're likely to hear another Radiohead album in a week, let's see what happens then. So yeah, loved the album, and now that there's a massive body of work piled on top of it from Yorke and the crew, you can almost hear the songwriting morphing in real-time from expert alt-pop to something totally new. Yorke seems ever more interested in exploring sounds (including the sound of his voice) in unconventional ways, and you can almost hear Kid A and Amnesiac coming as this album plays. But then, what to rate it? It's a fantastic album, for certain, but I'm surprising myself that this isn't an automatic 5. It's a four-plus, but in this case, I'm rounding down. Struggled with that.

From the stark paranoid android landscape of OK Computer, we come to the party-time metronomic robot blues/pop of Eliminator. What a weird premise. Super processed guitars, thick sequencers, Frank Beard's syncopated quarter-note drumming, and blues-infused guitar producing some of the biggest hits of the '80s. Not to mention the entire album centers around Billy Gibbons' obsession with chasing (and catching) dirty women. But when it works, it's really good. The super-thick-slick sound is an accomplishment on its own, and when the riffs are good and the songs are solid, and Gibbons' incessant guitar work is flowing, this kills. But then there's the rest of the material. Some of the B-sides are just fine, but when Gibbon's sings "TV dinners, they're going to my head," it's really clear that the band is out of ideas. Where most of of the misogyny and adolescent lyrics are delivered with enough of a wink to excuse it as one big party, the weaker material makes the high points a lot less glossy. When this is great, it's a 4+, but the weaker material drags this down to a 3.14159265359...

I don't know how to best articulate what it is about Amy Winehouse that I do not connect with. No doubt, she's got a range and her own style, she's got a unique voice and ... I'm trying to come up with more. Point is, I just don't enjoy listening to her sing. I'm sure this isn't exactly fair, but it just never sounds genuine to me. It's like she's playing at being a sultry jazz-inflected siren, but I'm not buying it. I tried to listen objectively, and this is clearly early work of hers, so you can hear her thinking through the parts on many of these songs—she's got the talent, she's still working on the craft. With another artist, I might have enjoyed the juxtaposition of the studio and live cuts of the same material, but on this I was annoyed that we were hearing the same tracks again. So, yeah, I tried, but I'm just not an Amy Winehouse fan.

So yeah, I was an early adopter of R.E.M. Right out of the gate I discovered Murmur, I saw them on the Life's Rich Pageant tour (Spectrum Showcase!) and I bought Document. They were cool. Then I totally lost my appetite for the band. Marianne suggested that it has something to do with a misperception that they "sold out" or got too popular, but that's not it. I was fine with them getting popular. I just didn't like the music they were making anymore. I pin it on Michael Stipe, but it may be the whole package. The songs were just not appealing, Stipe, certainly, seemed to take himself way too seriously now that people were paying attention to him. Whatever it was, I stopped paying attention. So strangely, as familiar as I am with the band, I didn't know this album. Yes, I'd heard some of the songs, "Man On The Moon" most notably, but I had no idea what was on this album and I turned it on hoping that maybe I'd have an epiphany and realize I was being an asshole and the band was just awesome. Yeah... no. "The Sidewinder Sleeps" into "Everybody Hurts" made me want to punch my dog. I love my dog. I did not succumb. But the urge was there, and it was R.E.M.'s fault. For that, this album gets a 2. It's teetering on a 1. But I'm trying to be my most generous and kind self.

I enjoyed this album. I was drawn in by the recurring theme of personal reckoning and the honesty of the lyrics, though I'd guess the narrator and everyone he consorts with are folks I'd rather not have in my life. Lots of scoundrels. The album was hovering somewhere between 3–4 for me, never quite reaching 4 as musically this didn't have enough diversity to surprise me after the third song. I also did not like the harmonies. I couldn't tell if it was the singer doing his own purposely awful harmonies or some other band member who shouldn't have gotten a microphone, but that was a bad arrangement/production choice. I don't care what the aesthetic. Boo. Never listened to the band before, though the name is familiar. Now I have.

It's been at least 30 years since I've listened to this record — though I heard "Blister In The Sun" in a store or somewhere just the other day — and I remembered more of it than I expected. This struck me as such a wild departure when it was released, acoustic punk with a sense of humor, and I liked it then, but I considered it something of a novelty record. But it's really a good album. The songs hold up, the playing is better than you think it is, and lyrically, there's a lot to like. I was a bit reticent, thinking this was not going to live up to my teenage memories ... why can't I get just one fuck? How subversive. But this is no novelty record. It's definitely affected and not right for all occasions, but it's good, for real.

As I know Scott is an avid Beach Boys fan, this one is hard for me. And it's not just Scott — so many people consider Brian Wilson a genius and the Beach Boys some sort of transcendent band, and I don't understand it. I continue to try. So this is not me shitting all over the band so much as trying to explain what I'm hearing. Harmonies. No doubt, the harmonies on any given song are impressive. But after three tunes, it's like everything is just cranked through the 8-part Beach Boys harmony machine and it all starts to sound like an endless, meandering "oooOOOooo." Themes. Did these guys ever actually grow out of high school? I guess it's a sign of the times, but the infatuation with girls makes it hard to take the music seriously. Lyrics. They sound so desperate to be cool, they drop every catchphrase in the parlance of the times. If they had just laid down one "Daddy-O" my Beach Boys Lingo Bingo card would have been full. And on what is easily the most enjoyable song, "Help Me Rhonda," I was struck by the actual message of the song: "my fiancée dumped me and I'm brokenhearted, but you're pretty hot and if you blow me, I'll forget all about her." I mean, that's a pretty coarse interpretation of the lyric, but it ain't wrong. I was going to give it a 2, but I'm hovering over the 3. Help me Rhonda!

As if the star rating didn't say it already, this was a dramatically more enjoyable experience than listening to "Automatic For The People." While I struggled between a 4 and 5 on this one, this represents REM at it's peak, IMO, so it gets the 5. It's the most benevolent blend of Michael Stipe — you can understand the words he's using, but I still don't know what he's taking about, and he's painting just outside the lines of his range and sweet spot as a vocalist. The pacing of the album is excellent, paring REM at its most playful (End Of The World) with its most earnest (The One I Love) — at least on this album — and it all works really well. It's also the band at its best in terms of sharing vocal duties. Whoever produced this did a good job with the talents of the band members. Bill Berry's drums sound great (love the gated bass drum on "Lightnin' Hopkins"), Michael Mills is used to his best effect, Peter Buck has loads of different guitar sounds going on — good stuff. This, for me, is where everything coalesced and it never got better for the band.

Lana Del Rey was mostly unknown to me, so this was my introduction. She can sing when she chooses to — the barely audible squeaky delivery was not my favorite — and I really liked her harmonies and musical arrangements. The songs tended to dwell on the same parts longer than they needed to — I felt like she beat every good lyric into the ground. I spent the first half of the album waiting for it to kick into gear, until I realized this was the gear, an album of songs to sing while sleeping. OK, not super exciting. With a 2021 release date, for it to have made this list, I was expecting something a little more memorable. But I literally laughed out loud when the album ended. After penning an album chock full of album closers, to end on "For Free," decidedly the least-suited to the task, cracked me up. (That was probably my favorite tune — the melody was very reminiscent of Joni Mitchell.) Maybe that's Del Rey's sense of humor. I get the impression she lives her life faster than she sings her songs.

I wasn't able to give this the listen it deserves, but I liked what I heard — propulsive and smart, lots to home in on in the production. It did suffer from one of my recurring issues with hip hop and rap, which is that songs start blending together. The drum beats and sounds were similar throughout, which invariably makes the tracks sound similar and that becomes less interesting as the album rolls on. But, considering the short shrift this one got, I'm rolling down the middle and will revisit another day.

Listened while working — this music is timeless. Hard to believe it's from 1959 and still sounds so cool. Miles' trumpet is one thing, but Coltrane's sax just rips through the mix when he's playing. And then there's Cannonball Adderley, which is about the coolest name you can have. The bass also drew me in. I'm not sure what it'll take to get a 5 from me on a jazz album, I guess I'm waiting to find out. But this is excellent .

I really enjoyed digging in early Who with "The Who Sell Out." This one was not nearly as enjoyable. The hits saved this album from being a middling exploration of blues and early rock—in fact, they sound like they came from another era, a glimpse of where the band would be at its best. The rest of the material was sporadically interesting when there were moments that hearkened to brilliant musicianship and how the band would evolve, but I don't think I'll be queuing this up again. And what's with the aerial photo in the industrial chemical factory? It's a 2.something, but "My Generation" and "The Kids Are Alright" are bumping this up to a level 3.

I had never listened to a Bon Jovi album coming into this, though I had a fully-formed opinion about the band (and its frontman). In this case, that has been thoroughly reinforced having sat through "Slippery When Wet." Jon Bon Jovi has a vocal range and a timbre made for this style of hard-edged pop-rock. Great range — dude can sing. When the songs are at their best — you know the mega hits — they're just fine. You've learned the melody by the end of the first chorus, you can sing along by the time we're midway through. Made for radio (MTV), it's easy to understand why these were popular songs. It doesn't make them any less silly. "You give love a bad name" was always just shy of clever — like a framed embroidery you might buy at the Cracker Barrel shop. Feed the masses something that tastes like food but is mostly devoid of substance. What surprised me was just how much of this album I recognized. So, a 3-star rating for how deeply this burrowed into the collective consciousness. But Bon Jovi has been elevated to a status beyond his merits. He's deserved to enjoy a nice life based on his massive sales and popularity. But he's revered as some sort of songwriting genius, and that's taking this music too seriously. "Love is a social disease" might make for a line that makes you smirk upon hearing it, but it's no great revelation. I guess that could have been my entire review.

I enjoyed this — dug the positive, provocative, no apologies nature of the material. The cameos and interstitials created a narrative feel to the album — this seems designed to be listened to as a whole. It's an album that will require more listens to fully appreciate, and I'll circle back to Solange. This was my introduction. Thanks Merryanne's Sound Machine!

I need a documentary or long-form explanation of how Parliament, Funkadelic, P-Funk, et. al. intertwine, but for the moment, I'll voice a generalized impression that the whole Funkadelic universe was more influential and impactful than it gets credit for. I heard so many elements that seemed to filter into later music — Sly and The Family Stone and James Brown and others deserve similar credit, as well (and get it) — and George Clinton has a singular ability to make a record sound like a party. With a funky backbeat. I think a 3-star rating is under selling this album, but it was hampered by the opening title track, which I didn't really get the point of, and my need to listen more (and more intently) to the songs to really appreciate what's going on here.

This was a hard one to rate. I LOVED the bass on this album (drums too), loved the verses, loved the up-tempo R&B attack. I've got a "best of (soul years)" collection from Bobby Womack, not one of these songs are on it, and none of them pack the punch these songs do. His singing is killer. Strangely, from a songwriting perspective, I thought every chorus on the record (with an exception or two) was overshadowed by the verse. The verses flowed and rolled and were just fantastic and then the chorus came in and the energy dipped. So, this was an easy 4, but that hampers it, as does the song order. Why stack the three slow numbers at the end like that? All three songs are just fine (though I'd have preferred one more rollicking track replace one of them), but the album comes to a screeching halt before it's over. So, at its best, this was bangin'. But it's far from perfect. Hell, I enjoyed it a lot. 4 stars.

I wouldn't have counted myself a fan of CCR, though I feel like I know a huge section of the band's catalog. CCR sounds like quintessential America, like they crawled out of the bayou one humid summer evening as a fully-formed unit. The fact that the band's roots are in San Francisco aside, this is a great album. No player is a virtuoso, but the band is confident and can jam and extend a song and make it a wild and interesting ride. And while John Fogerty's singular vocal style is unmistakeable and dude's got a gift, it does have the capacity to be a little grating. Thankfully, the pacing of the album and the strength of the material means every sonic element is doled out in just the right amount at just the right time so it never becomes a detraction from enjoying the album. Had you told me the highlight of any album was an 11-minute exploration of "I Hoiyed It Through The Grapevine," I wouldn't have thought that a good idea, and while it may not be the highlight, it's a standout track that anchors the record. So... as I write this, it sounds like a 5-star album, though I'm giving it a 4. I'd like to blame that on "Ooby Dooby," (I had to look that up, I was going to write "Oingy Boingy"), but I think it's just residual predilection for not loving the band. But this is a great album, and may be even more impressive considering it was the fourth of five albums the band released in a two-year span.

Having listened to a couple of early albums by The Who, the significance of "Tommy" really comes through. The scope of the album, the vision of Pete Townshend, and the ambitions of the band are big and eccentric and you can understand why this is a landmark album for the band and for rock and roll music. When the band is brilliant on this, they shine. The interplay of the vocals is masterful, the harmonies on songs like "Tommy Can You Hear Me?" are fantastic, and Keith Moon proves he's got chops for days. Not to mention, what an out there premise this entire album rests on. 10 stars for creativity and commitment to an artistic ideal. But there's a lot of dead weight, and for all his stellar abilities and singular voice on his instrument, I was so tired of Moon's drumming by the 3/4 mark that it detracted from the album. It encapsulates my admiration/repulsion to this band. There's no question that there's genius at work in so many elements of this band, but somehow, some of that genius is what undermines my enjoyment. I know this is better than a 3-star album, but I can't imagine a time when I'll be looking for something to listen to and decide to listen to this from start to finish. That's why it's a 3-star in my book. A brilliant 3.

There's a time in my life where an album like this might have made me angry — just the sheer disinterest in performing at a level of competence on any given instrument would have rankled me... why waste my time with your music if you won't take a little of yours to figure out how to play your instrument? I'm way past that, I can appreciate (and enjoy) the appeal of a punk-tinged art-splattered indie garage band vibe with limited acumen on instruments and vocals. But for it to be an enjoyable or satisfying listen, the material has to be stellar. This starts off with some promise, the first three songs are compelling enough, but it dissolves as the album progresses and the material gets more hackneyed and repetitive and ultimately, uninteresting and, finally, just noisy.

I thought something must be wrong with the streaming service. What could make an album sound so terrible? Looks like this was the band's intention. It's unlistenable.

I recently heard an interview on the radio with Don McLean. He seems like a genuinely sweet guy. That said, I cringed when this album showed up as the album of the day. I have a running list of "songs I never need to hear again in my life," and "American Pie" tops the list. [Notable others, as I'm sure you're super interested to know, include "Brown Eyed Girl," "Sweet Caroline," and anything that falls out of the mouth of Jimmy Buffet.] The song is 5:30 longer than necessary, it's ponderous, I've heard it way too many times... I'm beyond over it. I skipped it when listening to this album so that I wouldn't start off in a foul temper. And... Don McClean strikes me as a genuinely sweet guy. He's got a lovely singing voice. His songs are perfectly nice. I'm sure his intentions are pure. 3 stars because the title track is an iconic song that I could sing 80% of the words to despite not having heard it since college (aka, a long, long time ago).

I enjoyed this album. There were definitely times where the tracks got repetitive, and there were lots of noises that didn't always contribute positively to the listening experience, but I liked the interplay between the rappers and the tracks and the content from start to finish. I wasn't listening to this back in the early '90s, but I recognize this must have been a bold statement when it was released.

Pretty cool that the day's listening included Public Enemy and Weather Report. So this album — damn, some of the playing is otherworldly, particularly the bass. Tones of the instruments are also really great throughout. When this is at its best, this is sensational. I appreciate the jazz genre tucked into a slightly more structured song format. At times it's too structured, and self-aware and indulgent, but then, if I could play and write and execute these parts, I'd push myself to do it. These guys are playing things — individually and as a group — that not many can. So, perfect? No. Too indulgent and showy for that. Brilliant? Yes. And at its best (the opener, "Birdland" for instance), this is magical.

I went into this completely blind — no idea what this was about, no idea who the artist(s) is, I even skipped looking at the release date. I totally enjoyed the album. Took a hit, geared up, took Tophee on a chilly walk after sunset along a dark country road, and listened to this album. I found it inventive, loved the variety of styles, I appreciated the lyrics and message. There were some compositional elements that got a bit overworked, but that's a negligible criticism considering the scope of the material.

My reaction to this album today is pretty much identical to my reaction when this first came out. I had friends who were intensely into this album, so I was familiar with it, and back then, as now, my overwhelming thought was, "Jesus, man, lighten up." So yeah, I get this is supposed to channel extreme angst and anger and — how the hell am I supposed to know what Trent was going through? Anyway, the sounds are good and he's certainly created a vibe and a mystique and an empire by this point, so good on him. But this is too noisy and overwrought for me to enjoy. Even the "hits" are just too much. I don't relate.

Live rock albums are rarely excellent, in my estimation. Jazz and blues and classical music recorded live has a much better chance of capturing the scope of the event. Not the same as being there in the moment, but you get close to the full experience. With a stadium-sized rock show, with no visuals, live albums almost always leave better than 50% of the experience behind. So it is with "Made In Japan." Deep Purple was possibly the biggest-sounding rock band in the world in 1972 — they were certainly among them — but this album doesn't recreate that sound. Ian Gillan on vocals deserves a 5-star on his own, you can hear the intensity of his performance, and he's one of the all-time greats, just being able to ride atop the massive sound the band is churning out is a feat — and he wails with the best of them. Ian Paice on drums is also in great form on this album, as is the rest of the band. But the throb of the organ, the bite of Blackmore's guitar, the bass... they just don't bring the noise on this recording. And while this is a bygone era, drum solos are almost always a bad idea, and the band spends so much time exploring jams and super-extended flights of fancy — is it really necessary to add solos on top of that? There's too much noodling, and combined with the sub-excellent translation of the live show, what could have been a concise wallop of an album meanders and seems to lack focus, even if the live show itself didn't. It's a 4-plus for the intensity we're not getting to hear, and for including the definitive version of "Smoke On The Water," but the other detractions weigh this album down. I guess they included the live album on this list because it highlighted the best of the band's material at its most awesome, but I bet a studio album from this era would have earned more stars.

What a brilliant freaking album. Iconic pop from the '80s but wholly unconventional. Fantastic blend of guitar and synths. Great mix of male and female contributors. Every song is interesting. Portrait of a profoundly gifted musician at an artistic apex, fearless, free, just overflowing with talent and songcraft and studiocraft and it all comes to a fine point on this album. And while this is really the first time the Revolution gets in into the mix, Prince orchestrates every note — and it's all for the good. It's almost cliché to love this album, but that doesn't make it any less amazing. I always appreciated the flow of this album, from the party-time opener to the strange drum-driven intro of "Take Me With U" to the "Beautiful Ones," which is a beautiful track, to the odd "Computer Blue" that goes on its own unpredictable journey. I really enjoyed "Darling Nikki" on this listen, more than I expected, and it struck me that "When Doves Cry" must be among the songs I've heard most in my life — like all-time number of times I've heard that song — and damned if I wasn't keying in on things for the first time. There's a guitar line that's moving underneath, and I love the extended version (as opposed to the single version). And somehow, "Purple Rain" might be my least favorite song ("Baby I'm A Star" was always one of my faves) in this mix, and yet it's like the best song ever when Prince played it at the Super Bowl. (Treat yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WYYlRArn3g) Damn, I miss Prince.

This was a decent effort, nothing particularly interesting or exceptional, nothing specifically unlikeable. But I kept asking myself, "why this album on the list?" What's special about this? We'll get plenty from Eno as a producer before we're done, why include this album of his music?

Hey — thanks Nicole. Seeing you rate albums that were served up earlier made me realize this was possible. I listened to this album when it appeared in our feed, but I was late to the party to review and was shut out. Great album, might be a five-star if this weren't David Bowie whose body of work sets a high bar, and somehow that seems to factor in. Iconic as it it is, I don't love "Five Years," so opening with that sets me off on shaky ground. But god damn, Bowie sure found his Ziggy spaceman groove on this album and puts on something of a alt-songwriting clinic. What a fantastic artist, love this guy.

Great guitar playing on this album, harmonies too. Such an unmistakeable sound to The Byrds, though I'd never listened to a complete album by the band. Sometimes the lyrics would wander into hackneyed territory, but that wasn't enough to detract from the enjoyment. Solid songs, clearly an influence on artists to come, good stuff.

I guess this is an "early" James brown album, even though he had ten releases before this — I think he has 250 since. Maybe an exaggeration, but dude's got a deep catalog. The material I'm more familiar with, his later more renowned music, I find a bit tedious. I hear what makes him a revolutionary artist, but the repetition just wears on me and I don't love it. This album is largely devoid of that — so many elements of Brown's artistry are intact, but it's so clear how bad-ass he is, and the band is killing. As I mentioned in an earlier review (Deep Purple), live rock albums are rarely excellent, but here's a good example of an exception. The band is minimized a bit by the recording, but the recording captures other elements that make it clear that the band was rockin', the room was rockin', and there was something special going on. I also love the rawness of the performance. He's not nearly perfect as a singer, there are lots of things that might have gotten a retake in the studio, and modern music may not allow for the "flaws" in the performance, but he lets it all hang out because James Brown is capable (and willing) to go places others may not dare to go. Another artist with a troubled story off-stage, but gee whiz, there's something magical going on when he's on it.

Here's one that requires a .5 star option (3.5 in this case). I watched a documentary about Alice Cooper not long ago, worth watching if you like the band at all, and it gave me a new appreciation for the singer and the band. Hard to distinguish, but the band was called Alice Cooper, and later on, the singer took on the name... so, for this album, the band is Alice Cooper. But you probably already knew all that. Anyway, my younger self chalked AC up to something of a novelty act, but as I've listened to more of his/their music, I recognize there's more craft going on than I originally realized, and Bob Ezrin (who produced a few of the albums on this list) deserves some of the credit for that. So, yeah, this was a fun listen, the ending vamp of "Public Animal #9" was pretty funny and I thought of Scott as the "West Side Story" cover played — I appreciate Cooper's sense of humor, which is an integral part of what makes this music enjoyable. All that said, I don't think it's quite a 4, so a 3, but we all know that's really 3.5. [Side note: my favorite AC album, Welcome To My Nightmare, is not on the 1001 list and is a 4.5-5 in my book.]

Surprisingly, I have never listened to an entire Iron Maiden album, so I was glad to see this come up in our feed. I was wary to find it was the band's first album, before Bruce Dickinson joined and likely before they had really found themselves. But there had to be a good reason for choosing this album, right? Well, color me confused. There were moments that spoke to something special going on, notably some of the extended instrumental passages ("Transylvania" comes to mind), but more often that not, I was wincing at the uninspiring guitar riffs and predictable vocal melodies (e.g. "Charlotte the Harlot"). Match that with what was likely bargain-basement recording access and I found the album less than fantastic. I'm looking forward to "Number of the Beast," the second of Maiden's albums on the list, hoping that might help me better understand what puts this band in the top echelons of metal. This album didn't do that. It's a 2.5 for it's better moments, but since I rounded down for Alice Cooper yesterday, this one's at a 2.

This album sounds great. The production, the recording quality, really crisp and expansive (and I was listening on earbuds). While this seems to conform to the standard EDM aesthetic (not that I am in any way an expert), The Chemical Brothers have a knack for building an ebb-and-flow into the compositions. I wouldn't call it lyrical, but there's an arc to the songs. That said, is this music anyone actually listens to in album form? I think it was Andy who made the comment (Fatboy Slim review?) that this is music to get people on the dance floor and moving, and I can see that. But I can't imagine deciding to spin this album as something to listen to on its own merit. I also don't understand the album cover as it relates to the music/vibe. Is it wholly ironic? Are they making a statement? Do they hate hippies? Is there an acoustic guitar anywhere in this mix? So, a 4 because it seems like top-notch electronic music. But I don't know that I need to listen to a whole lot more of it in full album format. Just when I'm raving on a packed dance floor, which happens like... Amsterdam 2001.

I was all over the place listening to this album. I'd be impressed by the ambition in the songwriting, amused by the quaintness of it all, moved by the sincerity of the vocalists, embarrassed by ideas that didn't quite work, and bemused by how helplessly mired in 1967 this album is — all within the span of a song. This is music begging to be made into a mocumentary. I didn't exactly like it, but I appreciated it for all the reasons I've mentioned. It's a 3 star... I haven't discovered a new band I'm going to dig deeper into, but this is like a time capsule preserving something I knew existed but never really spent time exploring.

I totally missed Elastica when they first came out, and I can't be sure what I would have thought of them at the time, but this weekend, I thought they were super cool. Bowie's "Scary Monsters" channeled through Blondie at its most punk. I can't claim to remember all the songs, "See That Animal" is one I remember particularly enjoying, but I was taken by the songs and attitude and affectation of the band. I know we say this, and I'll promise to stop after this review, but it's hard to rate something on its first listen and feel like you're getting the full scope of the album. That said, my first impression was, this is a four.

What can I say, I enjoyed Willie Nelson's album. This isn't a style of music I've dug deep into, so I don't have a ton to compare it to, but the bare-bones approach and intimate sound appealed from the get-go, and while I may have missed all the nuance in the lyrics from beginning to end, the preacher's story and theme was laid out nicely. I assumed this was an early Willie album — the man has released albums consistently from 1962 through this year — so what's early? This was his 18th release. Damn. Any way, not exactly his first rodeo, as they say in the disco circuit, so a more deliberate call out to an older style of campfire music. Anyway, I'll stop pretending I know more about this than I do and just say, "well done!"

First, what an amazing album cover. This band did so much to solidify its legacy right out of the gate — evocative band name, sinister sounding guitars tuned to whatever note that is, ability to turn blues' riffs into sinister slow boils, lyrics that are one part horror movie and one part everyman poetry... it's no wonder this band is still a force. Still, somehow, I never loved Black Sabbath. I totally dig some of their major hits, I absolutely love what they represent, I get what makes them masters of the genre, but I don't particularly enjoy listening to the band. Maybe it's the sludgy guitars, maybe it's the incessant slow throb or Ozzy's particular pitch... whatever it is, they've never been a band I dug into. But this listen gave me a real appreciation for the blues foundation this band is built on and also showcased musicality (and drumming) that might not always get appreciated amid the unholy trappings that the group is best known for. Great debut album.

When the first track started, I turned to Sylvia (we were in the car listening together) and said, "Nice, this guy can play." Third song... "Starting to feel like a case of the sameses. Not hearing a lot of diversity in the songwriting." Midway through the album... "Think he'll kick it up a notch before the end?" Somewhere past the mid-point, dude got excited and kicked it up a notch. "I think I liked it better when he was stuck in neutral." Near the end... "If I were to walk into Molly McGuire's (nondescript local faux Irish bar/restaurant), I'd be glad to hear this guy playing. But to craft an album with your fingerpicking guitar and voice, you've got to write some really exceptional material to make it interesting." This was not my experience with Bert Jansch.

I can't say I've ever understood this album cover, but I just love it. This album strikes gold on so many levels, it's more along the "albums you must hear 1001 times before you die" since this is probably the 900th time I've listened to it. A five-song album that just never disappoints. Great transitions between songs, Pink Floyd records are not afraid to allow negative space. Waters' cynical disillusion is biting and relatable, certainly seems wiser than the establishment he's railing against. Love the use of noises and weird keyboard sounds as interstitial and integral parts of the songs. The drums sound great (well, the toms do, the snare is a hair wimpy) and this is Gilmore at his best. Crazy that the band has at least two more from the same era that are all among the best of their class.

This was a bit hit and miss for me. I enjoyed most of it, particularly the R&B-tinged material. Some of the rap was a little flat, some of it was pretty sharp. A solid 3 in my book.

In the last couple of years, I've come to realize I've under-appreciated how good this band is. "You Really Got Me" and "All Day And All Of The Night" (and "Lola") sit atop the tunes I could rattle off by the band, and none of that really hints at the depth of The Kinks' songwriting prowess, which seems silly to say considering they're massive, iconic rock songs. So I'm no expert on the band (I'd refer you to Scott for that), but I'm on the road to discovery. Bottom line, this is a fantastic album. I didn't have the opportunity to linger on every song and soak up every lyric, but I will continue to dig into the band's catalog because every time I listen to a Kinks' album, I like the band more.

I typically avoid reading or researching these albums before listening and reviewing, but I'm glad I opted to read about this album as it was playing, because knowing that this was completely improvised from start to finish really changed how I heard to it. The ultra-superlative reviews were plentiful — this is a significant milestone in jazz music. Glad I knew that. As a listener, there were many moments that were extraordinary, as in, "how on earth can someone do that?" On the whole, it was an adventure — thrilling, ecstatic, joyful and contemplative, moody, quiet, depending on where Jarrett's mood took him. It's a lot to take in, for sure, but I'm believing the hype. Something of a marvel to hear someone so in control of an instrument and willing to take a step off the ledge and thrill an audience with his playing prowess and the spark of inspiration in the moment. Could be a five for sheer audacity; I'm giving it a four just because the prospect of listening to it front to back again anytime soon seems daunting.

Before I rail into this album, I want to say that I always thought Boy George was pretty cool. When this band launched, I was a bit confused by the outsized shock people seemed to have about this man dressed as a woman — or androgynously, or whatever — he always seemed pretty genuine to me. I was way more shocked/confused the first time I saw a greasy long-haired metal-head wearing a Poison t-shirt. But I digress... So good on BG for bringing alternative sexuality and lifestyles to the fore. But to elevate this band, or this album, and suggest this was some sort of milestone in music? Really? It sounded dated the month after it left the charts. The deeper cuts are middling to forgettable (to annoying), the arrangements are clunky, lyrically it often teeters on embarrassing — I don't care how much you love "Karma Chameleon," the lyric is better suited for The Muppets. I remember everyone gushing... "Boy George has SUCH an AMAZING voice!" He's got a fine voice, but a singular, "drop everything you need to hear this!" voice? Take a look at the other artists on the top of the charts at the time... Pat Benetar, Sting, Lionel Richie, Donna Summer, Steve Perry... there were lots of incredible vocalists out there. And while Wham! was not my cup of tea, George Michael has that voice. I always took that as people feeling the need to explain why they liked this band — like they needed an excuse. In 1983, this was fine. Let a catchy, nonsensical song like "Karma Chameleon" play on the radio. There's a place for it, enjoy it for what it is. But to try to suggest this is something important — musically? It doesn't hold up.

This is where jazz and I were not meant to be together. I hear it — the exceptional musicianship, the intricate and deliberate arrangement, the intentional dissonance and musical interplay. I imagine, as a player, what a rush it must be to contribute and commit to the music in the moment. In a live setting, this might even be thrilling. But I can't say I enjoyed listening to the album. I couldn't find a way in. I appreciated many moments, the flamenco guitar was a surprise guest, but on the whole, there were no threads for me to take hold of, I found the brass too brash and noisy, and the music too dense and disconnected overall. Rather than transported, I was becoming agitated. So, as they say in the breakup game, it's not you, it's me. I tried, but I couldn't relate.

A three-star review seems a little harsh, this band has lots going for it. Good musicianship — the drummer was having a ball — an impressive mix of styles, and an earnest optimism that seemed to gush forth in everything they play and sing. There are a couple of unfortunate production choices that just don't hold up — the delay effect in "Smug" chief among them — which don't help strengthen the album. But I think what ultimately keeps this from climbing into 4-5-star territory is the material. It's well-written, certainly not simple in construction, but it's just so darned peppy. It's well crafted, super-pleasant, and utterly wholesome, and somehow that seems to be a strike against them. I've never listened to an Osmonds album, but I'd imagine I might feel the same. Maybe that's unfair, but sometimes life's a bitch.

Man, this is a hard one to pin down. Musically, this band is so tight and so clean. Disco gets such a bad rap, and I'd hesitate to limit this band to disco, but this is the prototype for funky dance/disco music. [The Outkast references are inadvertent but appropriate.] Tony Thompson (who you'll also recognize from Power Station and Bowie's "Let's Dance" album) on drums is a massive time keeper/groove provider, Nile Rodgers knows how to play funky guitar better than just about anyone, and the rest of the musicians all play their parts to perfection. Yes, the tunes roll on and on, but that's the point. I'll take humans killing a dance beat over techo every single time. Then... there's the vocals. Well, I should say, lyrics, because the vocals are totally right on and immediately identifiable (I didn't love the vocal melody on "Will You Cry," but the rest are perfect for the music). But the lyrics seem like an afterthought, and it holds this record back. Yes, it was a different era, so I'll even overlook some of the misogyny, but even on the biggest hit, "Good Times," the lyrics are trying to bring the song down. ("Don't be a drag, participate; Clams on the half shell, and roller skates, roller skates.") At the very least, it seems they were happy to settle on the first rhyme they came up with. So, for me, it was a tug between being super impressed with the music and wondering why they didn't work harder on the lyrics. Clearly, they did fine for themselves, and it works for the dance floor, because you know the lyric the second time it comes around and you're locked in, but IMO, a little more variety and a little more attention to quality lyrics would have made this a five. As it stands... I'm at like a 3.5... it's Christmas, so this gets the Santa bump.

I still have this one on vinyl (sadly, I don't have my entire collection any more). I didn't know anyone else who listened to it at the time and thought I had stumbled on some rare gem. I guess the album was more popular than all that. On this listen, I had a moment or two of PC concern about appropriation — the notion of "redskin" being a slur has settled into my core — but really, I was just enjoying the drum beats and yelps and campy swagger of Adam and his Ants. I can't think of other artists that quite sounds like this, the band has staked its ground and created something it can claim as its own. Thankfully, it's fun to listen to and entertaining from start to finish. I remember always wanting to get to "Ants Invasion," that was the standout track for me, and I totally enjoyed it on this listen. What the hell any of it is actually about is irrelevant, this sets a mood and sticks to it, and that's what it was all about then and now.

I'm a Wilco fan, but I connect a lot more with the later albums, starting with 2004's A Ghost Is Born. I can't quite verbalize what it is about this album that I can't seem to embrace. It might just be the pain that seems to emanate from the opening wail of guitar on track one through to the bitter end. Even the upbeat tracks have somber chord changes that belie a feeling that things just aren't alright. There are great tracks — 19 is a lot of music to absorb — and the band is killer. Like I said, I like Wilco a lot, but I never loved this album. I probably enjoyed this listen more than in the past. Hard to rate. I guess 'tis the season to round up, and certainly for the best material here, this gets the 4.

Well, if nothing else, I think I get this band and the wild fever it causes in diehard Pixies fans now more than before. I can't say I feel that same fever, but, if I may bring a personal fave of mine to the party, I sense a similarity in musical approach to that of Cheap Trick. Both are built on a foundation of punk/garage/muscular pop, and while CT leans toward cleaner more refined material and performances, this band wallows in the gritty abandon of the sloppier side and tries to steer the beast toward pop. It also seems to me that Josh Homme and Queens of the Stone Age must appreciate the Pixies based on the swings in style and delivery. The first three tracks on this album sound like they could have been three different bands, which sets the stage for "anything goes." But did I like it...? Yeah, though this is one I'd need to live with for a while before deciding what I really think.

My feelings on Phil Spector aside, this is a great collection of Christmas songs, mostly because it doesn't come across as a Christmas collection. The artists and production treat this like a bona fide "standard" record, the arrangements are grand, the performances are heartfelt, and the songs themselves are winners (mostly). Apparently this was released the day before Kennedy was assassinated, so Spector pulled it off the market upon release, killing the mojo it might have had in sales and in the collective consciousness; but Bruce Springsteen certainly heard it, as this seems to be the version of "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" he worked off to create his own classic rendition — sax solo and all. And give me this version of "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus" over the Jackson 5's every single time.

This album must have been an honor and a blast to make. The intrigue of the origins of the album make it a must listen, and, no doubt, there are great moments and good songs, though I feel the promise of this unique collaboration outshines the final product. The songs, almost every one of them, linger longer than they should, and the album loses traction as we get to the later numbers. So kudos to everyone involved (amazingly, the Natalie Merchant song is probably my favorite as it doesn't overstay its welcome), I'm sure this is a feather in the cap of Bragg, Tweedy, Bennett and the rest of the collaborators, but it was never my favorite listen.

So, as I'm listening to this album, I thought to look over my earlier review (Californication), and god damn... it sums it up perfectly. So I copied and pasted it. I'm resolving to working smarter, not harder, in 2023. I can't quite put my finger on what it is about this band I don't enjoy. I appreciate their honesty, but something leaves me flat. As in the case of "Suck My Kiss" — I was thinking, "hey, this is a cool tune," but before the song was over, I was less smitten. Kind of emblematic of how I feel about the RHCP. There are plenty of great moments, and while Anthony Kiedis is a singular presence as a vocalist (and Flea as a bassist), I prefer him when he goes with a "less is more" approach, and that's not usually his style. I also wasn't knocked out by the guitar work. I guess this is just not a band I love. I've had bandmates (bassists, specifically) who love this band, and they've been on my radar from early on (1985's Freaky Styley), but I've never been drawn in. I like them on a song-by-song basis, but not enough to go all in.

This was on my extracurricular list until I realized it was already in the 1001, so the timing is pretty interesting. It's a lot to take in, for sure, but this is an extraordinary album. Peppered with influences, in a league of its own — the performances and songwriting are masterful. Cornell has everything you could want in a hard-rock vocalist, and he never found the balance between his wailing high end and rich baritone (?) more adeptly than on this album. Matt Cameron is a beast on drums, Kim Thayill's guitar is massive and the riffs are superb. I think it's really a 4.5 for me, just for its sheer density of material, but you'll not find a better album in this genre. Maybe because this carves out a special prog-heavy-classic-psychedelic-rock niche for itself. Great lyrics, too. This album kills.

On paper, this is a band I should enjoy, but this era of Genesis has a particular ability to dredge up serious disinterest. I began the album paying attention, determined to enjoy it, but I was actively bored two songs in. The compositions, the flatness of the production, Peter Gabriel's vocal elastics... I've tried on many occasions to dig in, but alas, I'm empty handed. Give me "Duke" and "Abacab" era Genesis.

I was having a hard time pinning this one down. One minute, marveling at Waits' stranglehold on his very own musical genre, then feeling physically uncomfortable at how painful it must feel to sing like this — Jesus, man, take it easy. Then wondering if I really enjoy this music, then impressed with how sweet and vulnerable he sounds. Then "Jersey Girl" comes on and I realize, I'm pretty sure I knew he wrote this, but I don't recall ever hearing this version. How did Springsteen hear this and say, "now there's a song I ought to cover"? How do you assign a number to all this?

Here's one I came into with a negative bias. Marianne's a VU devotee, but I was (am) not. I've always thought Lou Reed was a cool character, we even have a story of not quite meeting him but being in close proximity at BAM once when we saw Laurie Anderson. Anyway, he's cool, I like him as an iconic figure. But try as I might, I do not like his music. I did have a new take on things as I listened to this album. In the past, I might have said "I don't get it." Now, so much older and wiser, I get it. I just don't enjoy it. I had hope as "Candy Says" played that perhaps I'd find something I liked here, but with each passing song, that light faded. Maybe it was a repetitive passage that wore out its welcome long before. Or an off-key delivery that I didn't find artistic. Or a mix that made me have to adjust the volume on my player. No need to beat the horse. I tried. I failed. I like the periphery around this band and movement. The music is for others to enjoy.

At first blush, and as the first song unfolded, I was pretty certain I'd have a difficult time getting through this one. It reeked of gimmicky "we're indie and edgy 'cause we're just so innocuous with our elevator music vibe." And while I wasn't 100% knocked out by the lyric in the second song, I was intrigued and ready to hear more. By the time "Lovefool" came on, a song I vaguely recognized, I had to admit that the songs were pretty darned clever in arrangement. I was enjoying the album. Then "Losers" hit and I was thinking this album might have even climbed to a 4-star rating. Alas, the ironic(?) genre-twist of "Iron Man" almost lost me completely. I'm a fan of unpredictable cover songs revealing something hidden in a song as performed by the original artist. This one fell so flat, it brought me back to thought #1: this is way too gimmicky. But the strength of the album's closers turned things around. So a really solid album I didn't expect to like when the first track was unfolding. But then, how to rate it? Better than a 3. Not really a 4. I'm flipping a coin. Couldn't find a coin, so I flipped a thumb drive. Heads it's a 3. Tails it's a 4.

Interesting album, a little too all over the place to connect with. Hampered by a slick production and a "whatever strikes my fancy" approach, I found the songs varied from captivating to clankers and everything in between. I bet each album from The The would be a wildly different listening experience. Maybe I'll find out one day.

Truth be told, I didn't listen to the whole thing, but I think I heard what I needed to. There's definitely something endearing about the enthusiasm and what seems like a leap of faith to produce, but I'm pulling my Scott card and saying the '80s production was something I couldn't get past. I know this was rap coming into its own, I can appreciate the limitations inherent in producing this (theoretically — I have no real idea how this was recorded, sounds like someone's bedroom), but this was a style of rap I could never sink my teeth into when it came out, and the same is even more true today.

It's probably not fair to invoke Oasis and Blur here — maybe that's just fine – but the Englishness emanating from this album is palpable, and The La's seem to be on an island of their own and in the same bucket as the aforementioned bands all at once. Thankfully, they swap all of Oasis' annoying bits with something like earnest retro-pop, though it's so natural, it doesn't ever feel or sound like an homage or consciously out-of-time, it somehow exists in the '60s and the '90s (and the 2020s) simultaneously, which is a neat trick. Apart from "There She Goes" — which somehow I just know, it was always there, I would never have been able to place when the song was actually released — I knew a couple of the other tracks, and there was a very likable quality to it all. It's absolutely better than a 3-star album, but I can't quite get to 4 on this one listen, despite all the nice things I've got to say about it. I think, ultimately, it's a tidy, pleasant listen, an easy 3.5, but I'm already on to the next thing.

I can't say I came into this album with expectations, but still, I was a little underwhelmed. It's solid post-'60s rock, the difference between vocalists is stark, which is interesting on its own, especially given the immediate recognizability of Rod Stewart's voice. Say what you will (I know he's got some detractors in this listening group), you know when he's singing. Ronnie Lane has a fine voice, though not nearly as distinguishable (I thought George Harrison had taken the mic on one track). "Stay With Me" leapt out of the speakers, probably because it's the song I knew best (i.e., knew at all), but also because it's the best song on the album. The rest of the material didn't quite live up to that standard. As has been said by many of us by now, one listen doesn't quite give enough time with an album to really get a feel for the material, so another listen or two might change how I feel about this one, but I can't be sure if that would improve my appreciation of this record or turn me off to it.

So here's an interesting one... On my first listen, distracted and not fully engaged, I was pretty indifferent to this record. But I had an opportunity to listen again, more focused, and I was taken in. Reading a little about Faithfull's personal struggles, including her losing her voice, definitely put her singing and story in an entirely new perspective that made a difference in how I related to the material. I was less smitten with two of the songs that were among the top listens on Spotify, "The Ballad of Lucy Jordan" and "Working Class Hero" (never a fave of mine). Everything else was very engaging in a strange way — it's hard-to-articulate what it is that's compelling. I'd say it's the entire package of songs, mood, production, and performance that coalesce. The closer is raw and aggressive in a way that must have been pretty shocking in 1979, the opener is provocative, and I enjoyed "Witches' Song" a lot. Along with all this, the 4-star rating speaks to my interest in listening to more, particularly the live album, "Blazing Away," and the following studio release, "A Secret Life," that features her working with Angelo Badalementi (who died in 2022 — https://blog.discmakers.com/2023/01/musicians-who-died-in-2022/).

I enjoyed this on the whole. On the positive side: Beats were good throughout, there was some clever wordplay, and some humor, which is a nice touch. The posturing in rap is always difficult for me to take seriously, and to announce that you're not a misogynist a minute from a repeated chorus of "bitch!" is ridiculous, on its face. A bit too repetitive and sample-heavy for my taste, which may sum up why rap is not my go-to jam.

I never quite got what was so alluring about The Beastie Boys. Sounds like a lots of shouty rhyming and beat drops and gang-ups on sentence endings and it's all rather frivolous and inconsequential. When "Fight To Your Right" landed, it was fun enough, but seemed like a one-off goofy play that would fade away. I never loved it, just found it amusing. The fact that they became important and influential is strange to me. "Paul's Boutique" came highly recommended from a trusted source, so I went out and bought it. I listened to it multiple times, trying to like it. I never did. So... sorry... Ill Communication. I do very much like the diversity of the underlying music. From straight up hip hop beats to jazz to garage rock, there's an effortless amalgamation of styles that never seems like a put-on. And I bet stumbling on this live in a sweaty basement in Brooklyn in my 20s would have been tons of fun. But god damn, it's the same shouty rhyme-y gang-y delivery over it all that just wears on me. I'm giving it a 3, but that's rounding up from a 2.something.

This rating is not exactly reflective of my enjoyment of this album. I didn't dislike it, exactly, but try as I might, I couldn't get to 3-stars. I suppose this music occupies territory I don't understand. I bet there are dozens — hundreds — of bands who sound very much like this that no one pays any attention to. They exist on the cutting floor of music history. I couldn't figure out what it is that makes this special, important, interesting, likable. I didn't find the lyrics particularly insightful or profound, the music was OK, but the vocal melodies — as such — were also not particularly inventive. So yeah. I miss the point of this band.

This is great. Interesting to listen to a black performer recording in 1959 on MLK Day. It had me thinking about what life might have been like in 1959's America and how this music fit into the social fabric of the day. Of course, the fact that this is pre-'60s has its stamp all over the album in terms of the recording quality and the arrangements (I cheated and read a little and learned that Quincy Jones arranged the first six tunes on the album). Those details did ultimately serve to detract just a little from my enjoyment. I found the arrangements were a little too predictable after a couple of songs — maybe the song order didn't help by stacking the horn section numbers and the ballads with the backing singers. I also thought the sax player was a little too wound up. Charles sounds great, vocally. He's dynamic, but not overly so. Another limitation — I'll also chalk this up to the times — is the lyrical content. Lots of lamenting a lost lover, or an impending loss of a lover, or a long-lost love. But yeah, good stuff. I did have to ask myself, if anyone put out an album today titled "The Genius of ... " would I think he's being a pompous asshole? (A: Yes.) I didn't think that of Mr. Charles, though the title did make me chuckle. Sets some seriously high expectations.

This is my kind of weird. At first, I was going to comment about how familiarity with the material alters these reviews as I wasn't sure how I'd react to this album if this were my first time listening. But then, I remembered that I was all-in on this record from the first time I heard it, back when I was 12. I had seen Talking Heads play "Take Me To The River" on SNL in 1979 and this was among the first LPs I ever owned. So, I guess I just like this music. Still, couldn't quite get to a 5-star. Why? Not sure. I think it's almost baked into the music, the artistic, consciously demented delivery makes this a bit too experimental, which means not every song lands — or maybe not every part of every tune does. But there's a vision here, quirky and off-kilter as it is, and this band is solid and the material is great. David Byrne gets most of the attention, but Tina Weymouth is a badass, and Chris Frantz and Jerry Harrison contribute mightily — this is a band and album that succeeded because of its individual parts aligning. Love it. Was happy to see this come up in our feed.

I was all in on a 4-star review until the last two songs tried to dissuade me. As I detected elements from one song to the next that hearkened to other artists — Elbow, Talking Heads, King Crimson, Bowie, Psychedelic Furs — I wondered if this album was some kind of writing experiment, where James Murphy (yes, I had to look that up) binged an artist for a week and let that influence his songwriting. I had a whole story drawn up. Perhaps that will be my next venture. All my fantasizing aside, I enjoyed this album a lot, and the aforementioned potential influences only elevated my interest. The eclectic batch of songs were all interesting, and while I'm more a fan of acoustic instrumentation, the techno/electronica was expertly orchestrated. So yeah. Ok, 4 stars.

I try so hard to take Bob Dylan seriously, but holy hell, I swear he’s been putting us all on from the get-go. First set: The affected vocal delivery is too much. Most of the vocals go by like the mumbled ramblings of the guy I want to avoid in the post office. Yes, I still go to the post office. The lyrics I can understand make no sense to me. I’m at a complete loss and finding it hard to concentrate or pay attention to the songs. The harmonica playing is difficult to endure, and on “Tamborine Man,” it launches into absurdity. I was laughing out loud at the audacity, duration, and non-musicality of it all. Second set: I guess I enjoyed it more, but "enjoy" is used loosely. All of the notes from the first set apply, it's just all a bit more intense. At least there's something other than Dylan to key in on to abate my intensifying distress. But not really. One star for the album. One star to preserve my marriage. I promise, I tried.

I love this album. From the opening "beep beep beep" of "Planet Claire" to the camp surf-guitar rock opera of "Rock Lobster," from hearts crackin' like Krakatoa to the unnamed moon in the sky, from every one of the 52 girls to... OK. You get it. The album is a 5-star affair up until "Hero Worship," which starts the slide into the final three tracks, which I still like while recognizing they're not as strong as the first 75% of the album. If we were to take the best of the second release ("Dirty Back Road," "Private Idaho," "Quiche Lorraine," "Strobe Light") and mash it with the best of this, you've got a masterpiece on your hands. Kate and Cindy's vocals, especially when harmonizing, are magic. Lyrically, this is so goofy, punctuated by one-off insights that make me chuckle every time I listen to it. Anyway, not a perfect album, but this band came out of left field 53 miles west of Venus and stirred the hot lava in my heart.

I may be a few decades behind, but here's a band I've discovered through this listening group. I knew the name, I thought I had listened to Blur before, but this is all new to me — and I'm really liking it. The songwriting is clever and catchy and feels consequential, whether or not it really is. Great energy, just odd enough to be interesting, serious without coming off as self-aware. Whatever, that's all rubbish. I like the music. Could be a 5-star but for the early-'90s curse of making albums longer than they needed to be. Drags a little toward the end, but damn good.

I waver on my feelings about Neil Young. Sometimes I think he's a bit self-important, but mostly I admire how he's remained fiercely artistic into his later years. He's one of the few music artists who doesn't seem to have become complacent as he's gotten older, and that's something to be lauded. This is an excellent set of songs, I liked the acoustic-to-electric transition (not coincidence that we recently listened to Dylan's Live 1966, I'd say). Young, like many great songwriters, has an ability to write what seem like simple songs, but in reality, they bear the stamp of creativity that — I don't want to use the word genius as that gets thrown around too much — speaks to a sophistication and understanding of the craft that is on a level up from most of his peers. One star off for not always loving his singing voice. But I do appreciate the "if it's perfect it ain't art" approach that is part of Young's music.

Damn. I knew her name, but this was my introduction to Nina Simone, and she's intense in all the best ways. There's a sadness and depth to her voice that gives every note added weight. Anger and vulnerability. I don't know if those are the right descriptors, but in the same way Billie Holiday infuses every song with significance just because she's singing it, Nina Simone has that same effect. "Four Women" is powerful, "Lilac Wine" sounds like it could have been in Twin Peaks, but "Wild Is The Wind" was something else. I was familiar with Bowie's take on the song, which I always liked, but all those descriptors — sadness, depth, vulnerability — were on hyperdrive in her performance, buttressed by the manic piano. Crazy that the wind is howling outside as I write. Her voice, that piano, the wind chimes outside my window... it's all coalescing. My head just exploded. Happy now?

I feel the need to preempt this review with a note that I'm not a Courtney Love hater. I'd consider myself ambivalent. But as I know she's got her detractors and this is not a positive review, I thought it worth spelling that out. My dislike of this album comes down to one thing: as a vocalist, Courtney Love is a one-trick pony and that wears thin real quick. If there were some variation on the theme of overwrought, out-of-tune, predictable verse melody to shouty shouty amped-up chorus, maybe it would work. But there isn't. So it doesn't. It all leads up to this feeling more like a concept of a band that was willed into existence than an organic collection of players that produced this flavor of music. In the end, that doesn't even matter. It's boring when it's supposed to be arresting. Or something. It ain't. I disagree with this album's inclusion on the list of must-listens. Two stars because Love is better than most at shouting.

Well, here's another where a second review by the same artist is prompting a nearly identical review from me. With all respect to those folks who admire this band, I fail to understand what it is that makes this group so beloved. The harmonies, for sure, are impressive. But it ends there for me. Lyrically, there are moments of cringe that pop up all over the place (I mean, is "Caroline No" a lament over a "once-cute" girl who has found feminism?). The adolescent themes just keep coming. And it seems like the height of laziness to fade out of 70% of the songs in the middle of a chorus, but that seems to be the formula of the moment on this one. Again (as in my last Beach Boys review) I'm hovering between a 2 and a 3. Last time I went with a two, so I guess I'll split the difference. But that's feeling generous...

While only a Swiftie by proxy, I am familiar enough with Taylor's catalog to know this is a curious choice for inclusion in the 1001 list. Sylvia, the #2 fan in the house, suggested that Folklore would have been a better choice, though even that seems like it wouldn't have made the top three in the rankings had he been the one to choose. All that said, I enjoyed the album, and while I wasn't quite at a 4, considering I rated Pet Sounds at a 3 and liked this album considerably more, I couldn't rate it the same. This whole system has its flaws, many of which I bring to the table. So... the album... certainly a bit samesy from front to back, which detracts from the overall experience, but I appreciate that Taylor and company set out to make a particular flavor of record, and they didn't stray. The album sounds great, and there really isn't a bad track in the lot. Standouts for me included "'tis the damn season" (snarl) and "no body, no crime." I may never be a true diehard fan, but that doesn't mean TSwift doesn't bring the goods.

I'm at a bit of a loss on this one. I took a minute just now to read the AllMusic review, which was a solid five-star write-up (yes, out of five), which didn't clear things up for me. Well, I guess it answered the "would anyone out there actually rate this a five-star album?" question. I guess I'll see if any of you are in the same boat. I'll say this, I never lost patience with the record. With a band like the Grateful Dead, which kept coming to mind as this rolled on, I do find I get agitated — not enjoyable for me. With this, I didn't go there, exactly, but I was struck by the general disinterest in adding structure to the proceedings. It was loose to the point of rambling, and had I not been tasked with listening to it, I don't think I would have stuck around to hear more after the first song and a half. There were moments that flowed, some noodly passages that transcended, but they were the diamonds in the haystack. Most of it just drifted innocuously out of the speakers and filled space. Did I like it? I don't know. I don't expect I'll listen again to try to discern that. So this is two stars, but that doesn't reflect a dislike for the material so much as an inability to connect with whatever was motivating this band.

Once again, I found myself referencing a previous review to ground myself — this time not by the same artist but by Bob Marley. I was a little surprised that I rated the Marley album a four, but that album is chock full of classic songs. On one hand, I almost like the sound of Peter Tosh, at least on this album, a little more, it's just a bit smoother—not quite as angular. But the reggae rule holds, which is to say that after a handful of songs, I was just waiting for the album to end. I was not invested, it was just playing on and I was ready for something else. Certainly, by the time "Ketchy Shuby" came on, I was totally done. Truth be told, as much of an advocate for the legalization of marijuana as I am, I even found the opener lacking. I had heard the "legalize/criticize" rhyme one too many times halfway through the tune. So again, more about me not loving the genre. Plant a couple of bumping tracks in a party playlist and I'm in. 10 in a row and you've lost me.

Here's one that speaks to state of mind and environment and their effects on my experience with an album. I was enjoying this just fine as I listened and jogged in the cool afternoon yesterday. I found the monologue-on-repeat about the druggie cyclist sort of annoying but it fit the vibe and had a payoff of sorts, so... OK. I was enamored with the title track, finding the preacher's (or whoever that idiot is) mispronunciations funny and loving that they looped Missing Persons and Duran Duran as that was in heavy rotation in my high school days. I related. There was a track that jarred me out of enjoyment —maybe Musclecar, maybe Zenophile, and maybe neither of those was on the original release (2005 remixes) — so should they count? I don't know. Listened again this morning over coffee as I got the day started and liked what I was hearing a whole lot less. Totally over the cyclist. Had to turn it off as I was finding it distracting and not promoting a good mood. So a 3. Sometimes, it's right. Other times, it ain't. Spotify with these multiple versions of albums... not always the bonus it presents itself as.

Frank Sinatra is one of those musical icons from a bygone era that I could never relate to. Whether it's my inability to hear beyond my own time and place, or my distaste for his reputed ties to the mob, or his deliberate efforts at seeming effortlessly cool, or maybe it's that he's so iconic that I can't separate his performances from the schlocky parody that it evokes (e.g., Bill Murray's SNL lounge act singing "Star Wars!"). In the end, what does it really matter? I don't fancy Sinatra's big band, jazz, swingin' hip super-cool guy vibe, but it doesn't make me run for the hills. I just don't get how everyone else seems to think it divine. I was tired of him around the halfway point of this album.

Apart from "Photograph," which has a discernible story in the lyric that's actually pretty well done, this band has created an empire on songs about nothing in particular. And still, somehow, a lot of them are really pretty good. They certainly sold a lot of albums and half of these songs are embedded in our music brain. "Rock of Ages" stands as this album's "Pour Some Sugar On Me" in its free-word-association, to hell with a narrative attitude. "Rock on (rock on!), drive me crazy, yeah! No serenade, no fire brigade, just a pyromania! Come on!" Made for arenas, every recorded note meticulously pored over by Mutt Lange and the band, using synth drums (kinda) in a hard rock band (and this was before Rick Allen's loss of an arm and impossible return to playing), this was a deliberate effort to take over the radio (and video) and it worked. In the process, there are a host of legitimately great songs, and a handful of less impressive ones, but damned if the band actually has anything to say. They have a sound, and they work it over and over and over. I was a bit preoccupied by the lyrical content on this listen, and in the last tune, had to ponder whether Joe Elliott and co. think "danger" is an emotion. "Can you feel it in the air? (There's danger in the air) / Danger (such a strange emotion)." Whatever. I don't think making sense is on the list of things this band cares about. Rock on.

This is pretty cool stuff. I never listened to Bad Brains, not sure why. I always liked the name. I guess I was expecting this to be a bit more straight-ahead punk, so I was pleased to hear there was quite a bit more going on in terms of influences and genres. After the over-the-top production of Def Leppard, this was a 180º turn to a much more streamlined recording. Still sounded good, it wasn't raw, but didn't sound like there were many overdubs. I bet this is just what this band sounded like in the studio. I let the album spin twice, but neither listen was super intensive. I liked what I heard, but this is generally a little too frenetic and noisy to hit my sweet spot. An easy three+, could be a higher rating with more listens, but I guess it won't get there as I don't see me seeking this out again. Glad I got to hear this, though. Good brains says i.

I bought "Urban Hymns" on the strength of "Bittersweet Symphony," but, try as I might, I could never get into the album. I repeatedly listened to it, thinking that something might click. I didn't dislike it, there just wasn't ever anything to grab hold of, even after repeated listens. For that reason, I was glad to get served a different album by the band — maybe this would be the album that spoke to me. I feel exactly the same about this album as I did the other. There are compelling moments and passages, there's an overall sound that has promise. But the material simply fails to stick. It's like the band is composing and playing for its own enjoyment without a care for the listener. That's fine. Have at it. There's lots of other stuff to listen to.

From the opening notes, I was telling myself I was not going to invoke the obvious similarities between the vocalist and Thom Yorke. I mean, you've got the voice you've got, it's not your fault you bear a striking resemblance to another — massively recognizable — artist. But as the album played, I was struck by the fact that, as adept as the band is, and as impressive a singer the singer is, the material never really rose to the occasion. And the reliance on a lyric that, in the end, isn't that strong, on repeat, began to wear. It happened more than once. The "what's a wonderwall anyway?" line would have been more alluring if they progressed it and didn't keep returning to it. Another was "Why does it always rain on me? Is it because I lied when I was seventeen?" Had he taken that somewhere else on subsequent visits to the chorus, that might have been interesting. OK, so now I'm thinking I'm the better songwriter. I guess my point is, these guys seem like they were too easily satisfied. This could have been way more entertaining. Instead, yeah, it's a lot like Radiohead light. Sorry.

There was some cool stuff going on here, and in large part I liked the album and was thinking it was somewhere above a 3, trying to get to a 4-star rating. But it's the ennui, I-would-be-happier-doing-something-else vocal performances that ultimately suppressed the final rating for me. I get that it's a style, I'm sure there a genre classification for it, but it's a little too affected to be attractive. Seriously, go do something else and let someone who gives a shit sing a few.

Hot on the heels of my displeasure with the ennui of xx comes Eels, bringing their own brand of disaffected attitudes. But this time, I like it. Not sure if it's familiarity — I own this disc — I think it's more that I can relate to this. It's more world-weary and beaten than irritated, and it paints a sheen and spirit of disconnectedness that is as much a part of the songs as the instruments. I don't even really know what any given song is about, so much as I enjoy the wordplay, tones, and vibe of the band.

I just recently set up a music studio, and when I got my PA all plugged in, this was the album I played (on CD) to test out the system. Big fan of the album, and now I got to hear it blasted through PA speakers and through my little earbuds all within the past 30 days or so. I really enjoyed this listen. Bowie may have lost a little of his range by the time this album came around, but he's in fantastic form. Great songwriting, love the lyrics throughout, nice mix of oddball compositions and arrangements and straightforward tracks. There's a sadness, sort of a somber, sometimes paranoid thin white duke vibe, yet, it sounds to me like Bowie and company were having fun recording it. Moments flash in many songs that speak to a playfulness and freedom going on in the studio. Among my favorite Bowie albums, maybe a little longer than necessary, but now that he's gone, I'm glad he didn't hold anything back.

So far, this week is an exploration of my CD collection. I LOVE this album. I realize it may make some folks run for the hills, but not me. I discovered Kate Bush via Hounds of Love, at the time of its release, browsing through a record store — bought it on vinyl. I was immediately smitten, that album is genius. So I went out and bought this album on CD, the release that precedes Hounds, and I was forever a Kate Bush devotee. I was blown away by her willingness to follow every idea down the rabbit hole as far as it went. I was thrilled by her bravery as an artist, to go out on a limb over and over again. And in the end, I really just love these songs. The opening drums and stilted rhythm of the opening track is a great introduction to the album. So many elements that get featured in the course of the record are included here. I get chills during "Leave It Open," Night Of The Swallow," and "All The Love" (great opening line to that song); "Get Out Of My House" is an sonic journey from shimmering guitar to braying vocalists that slays me every time; I remember a buddy from college freaking out on me for turning him on to "Houdini" (it was like a horror film that got under his skin). Hell, every song on this album goes in a direction you couldn't have expected. There's not a track I don't love. Bush is a singular songwriter and producer who sits atop many an artists' list of influences, and this is her at her most manic and chaotic and inventive. If you didn't pick up on this already, I'm a Bushie through and through.

This was lots of fun — he's kind of the bizarro Harry Chapin. Short stories, aiming for a laugh, getting it most of the time, never trying to overreach. Dury seems to see his lane very clearly and sticks to it. I was familiar with the closer, but I was particularly tickled by a line in the opener, "Wake Up And Make Love With Me," where he quips, "What happens next is private, It's also very rude." I was all in from there.

As the first two songs played I was enamored by this band (that I had heard of but never listened to). Yes, I was put off by the cavern reverb effect (similar vibe to My Morning Jacket), it seems like an overt attempt to alienate the listener. But the material and performances overcame that as the first few tunes played. I was thinking this was a four, maybe a five, and then, song by song, that feeling dissipated. Even though many of the arrangements and harmonies are beautiful, 66% of the way through, I was checking to see how many more songs were left. I listened to the album twice, and it was a repeat of that slide into monotony. What seemed fresh and inspired evaporated before my ears. Might have a made a good EP.

I was on the U2 train earlier than most. A high school buddy was a big fan and introduced me to Boy and October before War and "Sunday Bloody Sunday" started to break the band. He even had these bootlegs (on cassette) of the band's earliest demos, which were terrible. Like, still figuring out how to tune a guitar terrible. So I felt a personal connection — I watched these guys grow into a real band. I saw them on the Unforgettable Fire tour, and it was one of the more spiritual concert experiences of my life. The crowd was fully invested, the band was in peak form, Lone Justice opened. Good night. Then Live Aid happened and the bubble burst. Funny that many discovered them at that time, but it was like the veil was lifted and I saw the band, and Bono, more specifically, for all its ambition. The honesty was gone. I think they really started buying into the hype and I was outta there. So, for a decade or more, I couldn't listen to the band. It was all schlock to me. This album falls right in the middle of that era. Three of the four U2 albums on the 1001 list do (groan). I seriously shed all of this, or at least acknowledged it, and gave this as objective a listen as I could. Nope. I don't buy any of it. Every plaintive groan, every strained whispery word, every gravelly note, every lyric. It all sounds so terribly self-aware. It's all show. It's like the band is watching itself under its own microscope. I get that my personal bias clouds my judgment on this one. But I just don't enjoy listening to this era of this band. "Mysterious Ways" is a legitimately good tune, even Bono's melodrama doesn't destroy that, though they follow it up with one of the worst songs in their catalog for good measure. I expect this album is probably better than my take on it, so I've raised my rating to a 3 to compensate. I bet you guys can't wait to hear more from dre's personal diary when Joshua Tree gets served up.

I'm calling BS. I like Elliott Smith just fine. XO is a really good album. How are TWO of his other albums on this list? I try not to go down this hole, but seriously. I could barely hear the vocals. I didn't enjoy this album. There a sweet sadness to everything he recorded, but that ain't enough to make this a must-listen. Sorry.

Next selection, please.

This album points to greater aspirations for this duo in terms of themes and arrangements as compared to "Parsley, Sage..." The arrangements don't all work all the time, and the songwriting isn't as strong throughout, but this is another solid album from S&G, and the standouts ("America," Mrs. Robinson," and "Hazy Shade of Winter") are all-time classics.

So, I wasn't exactly looking forward to this one due to the recent Verve listen. Seemed a little soon, and I didn't love the last album. I referenced that I owned this one in that review, and that I had struggled getting my teeth into it, despite numerous attempts. I wonder if hearing another of the band's album gave me a new perspective on what they're all about, or maybe I was in the right frame of mind (which is a little scary, considering how depressed these blokes are), but this was a much more connected experience than previous listens. Funny, also, that I was familiar with most of the material. Yes, I had listened to it, but it all seemed to wash right over me. But much of it was still there. Now, I heard lyrics in new ways, and the line about the bag of cats waiting to drown was pretty grotesque. This dude obsesses over some pretty dark feelings. Was he raised in a basement without windows or something? Anyway, it was nice to hear him almost get giddy on "Lucky Man." Hold on, was that a ray of hope buried in there? Despite the depressing vibe, I found this to be a really solid album, much more enjoyable than A Northern Soul for my tastes. And they cap it off with a bang on "Come On."

An unabashed Prince fanatic, this has never been my favorite album in his catalog, and I went in thinking this would be a 4-star rating. But upon listening to this album with the intention of rating it, I developed a new appreciation for just how remarkable this collection of songs is. The opening salvo of "1999" to "Little Red Corvette" to "Delirious" is like a best-of album right out of the gate, and while the PMRC freaked out about "Darling Nikki," this album is so chock-full of sexually explicit and implicit material, it's way more sexually inflammatory than anything on "Purple Rain." Whether "Little Red Corvette" is specifically a reference to his one-night-stand's pussy or just a metaphor about how "fast" she is, it's a huge pop hit about casual sex. And "Let's Pretend We're Married" features one of the nastiest lines in pop music with "I sincerely want to fuck the taste out of your mouth." The fact that he follows that up, seconds later in the same song, with what sounds like a prayer stating "I'm in love with God and that's the only way, 'cause you and I know we gotta die someday" is profoundly confusing in so many ways. But, his true genius (and yes, Prince deserves that title) is not that he revels in salacious material — many terrible artists have relied on that to get attention and it can easily descend into smut — it's that it's just one part of an incredibly vital matrix of ideas and music and attitude and musical/lyrical freedom. Up until the end, Prince was taking chances and pushing boundaries. And musically, as an instrumentalist and vocalist, he's in a class of his own. Now that he's taken his songwriting to a whole new place on this record, it's exciting as hell. I do think the album drags, it's a little too techno for my taste in places, but I appreciate the clinical robotic-ness of this with his wild vocal acrobatics tugging at one another. So it's not a perfect album, but only because this was an artist creatively on fire and willing to indulge his creative fancy. That was something of a detraction later in his career — not all his misses were nearly as interesting — but here, even the relative low points are stellar.

It pains me to go with a 3-star rating for this album. I really do like it better than that, and considering this is the band's debut, it's impressive to hear how fully realized they are as a unit. All the elements are there, and David Byrne's weird vocalizations and insights and lyrics are arty and odd and set the stage for his long career as a music innovator. And the rest of the band — Weymouth, Frantz, and Harrison — are fantastic. They don't get the credit they deserve by casual fans But... it's a little much, taken as a whole. Each track is pretty fantastic on its own, and "Psycho Killer" is just a flat-out awesome tune. Still, with all those accolades, this one sits somewhere between a 3 and a 4 for me, and I was leaning lower as the album progressed. So, not a star rating that aligns with my respect for the album and the band, but there it is.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to really absorb this one. But I listened (on YouTube) and liked what I heard a lot. But, giving a 4-star review for something I might not even recognize if I heard it next week seems wrong. So a 3-star. Interestingly, I've been traveling and reading a book called "Traveling Music" by Neil Peart (drummer of Rush) and he mentions this Moby Grape album as being one of the first 10 albums he ever owned. Funny that I read that on the same day this was our album.

As I listened, I was thinking how well produced this album is, and how so many subtle percussive and musical elements were woven into the recording. I think it was "No Woman No Cry" where there's a stilted percussion (shaker) part that sounds like something a modern producer might have accomplished post-production, there was just this odd cadence to the beat that stood out that was tricky and just added a subtle change to the rhythm. Really lots of attention to detail and a sign of a true artist at work. But... I'm just not super excited when I listen, on a visceral level. I obviously appreciated elements in the recording, but I won't actively turn the album on because I love the tunes. So a 5 for the craft, 3 for my personal enjoyment... 4 overall.

It's easy for me to disregard the brilliance of this band. They are just so engrained in my music experience, I was never one to listen to Stones' albums, for whatever reason. I guess I felt like I was fed a steady diet of the band's music without doing any work at all. That's not to say I haven't listened to Stones' records. I love "Exile On Main St." But I've also tried with albums like "Beggar's Banquet" and found that I really liked the hits and was less enamored with the rest of the material. But this album (which I own) is insane. I don't love every second of it, but god damn, these guys were pushing the envelope, writing amazing songs, embodying rock 'n roll in every way. Brilliant album.

Wow. This hit me like a gut punch today for some reason. I had listened to this not so long ago, and I found it a little growly and slow I didn't love it. I guess that speaks to the environment and personal place I'm at when I listen and how that affects my relationship to a given album at the time. "Badlands" might be my favorite Bruce tune — and I'm not a diehard fan. I really like "Born To Run" and this album, and "Greetings" too, but that's sort of the extent of my fandom. "Candy's Room" is another standout — "Prove It All Night," "Darkness," and "Promised Land," and "Adam Raised A Cain" — all great songs and lots of biblical lyrics and references. I was just so moved by how primal this all sounded, and coming from an artist who had just come off of "Born To Run," which must have changed his life, this seemed like a concerted effort to prove he still had his feet on the ground. The photo on the cover is evidence of that. The band sounds muscular and tight, all that touring made the E-Street Band a monster, Clarence's sax is a force of nature, and while I think there are two too many slower tunes on the album, Springsteen's capacity to write ballads about fellas driving their cars in total disillusion is kind of a marvel. So yeah, I was deeply moved by this album this morning. Wouldn't have guessed it.

No doubt, these guys are pretty cool. I really liked the opener, and then subsequently tired of the limited soundscape and less-than-expansive lyrical content — there was a banger line in most every song, but not much more. By the end of the hour's worth of material, I was sufficiently over-served. So ... pretty cool, but I need a little more gong on musically and from a songwriting perspective to make this more than a middle-of-the-road rating.

This sets the standard for a perfect album. Fantastic songs, masterfully constructed, creative arrangements — great use of horns, strings, and a freaking triangle in addition to the expert performances by the five band members. I remember playing this for Scott years ago and him asking, "Is this a best-of album?" In a sense, I guess it is, but no... this is a band putting out a masterpiece. The guitars on this album are flawless. Amazing tones, great interplay, super cool (and timeless) riffs, phenomenal bluesy-boozy vibe, never flashy — just dead on. This album influenced me greatly as a drummer, not only for the iconic opening to "Walk This Way," but just as a template for how to write and play drum parts that fit the song and that are musical — Joey Kramer and Ringo sit high atop the list of rock drummers who do that best. Lyrically, there's some goofiness — love the sense of humor. This was a time when Steven Tyler was still capable of introspection — always interesting and often playful. And vocally, every choice is a winner. It's unfortunate that Tyler devolved into a distasteful lech (he can be really disgusting), because here, before the drugs and comeback and subsequent loss of touch, he is the quintessential bad-ass rock 'n roll frontman who sings like no one else on the planet. I love it. And the pacing and length of the album is just right. A band in its prime in every sense. Fun note: On "Sweet Emotion," there's a vibraslap (first heard at the :05 mark). The thing breaks at the :23 mark. The band (or more likely producer Jack Douglas) kept the sound on the record. Just an indication that even when things went wrong during this recording, they were just right.

Well, I'm no longer feeling obligated to dance around it. I just don't dig the Beach Boys. For some reason, I kept feeling like it was on me to unlock the key to this band, but after these last few spins, I've come to the realization that I just don't enjoy the music. Throughout the entirety of this listen, I had one thought running through my head... "seriously, wtf?"

Once again, I was impressed by the sound of this album. Crisp and robust and clean and very deliberate. I was also surprised by how much of it was familiar. I guess I heard more Depeche Mode in my life than I realized. But, as before, with each track, I was less enamored. I don't know if it's a symptom of a formulaic writing style, or my limited capacity to enjoy non-organic sounds, or something about the creeping monotony of the vocal. I'm not sure. Maybe more enjoyable sweating and dancing, but considering I did neither during this listen, I was over it before it was over.

Well, this was way more enjoyable than Greetings From LA, which I actively disliked. A bit too ramshackle and unfocused to rate higher than a 3 (IMO), this album highlights Buckley's unique capabilities as a vocalist and had moments of brilliance. I suspect the vibraphone player was on hallucinogens, and it sounds like Buckley himself was peaking on "Gypsy Woman." The album title and cover image did nothing to entice me to want to listen, but I was pleased that the material wasn't nearly as sappy or morose as I imagined it might be.

I found this pretty entertaining and slightly amusing. I was expecting to dislike it immensely. Not my preferred style of heavy music, but I'll give the band props for creating its own style and driving it home in 1.5 minute increments. The indistinguishable vocals are classic. Why bother writing lyrics?

The first thing I thought when seeing this as the album of the day was, "Well, here's a 5-star album." That was immediately followed by, "It's incomprehensible to me that Roger Waters is taking a pro-Putin stance in the war with Ukraine." I started doing a little research, as I listened to the album, and it's impossible to rectify Waters' stance and rants on the war. For all the overt and poignant and distressing anti-war imagery and lyrics contained in this epic, and for the frightening depiction of how fanatic devotion to a maniacal, deranged, deluded soul can birth something like Nazism, how can this be? What happened to Roger Waters? I've still got research to do to really get to the bottom of it, but the mere fact that he spoke to the UN on Russia's behalf concerning the war is irreconcilable. Does not compute. Back to the album. It's brilliant. Harrowing, difficult, beautiful — a masterpiece. It's an album that is equally great song-by-song and stronger for the sum of its parts. So many layers to the story. So many heartbreaking insights. So much loss and pain. And a stark anti-celebration of stardom and fame and the sense of isolation it can bring. It's hard not to be moved and ultimately depressed by the story. This is one of those albums where every listen (and I've listened to this a ridiculous number of times) produces a song that most resonates. I was really struck by "Mother" this time around. "Of course Mother's gonna help build the wall..." into the soaring guitar solo. Damn, David Gilmour has a tone for the ages. So, this evoked a lot. Great albums will do that. Pile on the rantings of a man who seems to have succumbed to the very things he most feared, and it gets even more complicated. Let's hope today's album is a little lighter.

Love the obvious hits on this one, and I also loved a number of other cuts ("Rudy" is great). Maybe not really a 4-star, more like 3.5, I was feeling this one as I listened and rounded up. I do like this fusion of jazz and pop — kind of like prog light?

I imagine this album is considered revolutionary and a landmark. But that didn't stop me from feeling like this was more of a band challenge than the most interesting album in Miles Davis' collection. Even as the different players came in and played beautifully, it felt static. Were there chord changes? The drums were certainly not going anywhere. Obviously all by design, and no doubt a collection of monster players, I enjoyed and was ill at ease in equal measure as this record played.

The very first album I ever owned was gifted to me by my cousins in Lebanon. They had a copy of Sladest, which was a best-of album by Slade, and I was captivated by the look of the band — sure the long-haired guitarist was a woman... he had long hair, after all. I was so smitten, I still consider that album (I still have that vinyl LP) one of my all-time faves. Marianne and I went on a mini Slade tear not long ago. I don't remember what spurred it, but we watched some videos, and I just love how ridiculous these guys are. Totally having a ball, pretty freaking hilarious, reminded me why I hold them dear. When I spun this album the first time, I wasn't sure what to rate it. On one hand, I sincerely LOVE all the tracks that were included on the Sladest album (Gudbuy T'Jane, Look At Last Nite, Mama Weer All Crazee Now) but recognized the other material was sometimes difficult to listen to. I was leaning toward a 3-star rating. But I listened again (and even through to some of the material on the extended version) and I bumped that up to a 4. These guys are fantastic. Album is chock-full of Slade-itude.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to give the listen it deserved. But I'll say that, in general, I've found Sly & The Family Stone to be heavy on the groove and short on the song. I wasn't feeling that on this record. Everything I heard was really killer, from composition to performance. My gut tells me it's a 4. And I listen to my gut. Time for a sandwich.

I was all over the map on this one. I listened to much of this in fits and starts and was not feeling the same about the material on every listen. I still wasn't able to give the entire album one extended listen from start to finish in one sitting, but I did listen to the entire thing (more than once) and am strangely unsure what to say about it. There were moments when I was put off by the explosive emotion that seemed to engulf the band and singer, but then I'd be equally impressed and moved by many passages, and really appreciated the cinematic scope of the compositions and performances. I'll chalk this one up to being an excellent choice for this endeavor, because I would have likely bailed on listening to more than a song or two if I had just stumbled upon it, but as part of this project, I am compelled to listen to the entire album, and found myself liking it more and more the more I listened. A 4 may be a little bit skewed for adjusting for my prejudices, but I thought this was very expressive and massive in spots, and deserving of a score that spoke to how much I liked the parts that were awesome.

I was taken in by the first two tracks. In fact, I was really struck by the first in that it made me realize something we know, but damn, in 1975, the threat of gun violence was a real thing — clearly more in urban, black communities, but enough that it was the topic of the opener on Curtis Mayfield's ninth release. After the most recent school shooting yesterday — well hell... I should probably check the news to make sure there hasn't been another — it's a reminder that this issue has threatened us for decades. So yeah, that struck me as relevant and unfortunate that the issue has only expanded and exploded in the years after this release. We suck. But then the album slid into a repetitive vibe that it couldn't seem to climb out of. Starting with "So In Love" and then into "Jesus," which I wasn't a huge fan of for myriad reasons, the album just kept getting less interesting, mostly because of a lack of dynamics or progression. The falsetto vocals, the similar song structures... So yeah, promising but ultimately boring. Too bad.

I was hoping to give this album a second listen because through the first I just kept thinking, "how is it I've never even HEARD of this guy before?" and somehow I wasn't able to really digest what he was doing. But today was a particularly busy one and here I am at 11 PM realizing I didn't even sit down to pen a review. So I'm giving this a 4-star review because, though I'm not even sure I'd recognize a song from this album if it came on the radio, I was struck by how effortless it seemed to John Martyn to create music. It never once sounded like he was trying, it was just happening. I do hope to circle back and get my teeth into this, but first impression is this cat has something going on.

I was always turned off by Sonic Youth because they just seemed interested in making a lot of noise and I thought it ended there. This opened my eyes to the fact that there's actually some pretty effective songwriting going on, and the drummer is damned tight on this record. Surprisingly, I was a much bigger fan of Thurston Moore's vocals and songs than Kim Gordon's — and now I know who Courtney Love was listening to through the '80s and why Scott was so enamored with "Live Through This." So color me surprised. This album rates higher than I enjoyed it personally, I don't see myself turning to SY for a pleasure listen, but I have a better appreciation for what these kids are up to.

I really liked this. Definitely frenetic — there were times it sounded like Talking Heads meets King Crimson — and interesting to hear a more guitar-driven side to the band. I'd heard much of this ... well... some of this before, but hearing it all in one album brought that point home. I listened to some of "Freedom Of Choice" after this was over to get a feel for the more electronic vibe. It's all good. I am not man. I am Devo.

No doubt Jerry Lee Lewis was exciting as hell in 1964, legendary for his live performances. His vocal range is limited, the set sounds quaint considering every song is an oldie, but back then, I can imagine this was electrifying. I expect there must be better sounding records, but this does capture the enthusiasm of the performance, and my foot was tapping throughout. Of course, there's the fact that he married his 13-year-old cousin, and given my last diatribe, does that exclude him from listening? I guess not. Maybe because they stayed together for so long? I don't know, but I gave this one a spin. For anyone interested, here's an obit I posted on the Disc Makers Blog. Jerry Lee Lewis, 87 Pianist, vocalist, songwriter — died of undisclosed causes, though he suffered from various ailments, including acute bronchitis, 10/28/22 With a career built in the late ‘50s, Jerry Lee Lewis was one part bible-school drop-out, one part boogie pianist, and two-parts rebel with a feverish belief in himself. His wild stage presence was born from his frustration with not being able to dance around with a guitar. In support of his first single, he jumped up mid-song, kicked his piano stool over, and stood up and played. Sam Phillips, record producer and owner of Sun Records, believed “the Killer” was the real thing and invested heavily in Lewis. It paid off — “Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On” was followed by “Great Balls of Fire” and “Breathless” as Lewis’ star rose high. That came to a sudden halt after he secretly married his 13-year-old cousin, which caused the banning of his records and a collapse in paying gigs. Lewis kept rocking, though, and built his career back up in the ‘70s and ‘80s, with his last release coming in 2014. Lewis was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in October 2022.

Well, my second listen wasn't as enthralling as the first when it comes to John Martyn. I was, more than once, annoyed at the vocal delivery (and placement in the mix). Has something radical changed with him or did I just miss this the first time around? His voice was graveled and not very dynamic and the music was like a jam band without the jam. It wandered and never delivered. So, there were moments of enjoyment, but overall, not an album I'm planning on coming back to.

Not even a week ago, after hearing some of my original band's music from the '90s, Adler's girlfriend Lydia told me I should check out Incubus — apparently we reminded her of them and she thought I'd dig it, so funny to me it showed up this week on our list. I'm on the fence — easily a 3-star, but did it reach a 4? There were elements I really liked: tight musicianship, heavy but not ridiculously so, musical but not trite. Well... lyrically, it did tend to be a bit juvenile and clunky, and I didn't love the vocalist unequivocally. He's solid, for sure, but hung around in the same range throughout and seemed to have a lot of the same ideas song to song. But that could also be a product of this being a first listen. But, considering Lydia kept insisting that "Science" was THE album I had to listen to, and considering that album is not on the list, I'm going with a 3 and going to freelance and check that one out to see if it tickles me in ways this one didn't.

OK, so I just read that the bassist in this trio died 10 days after this was recorded, which is eerie and sad, and makes me feel bad for wanting to mandate a limit as to how many bass solos any one album is allowed. There were like eight too many on this album. And I expect jazz is supposed to soothe and relax the listener... maybe not, what the hell do I know? All I can say is this did the opposite for me. I was agitated and uncomfortable while this was playing. It was a chore. This just isn't for me.

I love the Beatles, though I am a much bigger fan of the later (Rubber Soul and beyond) material and don't much like a lot of the real early stuff. I mean, I get it, it's groundbreaking, but given the choice, I'd never spin this record given the other choices in the Beatles catalog. Which makes it a perfect album for this venture. And it reinforced what is something of a no-thought given for me, which is I'm only partly enthralled with this. There is great material here, and it's AMAZING that this enduring music was recorded on a 4-track (two-track? whatever... it's studio voodoo), but there are moments I actively don't enjoy. "Little Child" and "Not A Second Time" are both kind of awkward and speak to my being a massive McCartney fan and less enamored with Lennon's work on the whole. And maybe it was impossible not to do it, but none of the covers are my fave (though "Till There Was You" is a fun addition). So anyway, I think I'm sounding bitchy. I think these guys might be pretty big someday.

Damn, what a wild album. The energy buzzes throughout, Cash is obviously enjoying connecting with this group of outlaws, and they sound crazed and on the verge of a riot. It's a 5 just for having the balls to perform the set.

I was skeptical about this from the get-go. I'm sure it was an awesome spectacle and a fun night out for everyone performing and in attendance, but it failed to translate to the record. I was finding it difficult to distinguish one song from another — no doubt partially because I'm unfamiliar with the material — but it spoke to the rather flat dynamic of this endeavor. James Hetfield might not make my list of favorite vocalists, but he's a powerhouse. That said, this exposed a similar cadence and melodic tendency inherent in Metallica's songwriting.

I love this album. Strangely, I bought this when it came out, loved it, and then never followed up on the band. I think in some strange way I didn't want to ruin what was a perfect relationship by hearing things I didn't like as much. They nailed it out of the gate. I'm going to explore more of their stuff, including the collaboration with Sparks that has intrigued me for a while.

This was a fun and diverse listen. Prima must have been a great show to catch live.

Damn, what a talented dude Stevie Wonder is. And with that, I don't always love his songwriting. He tends to fall in love with a part and doesn't seem to want to let it go. That happened a few times on this album. And I also prefer his uptempo songs more than the soft, slow numbers. But it's ridiculous to criticize songwriting on an album that has "Sunshine of My Life," which is objectively a beautiful song, sweet sentiment, and a very inviting way to open an album. And then, of course, there's "Superstition," which is undoubtedly one of the great riffs of all time, made better by the song as a whole, which is at the top of the heap. The horn arrangements elevate it to another level. So yeah, it's been beaten to a pulp over the decades, but it's one of the great songs in popular music. Not a perfect album, but first-class stuff.

As I listened to this, vacillating between a 3 and a 4, I kept wondering what it was about this that appealed to me more than Aimee Mann did. Not to dis Aimee Mann, but having just listened to that album, it was hard not to make that connection. And then I thought of Shawn Colvin and how much I love A Few Small Repairs. I think this album is right in between those. Suzanne Vega is a bit limited as a vocalist. She's got a style of her own, for sure, and she is remarkably self-assured and confident — at least she comes across as such, and it's appealing. But it comes down to the songs. There is definite songcraft here, though she's still figuring a few things out. But Vega is good, it's apparent (it took me a little while to realize I was confusing her with Liz Phair). So I think a 4 is a little high for this, but for all the reasons this stood out as quality stuff, I'm going with it.

The Stooges is such a great name for a band. I like Iggy Pop plenty and appreciate his place in rock n' roll lore. I enjoyed lots of this album as well, the opener is probably my fave. I also found it a little tedious and just a little too raw and simple to turn me on. And Iggy seems to have sex on the brain just as much as Def Leppard wants to ROCK. This is one of those bands that is over-represented on this list (three albums). I'm going out on a limb to guess this isn't the best of the three.

Hey Jimmy, I got a theramin! Cool! Bring it over. I just bought an aquatic-themed refrigerator magnet set. I'll come up with words and you do something cool. Sounds good, I just listened to "Golden Slumbers," think I might borrow from that to write an eipc tune. Let's call it "Opus something." Love it! I've been binging Flaming Lips for a month. Pretty sure we wont sound anything like them, though. Radical! I didn't dislike it so much as had this running commentary going on in my head as it played. Kinda hard to take this too seriously.

[Sidebar: I haven't listened to this album since it came out, but Friday morning, as I was walking my dog, the song "Janie's Got A Gun" floated into my head. I was trying to remember the lyrics. Totally random. Fire up the computer, and here it is as the album for the weekend. If there are no coincidences, what does this all mean?] When this came out, yeah, it was huge. And huger still because it marked the COMEBACK. "Dude Looks Like A Lady" was a massive MTV thing off the previous album, but then this hit and Aerosmith was like, a legitimate American icon again. No doubt, this album has a ton of energy. The guitar work is excellent — these guys can play. The bass tone is really big too. But goddamn is there just too much Steven Tyler. He's harmonizing with himself over everything. He's injecting himself into musical passages. He's just too prominent. And on top of that, he has completely turned from cheeky and kind of funny to just being gross. It's too much. This album does not hold up for me — I never loved it to begin with — and it's why I haven't listened to it since it was released. So, I don't place this high up in the Aerosmith canon. "Toys In The Attic" is a masterpiece. This is more of a schlocky pop-culture relic. Back to "Janie's Got A Gun," that does at least sound new. It was a departure for Aerosmith, it sounded different than other rock bands, that still stands out. Though vocally, again, Tyler is reaching for the stars and quadrupling his vocals and it didn't hold up with a critical listen. "Love In An Elevator" was the same. I remember being impressed with the vocals when that dropped, how sophisticated those harmonies were. Now I hear them as overdone studio trickery that they can't even attempt to sing live. We've got one more Aerosmith album on the list, "Rocks," which was released right after "Toys," and that's a worthy inclusion. I would have preferred "Done With Mirrors" over this if we had to include a third. That was their actual return to form after nearly killing themselves with drugs, and while it was mostly overlooked, it's a more worthy album than this. This is 2.5 but I'm rounding up for sme reason.

I wish I had more time with this one. I enjoyed everything about it, from the classist affectation and the ponderings on love and relationships to the angular musicality and bouncy melodies. I missed so many of the details, this being the first (and only) listen, but something tells me the deeper I dig the more I'll like it, so this gets the 4 with authority. I know nothing about this band, though "Common People" sounded familiar, so I guess I'd heard that before. Thumbs up.

I turned this on with every intention of giving it a chance. Three minutes in, out of respect for myself and my sanity, I stopped. This band managed to seal the deal in that short amount of time. From the tones of the instruments to the meandering disjointed playing, I cannot abide.

I was immediately reminded of XTC's "White Music" and Simple Minds' "Real To Real Cacophony" when this came on, not necessarily because they sounded so similar — I only have vague recollections of those albums now — but there was something about the sound. All three of those albums were released within two years of each other, but somehow this was one I missed at the time. I appreciated the sound and vibe and demeanor of the band, though ultimately this didn't exactly speak to me. Took me back even though this was new to me.

Well... the title of this album tipped me off to the likelihood that I wouldn't dig it. I give it a 4-star rating for attention to craft and establishing a vibe and... making this list, I guess. But in terms of my personal enjoyment, it's nestled in 2-start territory. Way too cheese-synthy for me, not a fan of the lyrical inclinations, compositionally it's not awful but it's not something I'd choose to listen to. So... let's meet in the middle and go our separate ways.

Wow... maybe I'm one of those people who might've been clamoring when Dylan went electric. This is certainly the more palatable version of his art from where I stand. There were even a couple of tunes I downright enjoyed on this album. I'm familiar with "Don't Think Twice," as I used to play that with Jack a while back (channeling my Dylan folk rhymin' dictionary) and "Blowin' In The Wind" is timeless and relevant. There were a couple of others, too. There's even the slightest undercurrent of humor in places (gasp), which is nice. And, god help me, some of the harmonica playing compliments the songs. So look at me, growing as a human and saying nice things about Bob Dylan's music. But, at the end of the day, there's planty here to whine about. But I've spent the morning whining, so I'm going to stay positive. Relatively.

Nice. I was skeptical based on ... I don't know... the cover art, the album title, and just a general skeptical nature when it comes to the unknown. But I really enjoyed this. Jane Weaver seems a lovely blend of Poe and Imogen Heap. It'll take me a few more listens to glom onto the songs and dive deep, but I'm inclined to do that based on this first listen. Whatever was going on with the guitarist on a few of these tracks was an unfortunate foray into stupidity, but apart from that, this was bangin'.

I enjoyed this more than expected. My affinity for jam bands is limited, and I had in mind that these guys were something of a San Fran psychedelic noodle fest. Well, the 3-star rating undersells my impression of the album — there's more to the band than I thought. I appreciated the overt political criticisms and a number of the songs, particularly in the first half of the album. Things trailed off into noodle-land a bit as the album played on, which notched this back a little from the promise of the opening. But I liked Country Joe plenty good, and I won't shy away from listening if this ever gets teed up again.

I wasn't exactly looking forward to this one — I figured Perry Farrell would wear thin real quick. And granted, he's not my favorite vocalist, but I've got to hand it to the band. They have such a distinct sound — I can't think of any band they sound like or who sounds like them after all these years, and that's pretty impressive. The musical elements are tight and interesting, and Farrell's doubled vocal style — or whatever the hell is going on — is pretty formidable when everything's firing. Not all the songs were excellent, but the excellent ones are exceptional and distinctive. I enjoyed this less than a 4-star, but I've got to give it to the band for staking a claim on their own ground.

This was a great addition to this list. Another where the 4-star slightly outshines my actual enjoyment of the album, but it was educational to hear Steve Albini's music — which I would have sworn I had heard before but probably haven't — knowing he's produced some big names (PJ Harvey's "Rid of Me" and Nirvana's "In Utero" for two) and often gets criticism for the rawness of his production. So raw and frenetic and noisy... Big Black has all of that in doses that are a little more than I prefer. But it's all very deliberate, and the production is massive, and I found myself sinking in to the songs as the album progressed. I tried working on Thursday while listening to this, and that didn't go well. I'd label it "not great music to write to." But, out walking the dog on a lovely morning, and I was digging it. One thing, I don't typically read up on these albums before listening and reviewing, but I was searching a couple of things after listening and learned that this was recorded to a drum machine. I didn't realize that. I did key in on how precise and consistent the drums were, the bass drum hits in particular, and thought that the drummer was tight. I also liked the overuse of delay and effects that gave the drums (and bass and everything) such a signature beef. But to make the drums not stand out as a machine is a feat.

I've always been indifferent to Def Leppard. They're fine, in my estimation. Never took them too seriously, but I could understand why their music was so popular. I saw them live. They were good. On a closer listen, it's amazing how banal the songs are. I do like the music, there are melodies galore, and the call and response thing these guys have developed is catchy. And I'm fine with Joe Elliott's vocals. But my god, the lyrics are painful. "Skin on skin/Let the love begin/WOMEN!" from the opener had me snickering. And "You got the peaches, I got the cream" from "Pour Some Sugar On Me," was another that made me groan with embarrassment. This album sold 25 million copies. It was HUGE. And it's total nonsense. But it SOUNDS fantastic, it's massive, and they obviously did what they set out to do. Factor in the story of Ric Alllen (drummer) and that adds a compelling dimension to the story. But there are too many things about the album that are ridiculous. Just the way the massive gang of Leppards phrase the words "poore sum shuggar ohn maye" like they're some band of tough thugs is patently funny. So, whatever, I guess I'm way past my Def Leppard phase. When I need a nugget of catchy pop hard candy, I'll reach for Poppy.

What can you say? Aretha Franklin is a formidable talent who deserves all the accolades. The album trailed off a little toward the end, but hard to complain about the songs when it kicks off with "Respect." Fun fact, this was released three weeks before the day I was born. So... there's that.

The album cover could have been from Spinal Tap — just so over the top cock rock. Cracked me up. The band is killer, drummer is great, not going to make it to my all-time list of faves, but put me down as a Thin Lizzy fan. I'd have awarded this a 3.5, but as that's not an option, this gets a 4 because I enjoyed the ride.

Hmmm... North Philly, so Jazmine's got that going for her. I appreciated the approach to the album, the interstitial conversations, the vibe that we were sitting around hanging, that was cool. But just as I get a headache watching video with too many quick jump cuts, I was getting that feeling with this — a little too disjointed when taken as a whole. And, as a general rule, I wasn't enamored by the lyrical content. I could go into detail about her sexual exploits, but she's gone and done it already. TMI.

I'm familiar enough with ELP, I've definitely heard this full album before, but I'm not exactly a fan of the band. It meanders a bit too much to keep me coming back. On Thursday late afternoon, I had a bad headache, didn't get much sleep the night before, and I was in a haze lying on the couch. Marianne played the album, and I listened as I lay, eyes closed, no motion. I was worried I'd feel under attack by the avalanche of notes and rhythms, suspended in gaffa. But I went on an excellent adventure. Loved the incredible drumming of Carl Palmer, the impossible time signatures, Emerson and Lake are massive. It's not an album for all occasions, but in a pained dream state, it was excellent. Somehow that doesn't seem to put a very positive spin on it.

As I mentioned in the first Sabbath review (I assume you all remember that?), there was always something inhibiting me from liking this band as much as I thought I was supposed to, being a rock and roll guy and everything. That first album did indeed change my perspective on the musical abilities of the players, and Bill Ward on drums in particular, and I scored it a 4 because I really did gain an appreciation for what these guys were able to build right out of the gate. So... Paranoid. Classic album. Lots of fabled songs on the playlist. And... I didn't love it. Hearing the patterns in the vocals following the guitar lines on various songs got to be less than inspiring. And somehow, it always sounds to me that the band is just learning how to play. There's no doubt they possess an insidious ability to craft riffs and melody lines (again, often one and the same) that stick, but the execution is on the verge of amateur. It's like they play below their abilities on purpose. Whatever it is, I don't love it. But "War Pigs" does stand as an all-time classic, and Bill Ward's drums really are damn good. So, a 3 for this one. I'm just so caught in the middle with this band.

I listened to The Strokes just the other day with Adler. He's a fan. I guess it boils down to "I like this band but don't love them." There are many musical moments to delight in — catchy guitars and lilty vocals and that English ennui. Cool vibe. And I bet with more listens and familiarity I'd grow to like the songs and probably rate this higher, but for a one-time run-through, it's a 3 but I'm open to more.

I marvel at how effortless Paul McCartney makes it sound to create fantastic pop music. His gift for melody, his instincts as a songwriter, his willingness to pursue ideas where they lead him, the sense of humor woven into the recording and compositions. This is not my all-time favorite of his albums, but it's just so good, and I enjoy Linda's contributions immensely. I think she really adds to Paul's sense of calm and good humor. The first two tracks alone make this a classic, and there's lots more to love. I never did love the recurring guitar riff in "Roll It To You," and the song that follows drags just a bit too, which is why this doesn't get the 5 stars, but at his worst, Paul McCartney is better than most, and at his best, he's in a class above.

OK... so I was teetering between 3-4 for this. This brand of Spanish-language music invariably gets me tapping my fingers and drumming along, but my complete lack of understanding the lyric is a detraction. I can't fully engage as I don't have a clue what the subject matter is. I enjoy it, but then find it starts blending into homogeny, partly because of the music/song arrangements and no doubt partly because of the language barrier. So, as the album played, my interest and attention waned, so it started slipping from a 4 to a 3. Then I read the AllMusic write up about the band and the album because I wanted to figure out how Ry Cooder was involved and learning more about this recording sealed it. So, while I try not to let additional info influence my review, in this case, I am embracing that. What a story behind this album. I'm going to seek out the movie and dig in deeper.

This was a tough one to get the rating right for me. Obviously, there's the opening track, but even that is victim to what I think is an incompleteness to this album. Laziness? It sounds like they slapped the same reverb on every song and let the tape roll. And there's a demo-like quality to many of the songs as well, as though not all these ideas are fleshed out. There are lots of great passages, and the looseness isn't always a detraction, but I couldn't help feeling like Lennon was only half interested in the whole affair. Pair that with lots of more-righteous-than-thou lyrics and an unnecessary diss of Paul McCartney, and I that ultimately pulled it down to a 3. Hard to give such a revered album a middling review, but that's how I was feeling about it.

This is another one I struggled to rate. It is a brilliant album — it creates a landscape of some sort of future dystopia, or at least an alternate, detached, cold reality. Musically interesting, lyrically obtuse, defiant, strange, it's not what you might expect from a pop star, which is what I love so much about Bowie. He wasn't on a linear path, and some of the points along the way may not have landed, but on this release, it does. The Eno-ish soundscape is great. So many albums from the '70-80s sound old and dated, but the really good ones manage to get the synths just right, the sounds don't weigh the album down — they perfectly fit the songs and the atmosphere Bowie and Eno had set out to create. The struggle to rate this is only that it's hard to score this as "perfect" because it seems so blatantly designed to be difficult, but I'm going with it because I think Bowie achieved his ambitious goal and created some of the strangest popular music of his day in the process.

Like a perfectly coiffed head of hair, not a strand is out of place on this album. But it elicited about as much emotion as a good hairdo. This is one inclusion I questioned — what makes this a must listen? I didn't dislike it, it was just so safe.

This was very enjoyable. Soft around the edges, the vibraphone is such a mellow but precise instrument in this arrangement. I did a quick look up to determine the instrumentation included here — sparse — piano, violin, bass, piano, guitar, vibraphone, and bandoneon, which is like an accordion (had to look that one up). And, as I suspected, these guys only had three rehearsals before performing this. That's amazing. The intricacies and tightness of the players is incredible, I was marveling at the precision throughout.

This might be an indicator of how this 1001 adventure has changed my approach to listening to music, at least a little. Upon first spinning this album, I liked it, but that was about it. Sounded a bit rough around the edges — though I suspected this might have been a one-take live in the studio affair in large part — and this early rock and roll (and soul!) was never my favorite, partly due to the limitations of the subject matter. Pretty much all about love... lost love, new love, gimme another try love. This fell squarely into that. After one spin, this was going to get a 3-star rating. It was good, I appreciated the rawness and bits of humor. Then, it started to play again, and I was able to home in on different things in the mix (which was very strange — again, didn't sound like the A-team was on that) and I became more impressed and enamored with the arrangements and ideas. And Burke's sense of humor shone even brighter on the second listen, and I started actively enjoying the songs. "You Can't Love 'Em All" is probably my fave, with the ramshackle backup singers adding an extra punch and good humor, and the calling out of Sam Cooke and Ray Charles in "Can't Nobody Love You" was ballsy. And "You're Good For Me" was another twist on the "boy and girl" lyrical theme and I was won over.

This was really good. I suck at following the narrative and thread in a lot of rap, but this drew me in and I liked the tracks on most of the album. A couple of samples got overused, but I would play this again for sure.

I listened to this on three different occasions, and on each, I liked what I was hearing and barely remembered what it was I was listening to. Not sure if that's on the music or the listener, but it clearly failed to make a lasting impression, so it gets the 'ol middle of the road rating.

As a big fan of early Duran Duran, this sounded like a playbook for the start of that band. Both get compared to Roxy Music, but I hear a much more direct line from Japan to DD. The vocalist, in particular, and the sequenced synths, were reminiscent. The sax hearkened to Bowie — but this band seems lodged right in the midst of these glamorous pop stalwarts of the '70s–'80s. For that reason, this was an understandable inclusion. But I found the songwriting a bit lackluster and the musicianship also subdued — hard to tell if that was a product of choice or limitation. So I enjoyed this well enough but wasn't exactly wowed by it.

I came into this one with some concrete ideas — not positive ones. I bought this album when it came out and never really liked it. I have tried, on many occasions, but always felt Apple's songs lacked joy and momentum and it sucks the life out of me in a recurring cycle. Sylvia even came to me a month or two ago suggesting my band do "Criminal," so I spun it afresh and halfway through was feeling the same way. I do like that song, but it seemed to just go on and on... So I was ready to pan this album, but I dutifully queued it up (cued it up?) and I must have been in the right mood (for the first time ever) because I was feeling it. The album is certainly front-loaded, but I was connecting with Apple's angst (or whatever you want to call it) in a way I had never done before. I didn't love "Slow Like Honey," and had to stop listening at that point anyway. So it was with renewed interest that I picked up and spun the second half of the album only to find all those old feelings returned. Just a slow broil of a mood I wasn't interested in. So, a 4 for side one and a 2.5 for side 2. She's a critic's darling, which is usually not a good sign for me, and I can't see what all the fuss is about. She's talented, but the end result is not alluring except on the exceptional tracks — and there are a few on this album. I guess that qualifies as a mixed review?

How the hell do I not know about this band? This is great. I was going to go on about how the band, and the drummer in particular, had some influence by The Who (and in a good way), then I read that the drummer is Kenney Jones, who replaced Keith Moon after he died (they were apparently at the same party that Moon died after). But, what a wild ride. Love the music, playing, singing, hilarious interstitials. I'm going to dig into this band. Somehow they missed the boat of the British Invasion. Too bad. This is good stuff.

This was great. Loved the drums, the compositions, the sprawling scope of the album. It was, perhaps, a little too down-tempo for too long to make me go with a 5. Another like "21st Century Schizoid Man" and I am all in. But yeah, great stuff and a worthy inclusion on the list.

This was pleasant enough. hard to get too excited about the strange blend of Tones & I and My Morning Jacket (at least in places), a little low emotional energy to get super fired up, and toward the end, there were a couple of songs/passages that actually got annoying. But, the name implied the sound and I could almost feel the sand blowing into my face as I walked along the dunes.

Well, I have changed my opinion of Sonic Youth as part of this experiment. I had always chalked them up to "noise over substance" but now appreciate there's a lot more to the music than that. Noisy, yes. But there's a lot of great elements to the music. Similar to last time, I didn't love Kim Gordon's tunes as much as Thurston Moore's, and "Goo" in particular was low on my list of songs here. So, while this is a solid 3.5, I'm swinging this to a 3 to even out the two (I was at a 4 for "Dirty"). But yeah, ok, can I be a Sonic GenX?

Not sure if Astrud Gilberto's recent death was the reason this got served (could be coincidence), but hearing "Girl From Ipanema" made me look that song up specifically as I was curious where the ubiquitous easy listening tune originated. While this isn't the first ever recording (that was in 1962), this was the version that became the international surprise hit and launched Gilberto's career. If I have the story right, she wasn't even credited on the album when it was released, it was her husband Joao who was the star at the time — she was new to singing. Anyway, that song aside, the whole affair is pleasant and would entice me to sit down at a table in a club if I had wandered in and heard this playing. As a must-listen album, it was perfectly OK in the background. The sax sounds a little too wet for my taste, and all in all, sure, I liked it just fine.

I am a big fan of ELO, one of the last "big" concerts we saw — albeit a few years ago now — was "Jeff Lynne's Electric Light Orchestra, and though he took something of a backseat in the whole affair, they were awesome. I remember, long ago, hearing a story of how "Mr. Blue Sky" came to be, detailing how Lynne was in the studio having trouble coming up with marterial and stepped out to get some air and the sun was shining after days of gloomy rain and the song just came to him. It's a standout on the album for sure, but my reaction was, "if you're having writer's block, why are you putting out a double album?" Pare this down to a single album and you're gold. As it is, it's longer than it needs to be and all the production ideas packed into 10-12 songs would be amazing. And, BTW, all the haters of Lynne's production aesthetic are bonkers. I love it.

Wow. Well I just read through my first two Dylan reviews (was there a third?) and the graph is steadily going up. 2 to a 3 to this. Now, the album almost dipped a point when the final track was in full swing — that was one of those "turn the volume down quick!" tunes that was difficult to endure. But "Subterranean Homesick Blues" is great, even with the goofy fade out in the middle of it, and other standouts are on par with that. So, I guess I've found the side of Dylan I most like, a revved up folksman at the top of his game. I'll say it again, "Baby Blue" epitomizes much of what makes me struggle to even listen to Dylan, but the rest of the album is lyrically — even melodically — inspired.

Marianne turned me onto this album when it first landed, I was ... transported? engulfed? abducted? I clearly can't find the word, but it was an immersive experience. I didn't do any research, thought maybe the lyrics were gibberish made-up sounds, but I loved it. It was unlike anything I had heard, at least I couldn't remember hearing music like it before. I was a massage therapist at the time, or soon after, and took to playing the album while working, which meant I spent a lot of meditative time with this spinning, so I heard every nuance ... a lot. I think I overdid it and haven't listened to it in years. So, I don't turn to this album anymore, I've heard it too many times, it has a connection to a certain place and time, but I spun it yesterday and spent no meditative time, it was on in the background passing breezily. But my recent experience doesn't matter. This is a 5 because it is one of those magical albums in my life that I lost myself in for countless hours. That self is still out there. Floating.

In some ways, MBV reminded me of a band I really like, The Dandy Warhols, mostly in the sense that they seem to want to make pop music that demands something of the listener. But where the Dandy's give you ample riffs and hooks and melodies to grab hold of and then throw in obtuse indulgencies for good measure, MTV starts there and keeps pushing. There were moments of pleasure, but this was hard to listen to. I don't get why this is important. It's like annoying abstract art in sound.

I'd argue "Low" is the better of these two albums, and I mention it only because of their obvious kinship in when, where, and who was involved in the release. But listening to this with a "critical" ear, it's fantastic. While I don't gravitate toward the instrumental second half, it merits recognition for its creativity and innovative spirit — not to mention its musical merit. It makes me so sad that Bowie's not around to keep making music and pushing boundaries. If you haven't checked out Blackstar, the album released as he was dying, give it a listen. It's a testament to his restless artistry to the very last breath.

Well, I'd qualify myself as a fan of later Zeppelin more than the earlier stuff, and I'm a fan of the band but hardly ever choose to spin their albums when looking for something to listen to. I cannot remember the last time I chose to listen to a Led Zeppelin album. It's been years. But god damn, this is an impressive album. I know there's a lot of appropriation of the blues on this album in particular, so that's worth mentioning, but nobody else did the things this band was doing to music — certainly not in 1969. How these four guys found each other seems a marvel, each is a monster in his field. But I was specifically keying into John Paul Jones on this listen. He's a beast. The bass playing is always interesting, and the tones — starting with Bonham — are ferocious. Throw in the fact that this album outshines 90% of any "best-of" collection from groups of the same era, and I couldn't talk myself down from a 5. Not sure I'll be listening to it again from beginning to end anytime soon, but that doesn't mean it isn't brilliant.

Listened to this with Adler on the ride home from our weekend adventure. We liked the up-tempo party vibe that didn't let up, and while I wasn't able to really lock in on the lyrics (which is my MO when it comes to rap — I can't keep up) and there were some noodly bits with the new sample machine, this was entertaining, if not a little longer than necessary.

Sweet, pleasant... Nick Drake's voice and guitar float sweetly from song to song like honeybees on a lavender plant. I enjoyed it, not a sour note in the whole affair, but there wasn't anything that elevated it to a 4, at least not on the first listen.

A 2-star rating is a little harsh, but this was mostly ridiculous, starting with the band's name. At least it was short.

It's a good thing I discovered Wish You Were Here and The Wall before hearing this because it might have put me off ever giving this band a second chance. This is just too untethered and weird for me. There were moments where musical brilliance shone through the trippy clouds, but they were way too few and far between to make any of this coherent. I'm glad to have listened to it, as a historical record, but you can meet me on the dark side of the moon. It's more like a 2.5, but it ain't a 3, so 2 will have to do.

Well, I was all over the map on this one. Liked it, disliked it, loved it, was put off, couldn't always figure if I was on the side of the narrator or not. It's long, took me 4-5 listens to get through it, but at the end, I have to give a 4 with a caveat that it needs another listen to solidify whether that's right on or too low or too high. But it made me think, made me listen, made me wonder... I enjoyed the high-minded intelligent narrative, the spoken-word tunes stood out, and while some of the fraught vocal stylings sometimes approached grating on my nerves, there was an earnestness that always kept me connected and interested, even if it wasn't always exactly pleasant.

This was never my favorite Springsteen album, and in fact, was the album that made me stop buying his records. I don't hate it, it just doesn't excite me in the same way "Born To Run" and "Darkness" does. I saw Springsteen live on this tour, amidst all the massive hype of how amazing he was as a live performer, and he was better than that. It was one of the best shows I had ever seen, still is. He was great, and at his prime. This album... the opener is fantastic, though the keyboard sound suffers from being thin and generally lousy, and that is the case throughout this album. Even the better songs, like "Cover Me," are hampered by the lousy keyboard sound and a reliance on a repetitive, uninspiring keyboard pad. When it comes to it, I don't love these songs. Apart from the title track, the hits ("Dancing in the Dark," "Glory Days") are at the bottom of the pack in my estimation of Springsteen's greatest hits, and the tedious ones ("I'm Going Down") are just not fun to listen to, so it spells my being unmoved by this set of songs and the production of the album.

Somehow, this album is not in my extensive David Bowie collection and it's a serious gap because this is fantastic. Bowie's songwriting on this album is exceptional, the production is interesting and spot-on, there's a breadth of style and subject matter — it's brilliant. There's a lot of Bowie on this 1001 list, but so far, no complaints from me!

This album had lots of promise — beats were flying, Queen Latifah was flexing, sounding confident and excited. And she exudes confidence, but this album had one single theme throughout — how hard she's gonna flow — and that sums up the entire album. Big on attitude, but I only heard one idea. The 45 King produced it. They'll tell you all about it, just listen to tracks 1, and 2, and 3, and 4...

As the world seemed to embrace this band, I was over it. I was a fan from the early days, and this album marked the point where I just stopped. It was entirely on Bono's overwrought delivery and self-importance — at least as I saw it — and I couldn't even listen anymore. So I let out an audible groan, sitting all alone in my office space, when this album popped up on the screen. This fucking album... Well, I can now at least recognize that this is perhaps the band's best collection of songs. The sonic textures on this record are excellent. Beautifully produced, the writing is solid, the band sounds great, there are lots of masterful lyrical moments. But I'm glad I never have to listen to this again. After the opener, which is objectively a brilliant song, it just keeps slipping, song by song, into vocal performances that progressively get harder to abide. By the end of the album, it's painful. And, for what it's worth, I don't like most of the hits. I get that they're worthy of regard, I just don't relate. Obviously, I'm speaking solely for myself. This is regarded as one the great albums of all time. I'll see if I can carry on without it.

Jimi Hendrix seems like an alien or time traveler — something not quite of this world. Try as I might, I can't fully comprehend what his presence on the scene was like for those who were there to witness it, I only know the stories of all the biggest names in music clamoring to get to his shows to try to figure out what this guy was doing. So, I recognize his genius, but that never translated into me loving his music. I mean, I know just about every tune because we all do. But I never have listened to a Hendrix album front to back. This is a remarkable debut album. It's a cliche, and you'll see all sorts of people raving that this album or the other is the greatest debut in history, but this one truly deserves to be on the short list of "debut albums you have to hear before you die." The songs are solid, and Hendrix seems to float around and do what he does with such ease, it's fantastic. And damn, Mitch Michell and Noel Redding are incredible and dazzling in their own right. So how is this a 4 after all that? I don't know. I think this is great, but there's something that holds me back. I never loved Jimi's vocals — as signature as they are, he's never going to go down as one of the great singers in history. But there's something else that I can't quite articulate. Some culmination of the sound ... I can hear it's special, but I've never fallen in love.

I heard similarities to Franz Ferdinand — a little more frenetic and willfully hearkening to a past era — though ultimately a little too all over and herky jerky to really speak to me. But I applaud the band for attaining something that's far afield of the beaten path. So ... what to rate it? 3 for my enjoyment factor, 4 for ambition being met? 4, because I enjoyed this more than expected.

I thought I was going to enjoy this one, but man, Brian Johnson is hard to endure over the course of an album. Not to mention the sexual innuendos were hardly innuendo and seemed a whole lot more clever when I was in high school. The riffs never stop, and "Shook Me All Night Long" holds up, but even "Hells Bells" and "Back In Black" sounded screechier than they used to. I guess it's me, but this wasn't nearly as much fun as it used to be.

Truth be told, I tired of Ginger Baker's drumming mid-way through the album. He's got his style, for sure, along with a reputation for being a gnarly bastard, but the constant tom-foolery (sorry for the lousy pun) got tiresome. Listening on headphones and having it panned in my right ear did not help, but I thought there would be more of a similarity to Mitch Mitchell's drumming and there just wasn't. So, beyond that, the album was good, but I'm not a Cream devotee. Vocals were strong — I was really struck by how Josh Homme (Queens of the Stone Age) must have listened to this band a lot — and I appreciated the humor. A 3.5, but "Sunshine of Your Love" and "Brave Ulysses" and "Strange Brew" warrant the bump.

The arrangements are well done, the mood they set out to achieve seems to have been attained, and I just don't enjoy listening to it. Maybe it's me not being able to relate to the sensibilities of the times, or maybe I just tire of Sinatra's attempts to exude cool sincerity. Whatever it is, the craft is better than my interest in the material.

I think I can count Pulp pas the band I'm most glad I discovered as part of this exercise. I was teetering on 4/5 for this, but as I'm about to go back and listen to this and Different Class again, right now, it's got to get the 5 for stoking my interest.

My opinion of Linkin Park has changed as a result of this endeavor. Admittedly, I'm not going to count myself a fan. Even when I was a teen, I didn't feel the angst and rage or whatever it is that fuels the emotional undercurrent of this music, so I don't connect on that level. And as such, I find the lyrics rather adolescent and simple — that's fine, but they don't speak to me. On top of all that, the production and aesthetic is a little processed and slick for my taste. But... I'm buying that what these guys are selling is genuine, and there's a definite craft at work. The songs are well-constructed, there's a lot going on, and the various vocalists keep this interesting. So while I didn't connect, I was impressed on a lot of levels, and thus the 4-star rating. Finding I don't have to love an album to appreciate it, and in the future, I might even turn an LP song up rather than switching to something else.

Another difficult one to rate. I heard Patti Smith, Blondie, Talking Heads, Violent Femmes .... bands I like were either influenced by, influencers of, or co-inhabitants of the same time and place and this is like a stew of these artists, and yet, I cannot relate. There was some cool stuff going on, though the cymbal sound on that drum set is among the worst ever. But musically, compositionally, there was meat on these songs. I don't love the vocals, so that doesn't help, but as Niko said in a recent review, somehow I don't connect emotionally to this. So, one one level, a 4 for its innovation and creativity, but a 3 for its impact on me. I'm going low on this one, because I'm not intrigued enough to come back. I was not unfamiliar with the band, Marianne had this CD (maybe still does), but this listen gave me a new appreciation. So that's something.

I guess this falls under the "what do I know?" category. As a practicing massage therapist for 15 years, I listened to my share of schlocky new-age, wind chime-laden, wanna-be mystical "soothing" music, and maybe, after 4 hours in a quiet meditative environment, this might have made me feel like I was in a waking dream. But not in a pleasant way. How is this any different than the hundreds of other albums that sound just like it? I tired of that orchestral vocal-synth patch about three minutes into the first track. I appreciate Eno for his production. We've listened to more than one brilliant effort of his (Bowie, U2), but why this? Aggravating.

OK, it turns out Morrissey's vocals aren't nearly as offensive and annoying to me now that I'm an old man. Whether that says more about him or me, I don't know, but at least listening to this didn't piss me off. I'll also say there was a lot of musical passages that were really interesting — guitar work and band interplay that was great. I'm far from ready to declare myself a fan. I do tire of Morrissey in this context after a few songs — as creative and singular a vocalist as he is, I do hear similar melodic ideas recur and there's something about his delivery and approach that just doesn't turn me on. There are some lyrics that are brilliant, and others that are less so, and the barking on "Barbarism" and the whole vibe of "Ruffians" and other passages took me away from really digging this. There was also a slap bass line somewhere in there that, while technically on point, was not working for me. But, my knee-jerk reaction of thinking this is unlistenable has definitely been dismantled. Still, don't go buying me Smiths' merch for Christmas. Deal?

This was lots of fun. I went in expecting not to love it, but I related to the band's sense of of humor and sensibilities and will certainly seek out more. It's almost like they had no blueprint, like they're the first band ever, as their ideas of what a song is and how to write lyrics and what's supposed to happen next seems very much their own. Special indeed.

I don't relate to the blues as a musician or just a regular guy... guess I've lived a blessed life after all and need a little more variety in my music. So, loud bar, coupla beers, this would be awesome. Coming out of my Sonos in my kitchen... I tire of the I-IV-V repetition. So while Waters' guitar tone is killer, and the band is as blues as it gets, my emotional radar is stuck in the middle.

I love this album. The hits, the non-hits, the attitude, the playing... this is Parliament at its intergalactic funky best. The handcuff song might have crossed a line, but I'm not taking any stars off the rating 'cause this just grooved the whole way through.

Hard to put a star rating on this one. I liked it, and at one point in time owned the album that preceded it, but there's something about the music that keeps me at arm's length. There's an emotional pitch that requires more of me as a listener than I'm ready to invest. I did hear some Bowie in the compositions, and there were elements that connected, but overall, this didn't het my sweet spot.

I'm doing my best not to go to the "what is this album doing on the list?" gripe when I don't like an album, but... It's not even so much that I didn't like it — well, no, that's not true, I didn't like this album. It was dated, but more than that, it seemed like a lark. I didn't hear the substance, the craft was just ok, it doesn't wear well, and that cover of "Under The Boardwalk" was just terrible. So, yeah, what is it about this album that merits inclusion? I can see a nostalgic affection for this if this were your jam in 1980-whatever. But... I was about to go on and on, but no need. Apart from nostalgia, I don't get it.

Difficult to access, this was awesome. I even tried to buy it through iTunes but it only seems to be available via subscription? Not sure, but bummed it was so hard to get to.

This sounds like the intersection of rock and roll and old-time singing groups — it's like you're hearing the birth of a new form of music. The Crickets are downright gospel-y in spots, which is a funny quirk to the sound to my ears. And, I can only imagine what this must have sounded like when it was released in 1957. Whether or not Elvis and Chuck Berry and others were emerging at the same time, there's something very distinctive about this music. All that said, there's not enough meat on the bones for me to really claim to like it, I appreciate it more than I like listening to it, but it gets the 4 for having some great songs and massive influence and a signature that can't be mistaken.

I was surprised how much I enjoyed the opener, something about the way it started sounded like a major deviation from the reggae formula and I was intrigued. By the time we got to "Baby We've Got A Date," I was less smitten, though "Stir It Up" is a standout — I really enjoyed the sounds on the articulation of the main riff... I dunno, sounded different on this listen. By "Kinky Reggae" I had heard enough. I find myself a little more open to reggae since this project started, I can tune into elements of the music and I hear the craft involved, but this sits at a 3 for me nonetheless, as I don't see myself reaching for it and playing it for pleasure. The last Bob Marley review (which was a while ago) got a 4 if I recall correctly, and I enjoyed that more.

It's hard to separate what I hear when I listen to Leonard Cohen and the idea that he's "important" or influential or "good." I can't hear him with fresh ears anymore, so I can't tell if I really am enjoying the music or if I've been convinced that it's worthwhile. On the surface, it isn't. The synth and electronic drum sounds on some of this are terrible, the juxtaposition of Cohen's spoken-word delivery with the R&B background singers is close to scandalous, and moments like "Jazz Police" expose the potential for this to be awful on its face. But for the majority of the album, I was buying what Cohen was selling. "Everybody Knows" was first introduced to me by Concrete Blonde, though I was familiar with his version before this. But taken as a whole, this particular group of songs never rose to a full-fledged 4, and certainly "Jazz Police" dragged it below that status, so a 3 it is.

Well, here's one I didn't like. Song content, synth sound, drum machine, vocalist's delivery... there was nothing here for me to hold onto.

While my newfound realization that Eric Clapton might be a hopeless asshole complicates my listening experience, this album is excellent and it's too bad they only made one, because I don't know that I've heard Clapton play or sing better than on these songs. And damned if I didn't know Duane Allman was in this band and that I've been hearing him on the familiar tracks all this time. So, it's squarely in 5 territory, and I'm not sure why I'm hedging that, other than it did feel long. But at the same time, it was all really good.

This is one of those albums that I don't often spin from front to back but when I do, it's a reminder of the genius and craft that make this band so timeless. I love every song, including the goofy ones, and the medley at the end never fails to stop me from whatever I'm doing to just listen. And "Golden Slumbers" is a remarkable vocal performance. I can go on, but what's the point? Nothing speaks better for this album than just listening to it.

The rating is entirely for Karen O. From the first notes, I was struck by how she was an outsized presence with incredible range and a singular approach to singing and melody. The songwriting and other band elements were OK-to-middling and nowhere near as interesting — the band is simply outmatched. So, remove Karen O and there really wouldn't be much to talk about — Yeah Yeah Yeahs (I do like the name) would be one of countless noisy garage punk bands. So the album is a 2-3, but she earns a 4.

Yes, this is a prohibitively long album. And in just about every other instance, that would be an automatic mark against it. I can't help but marvel, though, at the scope, cohesiveness, and brilliance of this record. I've owned it from the time it was released, and it stands as the only Smashing Pumpkins album I really listen to. And as much of an "album head" as I am, I may have listened to this from track one to track 101 in one sitting once since buying it (before today, that is). In that sense it's like owning three albums. But thematically, sonically, lyrically, it's of a piece. For me, this is the album where the grating guitar tones, grating vocals, band performances, and fulsome production coalesce into the definitive SP sound. Every song is great, and the standouts step it up a notch. "Zero," "Bullet With Butterfly Wings," "Where Boys Fear To Tread," "Thirty-Three," "1979," all the ones you know as well as some sleepers... I mean, god damn, Corgan was on a tear.

Well played, well produced, but apart from a couple of standouts, this seemed mostly uninspired. The slow version of "Hand Jive" in particular seemed like a curious choice, and there were other moments that were competent, but flat. Of all the various albums in Clapton's catalog, this can't be one of the very best.

This was lots of fun, and likely aided by the fact that I didn't understand the lyrics and could just vibe on the vibe. Where the hell did this come from? Good inclusion. I was beginning to think Eric Clapton needed to be on the album in order for it to be considered.

I have a strange relationship with this band. For years, I tried to get into them, I could hear the elements that make them great — signature songwriting, a penchant for going off the rails and bringing it home, a jam vibe without being a jam band, a tortured soul on vocals — they've got a rich tapestry to work with. But somehow, the music never grabbed me. Albums like Summerteeth and Being There and Foxtrot, they'd fade into the background and then, just as something catches my attention, it devolves into a noisy mess and I don't feel like I get the payoff. Then, I bought A Ghost Is Born for Marianne (a big Wilco fan) and gave it a spin and LOVED it. And Sky Blue Sky, and The Whole Love. All amazing albums that I really like. So, maybe that flipped a switch and now I can listen to the older stuff with a new understanding and I'll get whatever it was I was missing. Strange, but nope. I had the same reaction to Foxtrot on this listen as I did in the past. I'm certainly more familiar with the band, and I hear all the same elements I like in the later stuff, but something just isn't there for me. I'm having a difficult time figuring out what it could be.

Over the years, I've played in a lot of rock-music configurations, and with few exceptions, the guitarists have all been devoted Van Halen fans. I was just having a conversation after a recent gig about this band, and the look the guitarist gave me when I admitted that VH was never really a favorite of mine was hilarious — he couldn't believe it. From the get-go, there was something about this band that didn't speak to me. They've got lots of elements that turn me on, but this particular brew was always adjacent to my taste. I'd put it on David Lee Roth, but even with Sammy Hagar, who I will list among the greats in rock vocals, I barely paid attention. So, my takeaway ... these guys sound remarkably confident and fully-formed for this being a debut. They had certainly solidified an identity by the time they came to record this. The harmonies... I'm envious. I would love to be in a band that could sing like this. Really excellent. And Eddie on guitar, there are still moments when this sounds impossible. "Jamie's Crying" was always one of my faves from the band — I mean, whatever my feelings about VH, I know a lot of their material — and "Running With The Devil" is one of their best. And while I'm scoring this a 4 because this really does stand alone, I would never put this on for my own listening pleasure. Whatever it is, it ain't for me. But you've got to hand it to them, this album was a game-changer.

Hmmm... turns out listening to repetitive sounds and keyboard pads and indistinguishable vocals and drum loops over and over and over and over and over and over is something that annoys me.

This is bad-ass. I know I missed half of what was going on here, and if I were to dig in to better understand this album, I'm sure I'd get a more profound appreciation for it. But as it is, just listening and grooving to the songs, the production, the style, the vibe, and M.I.A.'s brand of rap, this was pretty amazing. I'm out on a limb here with a 5, but I'm not sure what could have made this better.

After the barrage of Eric Clapton's music, I wondered when we'd get to some Steve Winwood — and here we are. I owned this album a while back, not sure why it's not still in my collection, because this is excellent. Another where I wavered between 4–5, and a 4 only came into consideration because there were moments where I though Steve Winwood was stretching himself beyond his "pleasant" vocal range and it got a little hairy. But really, that's a picky point on an album that includes ancient folk, jazz, and rock in an equal doses and all of it sounds like it totally belongs together.

OK... another album tinged with my preconceptions before listening. In this case, I was expecting to be beaten over the head with a lot of pride-of-the-south, "yer aginst us if ya ain't with us" kind of bravado. Truly, even more than "Free Bird," my free-association with Lynyrd Skynyrd is the single line from "Sweet Home Alabama": "Now Watergate does not bother me..." Everyone sings along, but... what? So anyway, I was expecting more of that sort of reaction to the music. But damn, this album is great. Great riffs, great songs, great guitar work and melodies, great lyrics, really solid musicianship. These guys are legends in Southern rock for good reason. This is a really good album. The production is a little rough around the edges, but that fits, too. I am a bit shocked, but I can't see a way out of a 5 star review on this one.

Before I spin this, can we talk about the album cover for a second? I mean, WTF? It's up there (down there?) with The Teardrop Explodes' Kilaminjaro cover in the "let's make the band look as awful as possible" category. Terrible lighting, awkward composition, the most boring room in history. Who the hell came up with this? It leads me to wonder... how terrible is the music within? Let's find out. Well, the music is a WHOLE lot better than the cover. I heard familiar elements reminiscent of Joe Jackson, The Who, Tom Petty (there's a song he released the same year as this called "When The Time Comes" that sounds just like a line in the first track here)... and more. So yeah, this was really good. I know I heard some of The Jam back in the day, but somehow they passed me by completely. This was solid from front to back — short snappy tunes, chock-full of melodies and hooks and a sense of freedom and fun that's hard not to like. I've been dishing out a lot of 5s lately, and this was nudging up that mark, but it was maybe a little loose in spots — or maybe I'm being stingy. Dunno, but another I'll put into rotation to dig more deeply into.

I cycled through a number of reactions to this as I listened. I got a chuckle from the first song being about dancing, and the second song invoking images about the weather, and then the third song combined dancing and the weather and I was a little worried he was already out of ideas. But I appreciated Quaye's optimism and wanting to be the guy who brought the sunshine to the parade, so thanks for that. And there were moments where I really enjoyed the coalescence of reggae vibe and pure-sounding drums and bass and lyrical free association — "Ride On and Turn the People On" was probably my fave. Quaye has a strong, clear voice and the production throughout was really good. Still, at the end, I couldn't say I thought it was a great album. There were lots of highs, though I wondered why the noodly tracks were included at the end, they dragged the album down. So, I feel like I've rated a number of recent albums higher than I "liked" them, and here's one that might go the opposite way. I liked this well enough, but I wouldn't say it's a great album, on the whole.

So, I was a fan of this album when it came out, big time. I remember dragging my friend Suzi to Hammerjacks in Baltimore to see Cyndi Lauper live — a big fan of Nine Inch Nails and The Cure, she was definitely not anticipating enjoying the show — and I can still see it clear as day when she turned to me with a big smile on her face and said "She's awesome!" I think the persona implies a frivolity that undermines the fact that she's a big talent with a really imaginative singing style and sensibility. Yeah, the album is certainly a product of its time, but even the solos are quirky and weird in the same way Lauper is — what other hit has a raindrop keyboard pad sound? I love that she covers Prince from the Dirty Mind album — that and "She Bop" are hints at her subversive shadow self. So this was a fun one to revisit. It's close to a 5, but I'm trying not to let my sentimental connection sway me.

Well, color me surprised. I was sure this was not my favorite VH album (again, I wouldn't list the band among my faves, in general), but I was duly impressed with this album on this listen. "Jump," and the keyboard sounds as a rule, kind of irk me — though I have to admit the song is catchy, despite my annoyed indifference. The thing that really caused me to reflect and reevaluate, though, is Alex Van Halen's drumming. Somehow, he doesn't seem to get enough credit for being an innovator, but damn, he's a hard act to mimic. There's not a single song on here that doesn't include a drum prat that most drummers wouldn't ever think to do and couldn't pull off if they wanted to — there's a subtle approach to transitions and emphasis on strange beats that is drum artistry. And then there's "Hot For Teacher," which ranks among the wildest, most difficult, and creative drum parts ever. Nothing subtle about that. Then you combine all the other elements, including over-the-top Dave, out-of-this-world Eddie, and the stellar VH harmonies, and wow. Why not a 5? I dunno. But this is a great rock album.

Damn. I've always liked what I heard of Deep Purple but never took the plunge and dove in — and listening to this album, that's too bad. These guys are bad ass. Every musical element is excellent on its own — and that certainly includes the vocal — but each drives the others to a powerful crescendo that is gloriously over-the-top. The wah break in "Flight of the Rat" is where I just gave in and shook my head in wonder. I'd have to explore the lyrics — they did seem to wander into questionable territory at times — but I was less taken by the words as much as I am the power and range of Ian Gillan. I'm ready to tear a tree out by the roots. I'm fired up!

Yeah, we've had a lot from Blur already, and I like it. First time spinning all this stuff, though I went through this album twice. I appreciate the adventurous attitude and songwriting, influences are dripping off them and they still sound wholly original, aiming straight for a Brit-pop thing while straining the conventional. I'm all in.

Ok, I'm good with noisy rock, but this was tough. I get the historical significance — these guys were pioneers in the "ear-bleed-blues-rock" category. But a remedial take on the blues cranked up to 11 does not make for a great album. They pave all the nuance out of everything and leave a flat scorched earth in their wake. I kept thinking of Disaster Area, the loudest rock band in the galaxy (from The Hitchhiker's Guide) and wonder if Douglas Adams was thinking of these guys when he came up with that bit.

Just on the heels of Blue Cheer, my first inclination was to classify this as another band that hides their limitations behind a whole lot of noise and give myself a pass on getting through the entire album. But as it played, I found I was starting to appreciate the songs and the style and what these guys were up to. Now, it's a stretch to say I liked the album, it's noisy for noisy's sake and abrasive on purpose, but I could glean a sense of purpose and integrity, and that was something to hang onto. As I got deeper into the album, it struck me that this is more akin to Hole than Nirvana ever was, and the Seattle connection makes me wonder if there's an actual connection. But not enough to look it up or anything. Anyway, now I've listened to a Mudhoney album. One step closer to fulfillment. P.S. The cover of "The Rose" was terrible.

Nope.

When this album first started, I was pretty certain I wasn't enjoying it. The vocals sounded affected — I was wondering if there was a connection to Modest Mouse in just the vibe and overall sound of the band and vocals. And then, song by song, I started falling under the album's spell, and by the middle, I was fully on board. I wasn't able to give this a close enough listen to get into the lyrics and meanings of the songs — this one definitely warrants another listen — but I heard enough to get swept into the emotive, creative, well-written, well-produced songs.

I love this album. It might be the first Bowie record I ever owned, which may factor into a nostalgic connection. I always enjoyed the raw production of this album, and on this listen, I really appreciated the bizarre disconnected lyrics — I don't know that I could decipher the meaning of just about every song, which somehow makes me like it even more. I think this is a 4.5, but as I don't think it quite merits a 5, I rounded down. But, damn, this may not be Bowie's all-time greatest group of songs, and it's still fuckin' brilliant. I miss him more each time we spin one of his albums.

That was the most annoying 30 minutes I've spent in a long while. And yes, I bailed before the end.

I didn't realize so many of George Michael's hits were a product of this album. He's an impressive vocalist, for sure, and he's an excellent producer and writer — this is a solid pop record. As a listener, I can only take so much before I'm ready for another flavor, and that's partly due to the '80s-ness sound of this record. So I guess, at the end of the day, I'm more impressed with this superbly crafted album than I am a fan.

Some strange production choices — not that they're terrible, though that bass tone is very raw — it just sounds like they went out of their way to make it sound compressed. Could totally be a product of streaming music and the joys of destroying audio quality. I really liked some of the less listened-to tracks (according to the Spotify numbers), esp. "Set The House Ablaze," and was struck by the "Taxman" bassline on "Start!" I think "That's Entertainment" might be my least favorite on the album and was the only song I was familiar with coming into this. Before listening to this and All Mod Cons, I would have guessed The Jam were a prototypical ska band, which either means I'm confusing them with another band or just ignorant of who they were (or both). But I've enjoyed discovering them. BTW, "Music For The Last Couple," another with relatively few listens, was not so great. This was a 4-star album for the first 2/3 and then slid into blahville toward the end and while I'm digging The Jam, I can't quite figure why this particular album merits the 1001 classification.

This seems to be regarded as a pivotal album in Ray Charles' catalog, but I found it difficult. After four or five songs, the arrangements made me feel like I was in an endless loop of a Coen Brothers' scene, equal dose parody and sincere drama. Those background vocals — the entire sound of the album — were the equivalent of synchronized swimming. There's skill and craft, but I can't take more than a couple of minutes before I need a palate cleanser. No doubt another victim of this music being out-of-time and unrelatable (to me, at least), and this rating is all about my personal enjoyment, not about the skill of the performers or arrangers. They may be brilliant, but I didn't like listening to it.

Ideally, I would have liked another listen before writing this, but that ain't gonna happen in time and I'm familiar enough with this album. I did go through a short period at the beginning of the record where I doubted whether this was good or whether I was holding on to some romantic idea of Leonard Cohen as an artist, but as we listened deeper into the record, I started connecting and appreciating Cohen's oddball musical sensibilities and lyrical mastery. This low-key affair is, to me, the sweet-spot for his music. The earlier album we reviewed was flashy in a way that made for an uncomfortable marriage of styles. This seems more authentic, and whether true or not, I'm able to sink into the gravelly bass of Cohen's dark dramas on this album in a way I can't with some others.

My first reaction to this is "instantly forgettable." I didn't dislike it, though there was something not quite alluring in the vocal harmonies. Each song washed through the speakers with more or less the same intensity, blending together and making for a pleasant enough backdrop but never earning attention.

This is a 3.5, but on first listen and as it's not my bailiwick, I'm not ready to round up to the 4, but this was fun. Strangely Atari-esque in the keyboard sounds, but I appreciated the songcraft of the group — too often I find the Dance/EDM genre just finds a groove and rides it ad nauseam, but these guys had some good tunes crafted. It may rise in rating upon future listens, and as Marianne declared enthusiastic affection for the album, I'm guessing I might be hearing more of these guys in the near future.

"Suite: Judy Blue Eyes" ranks as one the all-time greatest introductions to a band. The song alone is resplendent in everything that makes CSN great: beautiful harmonies, interesting arrangement, timeless lyrics, great playing. It would be practically impossible for the rest of the album to match it, and it's a testament that CSN does in lightning bolts throughout the album. I had never really thought much about how much "Marrakesh Express" sounds like it could be out of the Simon & Garfunkel catalog, but the rest of the album is all CSN. It's a great listen, though some of the less stellar material drags a little. But really, a remarkable debut that showcases each artist equally and is massively bigger as a sum of its parts.

This has always been one of my favorite Bowie albums, but I don't think I'd ever listened to it on headphones before today (I recommend it!). If I were to have written a review before this listen, I might have suggested I love the album, though I recognize it's flawed and demanding of the listener, and would have given it a 4. But this listen reignited my adoration for this record. The production is superb, the performances are excellent — this drummer (Dennis Davis, I had to look that up) always impressed me, and he's amazing on this record — the songs are bold. The Thin White Duke might be my favorite of Bowie's personas. Golden Years, TVC15, Station to Station are great rockers, in their subtle, cool way. But the slower numbers are the sleepers that kill, and I'm so glad this endeavor exposed me to Nina Simone's version of Wild Is The Wind. Her's might be the more evocative, but Bowie's is stellar as well. So, yeah, gushing a bit. Loved listening to this.

Sitting here in 2023 listening to a recording of one night in 1963, it's impossible to appreciate this performance for everything it's worth — generations removed. And I guess I'm saying that because I didn't particularly enjoy this album. The mix was OK, Cooke's voice was a bit ragged, I wasn't buying his jocular attitude — it wasn't ringing true. That said, I also felt like a visual component would have helped a lot. And he seemed to get the crowd going after what sounded like a rather lackluster response to his introduction. But, based on what I heard, a 3-star feels a little generous. I'll bet there are tons of better representations of Cooke's talents.

OK... so three Arcade Fire albums in and another 4-star rating. These guys are going to win the "best band I'm not 100% sold on" award. Individually, I was equally impressed and held at arm's length with each record. I went back twice to try to really dig into Funeral after we reviewed and found it wasn't the right vibe for the moment. So ... did I LIKE it or just admire and recognize that there's something special going on? Dunno. I just revisited my review of Neon Bible, and it was very much the same. Took me a while to get into... wasn't entirely sure what I thought by the end. So this is another 4, though I wasn't sure I was exactly a fan. I guess I'll listen at another time and see whether it sticks.

God damn, I love PJ Harvey. I am familiar with most of her catalog — this is an album I don't own and am less familiar with. It's funny, having discovered her on To Bring You My Love, when I first checked out this material, I dismissed her first two albums as an artist still finding her voice. The rawness and streamlined muscularity of this early work masked the brilliance of her songwriting, at least for me in that context. I've since warmed up (big time) to Rid of Me, and this was a pleasure, hearing PJ Harvey's first release — familiar and new all at once. It's fantastic. Noisy. The band is great. The songs are sneaky in their sophistication and odd structure. I'm going to listen to every one of her albums in chronological order — this made me hunger for more. She's just released a new one, I Inside the Old Year Dying, which is apparently excellent. I can't wait to arrive at that one at the end of my journey. This is a 4... she and the band have plenty of 5s in the catalog. This flags just a tiny bit at the end. But, god damn, I love PJ Harvey.

I was expecting to find this difficult/impossible to listen to, and while this isn't music that appeals to me, I was finding things to like about the clinical made-in-a-lab vibe of the opening tracks. Then the lyrics and vocals came in and it almost seemed to be parody. "The Model," specifically, was inadvertently funny. At the same time, I was struck by what seemed to be genuine attempt at something... AI before AI? But, where I groove on Laurie Anderson's clear goal of sarcasm, irony, and wordplay in what might be regarded a similar genre, I was never certain if this was for fun or for real. (Their being German, I'm leaning toward the latter). So, what did I think of it? I'm glad it's over and I didn't totally dislike it?

There's a reason why the top two streamed Metallica tracks on Spotify are from this album. This is where the thrash and muscle from their first five albums get slightly refined and sweetened and on the strongest material, it's excellent. Not every second of the album is a winner, "Holier Than Thou" struck me as particularly ponderous, but on the whole, this is solid heavy rock from one of the most popular bands ever. I might sound like a fan, truth is, I don't own a single Metallica album (who knows where my cassette versions of Master Of Puppets and And Justice For All have gotten to). I've always admired how they were able to get ever more popular without alienating their early fans — not an easy feat, but a testament to the fact that these guys delivered the goods, and I appreciate them maybe more than I love the music. But this might be their best album. I guess I need to listen to all the others to make that determination. Not making any promises...

Considering the fact that Elvis Costello has released 300 albums (estimate, but probably close), it's impossible for me to know which are really his best. With that in mind, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that every song on this album was unfamiliar. I mean, I think I had heard one or two before, but I didn't know these songs — how can you know the entire catalog? So I'm struck, more than anything, that this cat is a marvel. He's a brilliant songwriter. His compositions thwart convention, he's got a lyrical genius quirk where words mean multiple things at once, and he's rarely not excellent. These songs didn't burrow into my brain, I'd need a few more listens to catch on, and while that might detract in some cases, I have to go with a blanket 4-star review because, unless it's actively a miss, Elvis Costello's work is a class above.

I can't pinpoint if it's this endeavor, my expanding brain, some sort of wearing down of my defenses, or what, but damned if I'm not warming up to rap. Or maybe it's what I've said in the past — I just needed someone to feed me some good stuff so I could figure out what's what. So it is with Ghostface. I liked this album. I was drawn into the stories, I was impressed/amused by the wordplay, the skits were fun (the "bad-mouthed kid" skit was funny), it never felt like this one one long flex. I did not love the repetitive samples — which is one reason the genre in general never really landed for me. There were more than a few times where I was wondering "why a sample and not just an original pad of keyboards — or something?" That was a detraction, and probably makes this a true 3.5 . But I'm going with 4 as I came away from the album with a sense of satisfaction at having dug it. Am I a Wu-Tang fan?

So, when this hits, it hits hard, and there are a few tracks that land. But when it doesn't it just seems lifeless, or at least not super engaging, and that's when the repetitive groove gets tired for me. Heard a bunch of Bowie-inspired sounds and melodies, which in my book ain't a bad thing. But, taken as a whole, this is an album that doesn't merit the bump to a 4. We have this record in our CD collection (Marianne's contribution), so I was familiar with it, and my sentiments here reflect what I thought when I first listened to it. Good tunes for a party mix if you get to select the winners.

Yeah, she's the real deal. Certainly not an album for every occasion, but then again, what is? On this rainy Monday morning, this landed. She's got a beautiful voice, the arrangements were spot-on. Somewhere between jazz and ... what? Singer/songwriter? I'm not sure I've got that sussed, but that's hardly important. It's good stuff.

During the day yesterday, Marianne turned to me and asked, "Why is it you hate Coldplay so much?" She was clearly digging today's album and my apathy toward the band has apparently earned a bit of a reputation. I had listened to the album, or at least most of it by that time, and insisted, "I don't hate them." They're OK. I just cannot determine what it is about the music that makes them so popular. She said, something about "The Scientist," and at that moment, I realized I used to perform that song with Jack, my long-time partner in music. I looked over the song titles before listening to the album, I listened to the song as the album played, and had a vague feeling I had heard it before. In fact, I once knew the chords and sang a harmony to it. I rehearsed and played it dozens of times. And that's what I mean. This band's music is so innocuous, it just floats by, it doesn't stick. There's nothing to grab hold of. The production on the album was good, they clearly had a massive budget. The sounds and singing were all just fine. The songs had structure. And now, this morning, I can't even really be certain I listened to it. If a tree falls in the forest and you hear it but then immediately forget it happened, did it make a sound?

The Doors are a band that I've always been happy to leave be and let them carry on with whatever it was they were doing. Even on today's listen, where I was actively trying to quantify what I was listening to and how it made me feel, I'm at a loss for how to describe my disinterest. Jim Morrison is a charismatic presence. Ray Manzarek crafted his own sound on the organ/keys. The rest of the band... I could pick things apart but it's something about the sum of the parts that just leaves me flat. It's like these guys were the keepers of some guarded mystery that I am perfectly content not knowing anything about.

The standouts on here are a lot of fun (Take Your Mama, Tits On The Radio, Filthy/Gorgeous) and while they are leaning in to the subversive shock appeal, I'm on board. On the other side, the cover of Comfortably Numb is a massive, colossal, spectacular fail. Swing and... ooooh... right in the sac. Go big, I guess, but how did no one in the production team pull the band aside and plead for them to reconsider? In the end, the songs that hit make up for it. I can't say I think it's a brilliant album; it's filthy and disgusting and made my work day a little less boring, so thanks!

This is an amazing album. I'm realizing my preconceptions of Sly & The Family Stone being a bit loose and unfocused are based on something other than reality. This was jubilant, defiant, and inspired, and while there is a loose vibe, there's nothing unfocused about it. From the compositions to the message to harnessing the playing and singing of what sounds like a dozen people, this is awesome. I was at a 5 up until "Sex Machine," and while I'm OK with long tracks, that track seemed indulgent or... I don't know. Maybe live, a 13-minute jam would be the bomb. It dragged on the album and made me wonder if I should knock a star off the review, but as I write this, that seems frivolous. This one took me higher.

I don't have much of a review other than to say Dolly is an American icon for good reason. Strong album from a seminal American songwriter and artist. I liked the diversity of styles — there's a country flavor throughout, for sure, but she mixed it up, and even let the bassist have a spot in the sun for a moment there on the rocker.

What a pleasure to get to listen through this today. It took Tom Scholz seven years to record and mix this album, and while that is pretty insane, the results are hard to argue. I really love the mix of instruments — I mean, it's a rock band, but the blend of acoustic and electric guitars, the use of the harmony guitars, the epic organ. It's just so well arranged and conceived. And then there's Brad Delp, who somehow doesn't seem to get included in "best rock vocalists" lists but is undeniably one of the all-time greats — his self-harmonies are out of this world. His suicide still leaves me deeply sad. So, even if every single song isn't the greatest song ever, they are all so well presented, and the ones that kick are so fucking brilliant — yeah, this gets an easy 5.

From a perspective of "needing" to hear where the most enduring, most emblematic "rock n' roll" band got its start, this merits inclusion on the list. But I don't know that it's one of the all-time great albums. I did take a minute to check out two lists ranking the Stones albums in order of "best to worst" and this landed in the 10th and 7th spot. So, OK. I enjoyed it enough, but can't bring myself to thinking it remarkable. I wasn't caught up in the energy. I thought, had these guys not turned into THE ROLLING STONES and only put out three or four albums, this might be regarded as an interesting attempt to bridge Delta Blues with English tea, and for that reason would be a curiosity. I certainly didn't hear the atom that became the explosion, so what do I know? It sounded like Charlie was still learning "Carol" at the time this was recorded and hearing the Bo Diddly shuffle seems so tired to my ears (I get that it was novel back in 1964) — I guess I was most amazed that nothing stood out as remarkable. I don't mean that as a diss. It's just that, to me, the Stones are at their dirty best when the personality of the band shines through, and on this record, that was not quite yet developed.

I'm of two minds on this one. It was funky as hell, the band slams. I love the attitude. I love the vibe. It's a party in recorded form. And while it's selling the band way short to suggest they didn't work on the songcraft, it sounds like they could have walked in, turned on the machines, and started playing the first they thought of. It's sooo loose and meandering. So I dig it, but when I come to quantify my experience, I don't know what to say. A 3 seems low, but I'm not at a 4.

I loved this album. I can't remember hearing a live recording that made me feel like I was actually in the room for the performance as much as this album did — I could picture the scene and smell the cigarettes. This is Tom Waits at his best — or at least I can't remember him being more endearing and captivating and funny, and damn, the track about Big Joe and Phantom 309 hit me on an emotional level I wasn't expecting. The only critical thing I can say is the crowd was sometimes overenthusiastic, but that's not Wait's fault, he had the room riled up. One of my favorite lines was almost a throwaway, when he was talking about going to Ohio or somewhere, "Maybe I'll get a tattoo. My brother-in-law lives there." That struck me as hilarious. Anyway. This was excellent.

There were two tunes that dragged this down for me, and one of them was apparently one of the hits. But damn, the bass was tight on this, and the horns and vocals... I'm familiar with a lot of this band's material, but mostly from the best-of collection. I was impressed with how talented the players are — which seems like an idiotic insight, but there it is — and arranging was on the album. The horns are expertly used, the harmonies are a cut above, there's more depth here than I realized. I'm definitely sitting between a 3 and a 4, because the two tunes that didn't move me weighed heavily. But hell, based on the good stuff, I'm giving it the bump.

Alice In Chains is as distinctive and recognizable a band as there ever was, and when they hit, it's stellar (in the darkest possible use of that word). My experience is that the detuned guitars, vocal 5th harmonies, and bleak lyrics and landscape wear on my soul after 5-6 songs. They're a great EP band! But seriously, this is an excellent album, it starts to slip just after the midway point and then picks up again, and I chalk it up to employing the same formula throughout. They retread ground as the album gets into the marathon in the middle. But one by one... The Rooster, Them Bones, Would?, Dam That River, Down In A Whole... this is a strong album of material with just those songs alone. Another that might warrant a 3.5 just for the damage it does to its listener's psyche, but for that very reason, it gets the bump for being so consistently stark.

While I don't feel equipped to review the merits of Hugh Masekela in relation to anyone else in this genre, I'm going down the McCormick Trail and responding based on my enjoyment level. I like it!

When the material works, this is really good. "We Are Family" is enduring and easily the best track. Hard not to sing along. The upbeat, feel-good, self-empowering messages are all welcome, nothing wrong with a positive message in the music (and god, what a stark contrast from the Alice In Chains album), but too often, this gets trite (and I hope and pray, oh please let the children play, all this killing each other, you should be loving your brother) and that significantly diminishes the impact of the album for me. It sounds great — Nile Rodgers must not have gotten any sleep in the '70-80s. Dude is all over the place. Pleasant enough, and brilliant in spots, but as a whole, it's a down-the-middle affair.

I feel very much the same about this album as I did "Talking Book," which is that when the songs hit — in this case, "Higher Ground" and "Don't You Worry 'Bout A Thing" — it's brilliant. But I have to admit, even on some the more acclaimed songs — "Too High" and "Living For The City," specifically — I was less enamored. I expect it was a different experience hearing these songs at the time of their release, but today, "Too High" struck me as a pedantic take on addiction, and "Living For The City" had a hint of that a well. The latter song is still excellent, and to be fair there are lots of pointed and evocative lyrics, but I guess I'm feeling caught in the middle. I either loved a tune or felt indifferent, and while Wonder didn't linger on musical ideas the same way he did on "Talking Book," there was a little of that going on here. I am amazed at the visual imagery in Wonder's lyrics — he does it quite a bit. But, I'm going with a 3-star — the two albums we've reviewed both rank closer to 3.5 in my book, so I'm balancing them out. I own both of these albums, but I don't spin them often, and I guess that says something. I love the tunes that speak to me, and the others sorta fade into the ether.

This album is a strange one for me — I'm familiar with it, I saw The Police on this tour (the not-quite-ready-for-prime-time REM was the unlikely stadium opener) and they were fantastic live. The issue with this album, for me, is it morphs into a Sting album I didn't want at the midpoint. I need Stewart Copeland doing the amazing stuff he does on drums to be turned on by Sting — Andy Summer too, but Copeland's drumming is the catalyst for this band. And when that gets stripped out, as it is on "Every Breath," King Of Pain," "Tea In The Sahara" all of side two ... look, Sting is an above-average singer, songwriter, bassist. But, on his own, I don't love his music. It's fine, just not my soundtrack. It was this trio combo that made him palatable, and side two of this album might as well be the first solo Sting record, and while that played well on the charts for this band, I'm on board with the first half, the two Syncronicities, the bizarre tracks by Copeland and Summer. If side two were filled with more of that, this could be a five. But to dive into the slow burn of solo Sting's soft-jazz-rock jazz, hard to call it The Police. I guess that's why they broke up after this album.

I struggle to take this music seriously. I also can't imagine playing this music everyday — as a musician. I can't imagine listening to it everyday, but as a listener, you at least have alternatives if another mood strikes. But making this music day after day after day? I can't relate. And I was initially at a 3-star, I mean, whatever, not my thing but people seem to like it. But at what felt like the 12th reference to dismemberment, I realized there seems to be maybe three ideas banging around this album that just keep getting rehashed — and just barely.

This is one of those rare albums that lives up to the hype and then exceeds it. And there couldn't more hype. The sleeper on this one for me is "She's Leaving Home." It's so sad and beautiful. Masterpiece. My one criticism? I'm not in love with "Within You Without You." But even that falls flat as just the audacity of including it merits praise. "Lovely Rita" is another standout for me. But then, I could name-check every tune. So I'll stop. This is brilliant for all the reasons everyone says it is.

I own this, and have probably listened to it a dozen times, waiting for THIS listen to be the one that reveals the hidden truths to the album. But, alas, no. I mean, it's OK. Plays on without incident. But for the life of me I can't glean what it is that makes people list the band as important or exceptional. Like their inclusion on this list. What is it that others hear that I don't? Can someone else hear for me? I guess not, so it will remain a mystery...

I like most Neil Young songs. I love some of them, and they're typically the ones that would end up on a "best of." Adler and I got a kick out of "A Man Needs A Maid." Adler does, But is that antiquated and socially untenable? I think my problem with Mr. Young is how seriously he seems to take everything. Does the dude ever laugh? Like, through his music?

While I didn't LOVE every second of this album, it reinforced just how original, arty, interesting, and damn good this band was. No question that David Byrne's vision drove the band from a creative perspective, but the culmination of these four members made them something special, and the more I go back and listen to their records, the clearer that becomes. Unapologetically quirky and intellectual and odd, they are also accessible, funny, and melodic. Great band, solid album.

Well, damn. I'm diggin' rap AND country now? I can't find a single thing to criticize. I couldn't help but hear a little Dolly Parton, and then she goes and covers "Coat of Many Colors" to make me feel like I might know WTF I'm talking about. The Beatles' cover ranks among the best I've heard — not of that song specifically, but a general statement that she did an expert job translating the song and bringing something personal and new. Great arrangements, harmonies, instrumentation, playing... I mean, what else do you listen to music for?

Another development in this endeavor is that I've come to understand the Velvet Underground better than I once did. And for one hot minute, I thought maybe I'd even come to appreciate their art. That is to say, I was somewhere in the vicinity of a 3-star rating. And then... yeah. It went south from there. So, I still think I better understand what they were all about, but I'm not one to actually choose to listen to the sounds the group makes. I was going to write "musical output," but that might be taking it a step father than I'm willing to go.

On one hand, I really appreciated listening to a pop/R&B album from the days before vocal acrobatics and auto-tune ruled the day. On the other, this dragged in the same slow-tempo "I know you know I know you want me" vibe for the entire album. Even "Waterfalls" was way slower than I remembered, and the Prince cover was a miss. Prince singing "If I Was Your Girlfriend" is one thing, but the new perspective here doesn't lend any new insights. It's just safe and flat — which kind of describes the whole affair. This might be more of a 3.5, it was solid enough, but the material and insistence on sticking to thumping slow beats tamped down any excitement these ladies bring to the party.

It was clear that there was a progression in Hendrix's songwriting from Are You Experienced, but I couldn't help but feel like this was almost a demo. This is one of those rare situations (for me, anyway) where the sum is less than the individual parts. The band is amazing, and Hendrix of course is Hendrix, but I couldn't get excited about the album as a whole. The moments that were brilliant were just that. On the whole, though, I found myself waiting for the spark. Again, I think a lot of it comes down to Hendrix as a vocalist, it just limits the compositions in my estimation. And while I almost feel like a fraud for not loving Hendrix for all he represents in modern rock music, truth is, I'm just not swept away.

This album knocked me out. Where so many albums from this era sound quaint and subdued, this one rollicked and romped and Little Richard as a vocalist was a firestorm, though his ability to dial up some sweet numbers showed a breadth of talent that solidifies him as one of the all-time greats — not to mention something that must have sounded scandalous in 1955. On top of that, while these early rock and roll numbers are often a bit of a paint by the numbers affair, I was really impressed with Little Richard as a songwriter. His instincts as a writer (he didn't compose everything here but he's all over the writing credits) were also sharper than most, and it's no wonder why he was as influential and enduring as he is. Great stuff.

I wasn't able to give this the attention I wanted to, but at the same time, a spin through the album was all I needed to recognize this band isn't going to make my "must-listen" list. I was glad to hear it, I have listened to Fugazi before, but not much — I thought I was going to be in for a full-metal onslaught. Now I know better, so it was educational. Good on them. They'll have to carry on without me.

If this were the first release of Loretta Lynn's, I might have written off the male pandering lyrics to be something that was entirely out of her control. But I've got to think that, even in 1967, on the 10th album, Lynn must have had some say in the material, and if this is what stood for feminism... ugh. I was pretty disappointed in the whole affair, as it were. After listening to Dolly and Emmylou, I also can't say Lynn's is my favorite vocal effort — at least on this album. I found this rather tedious.

25 years ago I was part of a team that listened to hundreds of submissions from musician vying to be part of what was, ultimately, a large-scale battle of the bands. We'd go through rounds of listening sessions, ending up in the offices of Billboard magazine in NYC for a final session where we picked six acts from hundreds to perform in a showcase. I mention it because, as I listened to this album, I tried to imagine what the response of the room would have been, and I can't imagine it would have received a whole lot of attention. This is my way of saying, I can't hear what it is in Syd Barrett that excites people. It wanders. It's difficult. I don't think the lyrics are meant to make sense. No question, there's something intimate and unfiltered about Barrett's performances and music, but I fail to understand what it is that makes it "great" or even good. Whatever his genius, it's lost on me. Strangely, I liked the album well enough. I listened more than once trying to connect. Alas, I'm just confused. So maybe I get it after all.

This was of a piece with the Cherry Ghost album we reviewed this weekend in some ways. Drake's music and melodies have a sweetness to it, coupled with an artistic confidence that was evident from the opening song. Another I'd need some time to sit with and repeated listens to really determine my connection to the music. Nick Drake is a name I've heard before but an artist I knew nothing about, so I'm glad to have been introduced to this album.

For a bit there, I was enjoying hearing Janis Joplin in the context of the band, with other vocalists and the psychedelic stomp. After two songs, I was wearing down, and by the time "Roadblock" came on, I was thoroughly and completely done. Joplin's capacity to wail is a signature sound, but it has never appealed to me. On top of that, her inability (or unwillingness) to dial it back and sing sweetly — or ANY other way — is both uninteresting and hard to endure over multiple tracks. I couldn't take any more, and had to bail before the live tracks played. So whatever I did like about the album... it's too much rasp and scream and blues at 11.

I was groovin' from the outset, and while the album started flagging a little in the middle, "You Better Run" and "It's Love" came to the rescue and solidified the 4 in my estimation. Not exactly my go-to style of music, so while I had heard at least three of these tracks often enough, this was mostly new to me. I thought the band was solid, the singing was great, the tunes were well-written, and the whole package had a cohesion and personality that was impressive.

OK... another step forward? Where other aggressive metal often sounds to me like no one in the band is listening to the other members, there was a musicality here that I genuinely enjoyed. Avoiding a "spigot on full blast" approach, even the gruff vocals had a cadence and phrasing that complemented the compositions — which I also thought were well-crafted — and understanding what was being sung (said? barked?) was another point in the band's favor. So, a 4-star doesn't mean I'll be dropping the needle on this album again in the near future, it's still a bit too much for my personal taste, but I'm scoring high because I thought this was a class above the other material I've checked out in this genre.

I was massively into this band and this album when it came out — I think I discovered Duran Duran on their debut (this was their second album). I played a bunch of these songs in my high school band, I am vey familiar with this record. This weekend's listen reminded me how solid it is. Great production, obtuse (maybe pretentious) lyrics, unapologetic pop aspirations, interesting instrumentation (there's more guitar muscle here than you think), and a willingness to get a little creepy with tracks like "The Chauffeur." The musicianship is also a step better than a lot of people might give them credit for, and I can listen to John Taylor's bad-ass bass playing all day. He's a step above and probably my favorite part of the whole thing.

For many of us, this one is easy to file under rock cliche or heap it on the pile of obvious contenders for GOAT and dismiss it. In fact, I can remember rather clearly as a young kid, I was maybe 11, buying this album in a record store and the teenager working in the shop giving me a little attitude for making such a "basic" choice — at least that was how I interpreted it. But god damn, this is an unbelievably good record. I don't remember the last time I listened to Zeppelin's version of "Stairway," and man, that build up to the solo, the progression of that song to that point, is as dramatic as it gets, and the payoff is astounding. Jones' "Black Dog" riff is killer, the drums sounds all over are something else but on "Levee" ... holy crap. Robert Plant is singing about all sorts of mystical shit (still amazes that he was 23 when he was writing and recording this). And this is Page at his finest. And "Misty Mountain Hop" and "Battle of Evermore" — I guess I've just about listed every song. So, as Scott so eloquently said about "Abbey Road," if this isn't a 5, what does a band have to do to earn it?

While I'm not always enamored with songs (or stories) of sexual exploits, I was taken by SZA's through-line of the power, allure, social construct, and different gender relation to sex — and her subversion of that in many ways. I found the album consistently interesting and provocative, and SZA came through as an independent, fierce, and vulnerable woman. No small feat.

While a 3-star rating seems a bit stingy, I have a hard time warming up to Lorde's music. She's a capable writer, the arrangements are well-done, she can sing, there's not a lot to criticize... yet, I can't seem to connect. I was struck, more than once, thinking certain songs bore a compositional similarity to John Legend (not that I'm super familiar with his catalog) and I feel exactly the same about his music. I hear that it's good — very competent and professional — but it fails to move me. It also seems apparent that Lorde likes some of my favorite female songwriters — Kate Bush and Imogen Heap among them — so it's a little odd that this doesn't do the same for me. It's probably more like a 3.5, but I'm sliding down the scale on this one.

I struggled with the rating on this one, partly because I couldn't get out of the "I need to rate this" headspace as I was listening. I liked it. It was meticulously crafted. It wasn't exactly predictable, but it also felt really safe, like they took no chances. I kept feeling like this was a combination of Wilco and Flaming Lips with all the grease and grime rubbed off and polished up real nice. Everything was inside the lines, which I was conscious of as I was listening. And honestly, while this might warrant a 4-star rating, I couldn't quell the nagging voice asking — "I must listen to this? Why, exactly?" It's good, but ... safe. And at the end of the day, the lyrics never quite tickled my g-spot. I guess these guys had fun in California, but that's the determiner as I write. Flirted with a 4, but its getting the 3. A really solid 3. Like more than a 3. But a 3.

I've never paid a ton of attention to this band, but I've always thought they were pretty good. Maybe a little on-the-nose for my taste and the punk ethos/sound was never one I gravitated to, but Green Day pumps out clever, catchy, pop-punk songs better than just about anyone, certainly at their peak in the 90s-00s. I had always known this was something of a statement album, their "most important" work, but this was my first time listening. First impression — damn, dude's got a big drum sound. The bass drum leaps out of the speaker, and the toms aren't far behind. So, score a point for the drummer. And I suppose this will take multiple listens and me poring over the lyrics to get the story and put the thread of the narrative together, but my takeaway: these guys write good tunes. They just start sounding the same to me after about six tracks and my interest flags. But it's solid, Billie Joe Armstrong has a knack for a melody and knows how to cut the fat and deliver the goods without a whole lot of fucking around.

I discovered Siouxsie and the Banshees in high school, as part of my active exploration of music of the day. While this didn't align with my "typical" fare, I liked the band's arty approach and Siouxsie's strange style of singing and lyric play. So this was something of a reminder of what I connected to back then. I was familiar with "Spellbound" and "Arabian Knights" from this album, and while they stand out as the strongest material, I liked most of the other material almost as much.

Having the brief tutorial at the beginning of the program was helpful, though it more or less reinforced my basic understanding of how Indian music is structured. I think the thing that helped most was the advice not to try to contextualize the music and just let it flow. And the idea that the tabla is really setting the entire thing up was useful, and whenever I get lost or not sure what to make of the sounds I'm hearing, I key on the tabla. I was in a play in college that featured a live Indian ensemble, and the tabla player had me mesmerized. I was working while listening to this, and I found it put me in a meditative space. But then there's the rating of the record. If I were to actively listen to this album, I'm not sure what I'd have to say. As a mood setter, there are occasions I can foresee when I might turn to more of Shankar's music. But rating this seems like folly. What do I know?

When I saw the cover I was very skeptical. Then the first tune spun and I thought, "OK, this is better than expected." Then, by the second song, I was already losing interest, and by the end I was thinking it was a whole lotta wank. A sound in search of substance.

This was cool. I was not able to give it the listen it required for a full-on review, but I bet that even a closer listen would result in the same rating. I enjoyed it, glad to have heard it, may not go back for more only because there is just so much music out there to explore.

Glad I finally listened to Garbage, they were a band that seemed important that I never dug into. After listening, I'm mostly not sure what all the fuss is about. They're fine, but that's about as profound as it got for me.

This was an interesting album — first time I heard of the band. I thought the songwriting was inventive, I'd say the band has staked its own territory, and good on them for it. That does work both ways, though, as one listen isn't enough to really get my brain wrapped around the songs, and as they ping-pong around a bit in terms of style, I was at a solid 3.5 and wondering whether to bump it up or down. That was ultimately determined by the old mid-90s curse of putting too many tracks on the album. The last four songs seemed imminently less excellent than the 13 that preceded them, so that suppressed the rating. They're better than a 3, but that's all I got.

Funny this showed up today as we spent the holiday with a friend who professed to HATE Steely Dan and I couldn't quite get what could be so divisive about this band. I mean, you may be able to quibble over some lyrics here are there, but what's not to like? Upon listening to Aja today, I'm even more perplexed. Every sound on the album is fantastic. The instruments sound amazing, the songs are all excellent, the performances are almost too flawless. This is one of those rare albums that could be mistaken for a "best-of" collection. Fagen and Becker absolutely nailed it.

For a few songs there, I was beginning to rethink my preconceptions of Dinosaur, Jr. Then, listening fatigue set in and I grew weary of the noise. The songwriting, which was driving my budding appreciation for the band, became less interesting, and still the noise. And then I got to "Poledo" and was beginning to wonder if this was dipping below a 3-star rating. The Cure cover was bringing me back but then they hit the chorus and I stopped listening. What a dumb thing to do to what was a perfectly competent cover. So, I went from reforming my idea of this band — which was that they were in it for the noise — to realizing I'm never going to like them. Oh well. Can't say I didn't try.

Man, the highs on this album are really extraordinary. And that makes the misses on this album stand out and maybe even seem weaker than they are. That's my general take on Elton John's catalog (I'm not an expert, but I own and have listened to a bunch of his albums) — his good material is better than good, it's exceptional. The rest of the material is not nearly as compelling, and it makes for an uneven listening experience. I think my takeaway from this listen is that it's the nature of daring creativity. Sometimes the oddball lyrical messages transcend (Tiny Dancer, Madman Across the Water for starters) and sometimes they just miss the mark (Razor Face, Rotten Peaches). Same with the arrangements on this album. The brilliant tracks are all exquisitely arranged, the clunkers make you wonder if maybe they found an accordion in the corner and decided, "what the hell? why not?" So, a 5 for the genius tracks on this album, a 3 for the others.

I remember when this album came out. A coworker was absolutely smitten and played it for me (over and over). And I heard it then — there's an energy and power and confidence about this band and this debut album that is undeniable. More than a little of that comes from the band — Stone Gossard and the rest deliver in spades. But, of course, there's Eddie Vedder, and I guess he's a polarizing figure. All I can say is, I can't bear listening to him sing. He seems like a right-on dude, I admire the stance he and the band took on Ticketmaster all those years ago and he seems to be on the right (should I say "correct"?) side of social and political causes — so far as I pay any attention to what their stance is on anything. But god damn, it seems to me that half the notes he squeezes out are flat, or terrible, or ill-advised and there's just so much of him all over this music. It makes me want to inflict self-harm. So this may be the biggest disparity between a rating and my personal enjoyment of the music. A 4-star rating is all about me recognizing that this album was a landmark release and appreciating its brilliance and power and sheer excitement it stirs. But I can't fucking stand listening to it. This was a chore.

I wasn't able to listen to this properly, though I did get to hear most of it. Kelela set a mood, and the production was crisp. No song stood out — though I'll need another listen to assess for sure. I'll keep my eye out for her and try to dig in another time.

I've tried to listen and enjoy this album on different occasions, with no luck. As said before, live albums are typically not a favorite, and this fell into the "how is this better than the studio?" bucket. Funny, as I recall John Entwhistle listing this as one of the only Who albums he could ever stand to listen to (pretty sure I got that right). On this listen, I had a new appreciation for the band and the songs, and Keith Moon comes out of the gate with an impressive flurry of fills that gave me a new appreciation for his playing. And the band was almost quaint. I do like the band's personality when they're not playing music. But, as the album played and the uneven mix wore, so did the record. I tired of Moon's endless (if still impressive) tomfoolery (as in, fooling about on the toms), and the song selection is an odd grab bag in my estimation. So, I liked this a lot more than I ever did, but it never rose above a 3-star. It's a 3 of the highest order.

This was fun. The songs started to feel a bit forced or formulaic as the album went on — less of an album and more a collection of songs, perhaps. So a 3-star is a bit soft, but it wasn't at a 4 for me.

As a Radiohead fan, this seems a pretentious bid by whomever decided to include the album to seem like they know something the rest of us don't. This is a middling album by a transformative band. I love that Radiohead is intentionally ambitious, but this doesn't rank among their best.

This was a tough one for me. I really liked this album when it was released, then I soured on Beck, and now, I can't really listen objectively. I liked a lot of what I heard, and though it doesn't sound nearly as fresh as it did upon release, there's a lot of cool stuff going on. But listening to the lyrics, I couldn't help think it was a bunch of nonsense. Back in the day it seemed offbeat and funky, now it sounds like refrigerator magnet poetry. So, am I just being a little bitch? Possibly. But I was lukewarm throughout this listen, so Beck and his Scientology friends can go dance in the desert without me.

German cabaret, huh? All I can say is I cannot sink in to the genre. Ute Lemper is clearly a dynamic, emotive vocalist. She clearly has the respect of the industry, based on her collaborators. It's all lost on me. This is a style of music and singing that does not compute.

We own this album (Marianne's contribution when we merged our CD collection — a BIG moment in the relationship), and I remember giving it a spin all those many years ago and not relating. So color me intrigued when it appeared as the day's album. I couldn't remember anything about it, so this would be a test to see if I've evolved in my acceptance of music. First tune... sounded like Eels with a little more energy. OK. Then, song by song, I was getting ever more agitated. Whatever the combination of genres and influences, the sonic aesthetic actively grates on me. The repetitive melodies agitate. The whole package makes me antsy. I was not able to make it through the last few songs without skipping through. So, no evolution here. I do not relate. Sorry, my love.

I didn't love this — wondering if my new "understanding" of rap renders this a bit quaint. Had this been something I was into back when it was released, I'm sure I'd have a different take. And, for sure, I appreciated the fact that there was song structure and not a whole lotta bitchin' and hoing'. I mean, the flexing was prevalent, and tiresome, but you could hear that everyone was enjoying themselves. Mama Said and Around The Way Girl were highlights — I would have liked more of that stuff on the album. So, didn't love it, but I did like it, though it's not going to make it into steady rotation in my life. Good add to the list.

Willie Nelson is such a soothing, endearing singer and artist. Really liked his take on "Georgia On My Mind" and other familiar tunes. The one critical note is that the delivery and arrangements start blending as there isn't a ton of variety in expression or tempo or energy level throughout the album. Willie does Willie all the way.

Well, I wasn't psyched to get another Beck album so close on the heels of the last one, but I liked this record better than Odelay. That said, I suppose I just have a negative predilection (not sure that's a thing) toward the dude. I kept harping on things not to like. So that's on me. Lots of cool musical and melodic passages, this one didn't sound so much like a time capsule, but I just don't jive with the guy any more. Would have gotten a 3.5 if that were an option, but it ain't getting the Christmas bump. Sorry Charlie.

Many moons ago, my band was asked to record a Paul Revere song for a tribute album. I didn't know the band or their catalog, but we picked a tune and dutifully smashed it to pieces for a record that I don't believe ever got released. Anyway, I have a strange connection to the band though I know practically nothing about them. And, it turns out, I'm not that into them. In the context of the budding rock and roll scene of the '60s, I get that they have their place and from that perspective, warrant inclusion on this list as one player in the phenomenon that is popular music. But from my perspective looking back, I'm indifferent to the actual music. It's just fine. Unfortunate fashion statement to pin to your legacy, though.

I remember when this album came out and I had some friends who loved it and I was wholly indifferent. I guess, more honestly, I thought it wasn't worth a listen. Fast forward to today... this was great. The songs were good, the production (Jim Steinman strikes again) was excellent, and I'll be damned but I didn't hate the freakin' drum machine. I mean, I always prefer a live drummer, but it didn't make me angry, so that's a plus. And the vocals, which was one of the things I thought was kinda amateur all those years ago, were evocative and well-performed. So, alright, add Sisters of Mercy to the list of bands I dig.

Certainly not an album for all occasions, but I love this album and artist. We saw her play the TLA in Philly, I think it might have been in support of this album (maybe the one after) and Gillian and Dave were amazing (we got to say hello as they were entering the theatre at the same time we did). Any way... great great album with standout tracks (Red Clay Halo, Everything Is Free, Elvis Presley, My First Lover), exquisite interplay between the two artists, and a sound for the ages. It's shy of a 5 for me only because it's a little plodding taken as a whole. But Gillian sure do 'lectrify my soul.

Is it me, or do they always sound bored and out of tune?

This was enjoyable. Certainly can't claim to have ever consciously listened to blues from Mali before, so a great addition to the list. I was impressed by the simple yet adept playing and compositions — of course I have no idea what they were singing about, but in the best blues tradition, some of it came through anyway. I'd have posted a 3.5 if that were an option, and am on the fence as to whether to bump up or down, but for the sheer sake of the experience, and considering I could imagine spinning this at different times — while I work, as background music at a mellow get-together — I see that and raise it .5.

There were reasons this album was intriguing. First, I had never even heard of it, and the fact that it's the first with the E. Street Band since Born in the USA was news to me. And on the heels of 9/11, this seemed like it would have to be some sort of mission statement. Springsteen sounds great, he's a one-of-a-kind vocalist. I noted a new, repetitive quality to the songs, which was sometimes effective and sometimes just repetitive. Another that's really at a 3.5, but I was mostly left unexcited when it was all said and done. There are pockets of Springsteen's material that are genius, and I think he's a stand-up MF, but I don't always love his albums front to back. This was good, but not one I need to wrap myself up in.

This was a cool find — I had no idea what to expect. I didn't have time to give it one listen in one shot, checked in on it three times and heard to all of it. Here's one that's getting the bump to a 4. More a 3.5 on this listen, but I think with more time I'd really sink in. I liked the guitar work, the songs were interesting, the sound was unique, liked the singer. So yeah, I was digging it.

On one hand, I liked this album more than I thought I might. On the other, it tended to bore me. So, not exactly a glowing review, but I ain't panning it either.

Herbie Hancock is a bad-ass. Loved the funky jazzy explorations.

This is as easy as it gets to rate an album. I must have listened to this 1001 times in high school, along with lots of other Rush albums. Coincidentally, I am just reading Geddy Lee's memoir and am at the chapter about this very album. Absolutely nails the best of the band and just flat-out sounds incredible. Every song is fantastic, love the mix of longer and shorter tunes, brilliant musically and lyrically. My fave line on the album, and one that made an impact on me as a young man: Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand/Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand. I am an unabashed fan of this band, and this is one of those rare albums that is adored by critics and fans and that really stands as one of the best albums in the group's catalog. LOVE it.

This was just fine, but hard to get excited by it. I don't know if this set some of the standards or is falling in line with others in its genre, but I heard a lot of stuff that seems to permeate this type of atmospheric electronic music — the lilting bass lines and pads, for one. So, this was pleasant, but I couldn't discern anything that set this apart from others in the genre.

On this one, I was literally changing my mind about the album from one song to the next. I was appreciating the punk ethos and digging on the sparse, wanky sound. And then, next song, I was annoyed as hell. Then they'd reel me back in only to annoy me on the next track. And on it went. The stuff I liked was really fun. The stuff I didn't was repellant. I suspect I might warm up to it all if I were to listen more often... not sure when that might happen

This was pretty cool, it included more songs than necessary, IMO, and I'd need a bit more time with the album and artist to make a firmer commitment to a rating. I'd say this is more in the 3.5 range, but I didn't love anything enough on the one listen to raise that to a 4. I heard a number of spots that were reminiscent of Elliot Smith (I honestly don't know who was on the scene first, so maybe Smith sounds like this cat), and that didn't make me like it more — not a knock on either, just a statement that it's a sound I've heard before. And more than the sound and production, the melodic structure — even without that comparison — got a bit repetitive. But now I'm nitpicking. I did like the album's title.

Damn — 2024's been Rush year for me, between these two albums and Geddy's memoir. I listed to Permanent Waves the other day as well, so I guess my being a fan is established. This album really set me on a new course when I was in middle school. I was a Kiss devotee (what? I was in freakin' middle school) and then listened to this and Moving Pictures and Permanent Waves (I got them all for my 14th birthday) and it opened my brain to new possibilities. On this listen, and it's been a while since I spun this album, I was really moved — and not by nostalgia, but by the content of the record. The band was on the precipice when they recorded this — about to get dropped by their label if they didn't produce a "hit" — and they basically decided they'd go out in a blaze of their own glory, and instead of issuing an album aimed at trying to appeal to a radio audience, they indulged in a album-side-length epic about a dystopian society ... that ultimately exploded their fan base and sealed their future as a 40+year indomitable force in smart-rock. (Yeah, I made up a new genre for them.) I found the 2112 story really held up, I thoroughly enjoyed it, air drumming to every goddamned fill. And side 2 (for those of us who still think in those terms) was just as good. I had all but forgotten "Something For Nothing" was on this album, and that one blew me away on this listen. Anyway — Rush rules!

Well, this listening endeavor has revealed lots of things, and today's lesson for Andre... boy do I dislike Coldplay. Before being forced to listen to a couple of their albums, I was nonplussed. They sounded OK, but the music didn't speak to me. As I think I said in an earlier review, nothing sticks, it just comes and goes and I forgot what I heard. But today I realized, no, I actually can't stand this music. Not sure why. It's like they're coloring by numbers. Singer dude seems like he just discovered this cool "flip to falsetto" trick and HAD to use it every 12 seconds. And each subsequent musical section didn't sound like it added to a cohesive song, it was like they assembled parts that sorta fit. So, anyway, apologies to anyone reading if you love the band. Clearly, they've got a mass of devoted fans. I'll be that asshole in the corner, fingers in my ears, waiting for it to finally just stop.

A 3-star rating seems criminally low for this album for this band at this stage in their career, but it reflects my personal relationship to the music — well, hell, I guess that's what this is all about. This record is a leap forward for the band coming off their distinct manhandling of the blues on the first two, there is a lot more depth and strangeness to the compositions and you can hear where Zeppelin is headed next. And "The Immigrant Song" is a classic by the the fifth bar. Sidenote: not that this is some deep revelation, but John Paul Jones is amazing on that song and on this record. But, I never loved the bulk of the tunes on this album... "Since I've Been Loving' You," "Gallows Pole," "Tangerine," and even "Out On The Tiles" — what a riff, but the song as a whole? — they're just not among my favorite Zep tunes. So, of me a 3. I've got other faves in their catalog.

Wow. This epitomizes music I just can't relate to on any level. It sounded like 16 sub-par variations on the string arrangement for "Eleanor Rigby" (despite there being only 10 tracks) without the joy, songcraft, or musicality. And "joy" may not be a word used to describe "Eleanor Rigby," but it works by way of comparison to the emotional range of Chelsea Girl.

While I can't review this without calling out "Gang Bang" for being depraved, I also can't deny I was taken by the flamboyance, compositions, and performances of Alex Harvey and His Sensational Band. There are comparisons to make to Bon Scott and AC/DC — though Harvey and company were here first — and these guys took this music to different extremes. It's brazen — that's part of the recipe — and it's also inventive and Harvey takes chances, he doesn't play it safe. Lots of chuckling as this played, you've got to take a lot of this with a wry smile. But at the end of it all, this was one that I had to tip my hat to.

I'm something of a devotee to Zappa, and this is one that took me a while to appreciate. Listening to this with the notion that FZ is a modern-day composer — that, like a symphony, every part is constructed and mapped out — that his sensibilities are influenced by modern and classical and jazz music, and that his palette just happens to be (mostly) rock/electrified instruments might help to make more sense of this. Then again, it may not. It's dense, and I don't believe he was concerned about making it accessible, but it's masterful and inventive and evidence that FZ is a serious cat. There are sections of improvisation, and Zappa's guitar playing is in great form here. This is one of those albums that gets better with every spin, which pretty much means it's not likely to appeal to the casual listener.

Yeah, he's dynamite. I'm really at a 4.5, and leaning towards a 4 only because while Al Green is the quintessential smooth R&B singer that others are compared to, and rightly so, the material stays in the same lane throughout. A little variety would have gone a long way.

I was curious why this album was among those chosen from Paul Simon's catalog, seemed an odd choice. I ended up reading a couple of reviews that referred to this as his most underrated album. I don't hear it. First off, while some bands thrived, even depended on the '80s production aesthetic to define them, so many others — particularly legacy artists from decades before — didn't know what to make of the '80s sounds. That's certainly the case here. The production (those awful drums) does not help this album. But beyond that, the whole affair seems rather aimless. I don't know how many Paul Simon albums are on the list, but I don't get the inclusion of this one. I was thoroughly underwhelmed.

You know, I never listen to this album. There are amazing debuts in music history, and then there are the ones that ... I dunno, it's hard to believe the band didn't exist before the album was released. This is one of those. The drum sounds alone must have blown people's minds when this came out. So, in the end, maybe not my dream playlist from Zeppelin, but damned impressive and a fitting introduction to a band that already seems to understand its place in history.

There was a lot about this album I liked. And yes, that surprised me a little. When things clicked, the combination Jay-Z's swagger and the thick bed of backing tracks was impressive. On the flip side, when things go south, they go all the way. The "singing" on "Girls" was difficult to endure, the repetitiveness of "Izzo" was tiring, the stupidity of "Takeover" exemplifies some of the least interesting things about rap for me. So, this had some real highs and real lows, which means this tread middle ground on the balance.

OK... So I checked the first edition of the book three times to make sure this album wasn't in there and it isn't. So when these clowns published their list in 2010, this gem from 2005 was overlooked. Now that they've included it, I guess we know that I'm a big fan — a supermassive fan — of the album. It had actually been a little while since I had listened to this album — the first I ever knew by Muse. I really enjoyed going back to it, I had forgotten just how bombastic they are at every turn — swinging for massive fences of an arena near you. But yeah, for a band that wears its influences on its sleeve, you'll never mistake them for anyone else. Somehow, I feel like they take themselves really seriously and still sound like they're having a ball and never compromise on the quality of the production. This album features great songs from start to end, I love "Supermassive Black Hole" and "Knights of Cydonia" especially.

Dude can take a cool riff and make it unlistenable.

How in the world do I not already love this band? Blur and Supergrass rank as my favorite finds from this endeavor to date. This album has just about everything I want from a pop/rock album. Great tunes, quirky ideas, great vocals, lyrics that will take a little while to figure out, never lost my interest or slumped — not easy to award a 5-star rating on the first listen, but I'm smitten.

Well... If I had to guess which of the prison albums Johnny Cash had recorded first, I would have guessed San Quentin (which, as you all remember, we already reviewed, and was released after this one). Somehow that seemed less of a put-on, there was a feeling of gritty unease and a riotous vibe to the audience that seemed to genuinely teeter on the edge of being unsafe. This one, between the material and Cash's pandering to the audience, just strikes me as a little less honest. It doesn't help that his voice is not in top form. So, I suspect a lot of my response to this album is colored by my own perceptions and having heard the other. Had we listened to them in reverse order, would I have flipped the reviews? I don't know, but as of right now, I liked the first one better.

Gimme Shelter has always been one of my favorite Stones' songs. And maybe more correctly, it's one of the great songs in rock history — so damn, it's a boot to the gut to start the album. And while the album slides just a little in places — there were moments where I tired of Jagger's delivery and vocal timbre — there are so many highlights on this album that it washes anything less than perfect off the board. The closer, for sure, (what a production on that one) and every other song I knew already are exceptional. And back to Jagger, on the whole, lyrically, this is a masterwork.

Once again, not understanding the lyrics is probably working in the favor of this one for me. In fact, I recently stumbled on this quote from Henri Lopes: "Whoever speaks one of our languages can understand them all, and I could easily have followed the songs of these nubile maidens. But a song always sounds better if we don’t understand the words." So, I'm digging the grooves. Love the Brazilian percussion. Appreciate the squeaks and dog barks (or whatever's going on there). Vibing on the repetitive melodies and lyrics. Bass lines were slamming, even if the tone wasn't always incredible. "Taj Mahal" had a vocal line that sounded like Rod Stewart's "Da Ya think I'm Sexy" — or the other way around, as this predates that by a coupe of years. Where my Kid Rock review mentioned how that idiot was a riff killer, this guy's vocal contributions add to the party and swing of the album. A 4-star may be a little generous, given my limited understanding of the genre and language, but it lifted my spirits, and that deserves something!

It's hard to find words to describe how discomforting this music is to me. I cannot imagine — like I literally cannot comprehend — how Marianne hears this and feels drawn in and turned on. I listen and try to hear it, catch what I've missed before, and it just makes things worse. And the one-star rating isn't posturing, I'm genuinely aggravated when this is playing.

While familiar with a couple of songs and the guitar pedigree of the group, I have never actively listened to the Yardbirds before this. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised by how psychedelic and wild this album is — only because I had no idea what to expect. This tread into adventurous territory, which was kind of thrilling. I wouldn't say it was all a hit, lyrically there were some awkward moments and "Jeff's Boogie" likely made Scott feel justified for bashing Jeff Beck all those reviews ago (it wasn't the highlight). But I got a chance to spin this twice, and where I was at a solid 3.5 the first time around, it creeped upward on the second listen. Great guitar work and the band as a whole are all in. Where some efforts from this era and inclination may have aged into something of a parody, this adept tightrope walk between the blues and psycho English '60s still sounds relevant.

I came into this listen with massive prejudice. I bought this album upon release on the strength of "You Oughta Know" and promptly returned the CD the next day. I felt duped. So, I am expecting to not like this at all. And, well, the opener was pretty annoying, but that's just a personal preference thing, not a commentary on the music, per se. "You Oughta Know" holds up. Still good for all the reasons it was in 1995. And then, song by song, I was growing less and less enamored. Started skipping past songs half-way through. The hits (Head Over Feet, Ironic, and Hand In My Pocket) all irk me. So again, I suppose it's personal preference, but the grooves are lacking. Where "You Oughta Know" has a killer riff and groove, a lot of the other material is a lot more uninteresting and sterile, IMO, and coupled with Morissette's strange pronunciation and articulation of words, and her propensity to wail wail wail, it's just not music that speaks to me. I'm less animated in my dislike, I guess I get why some folks relate, but I totally don't. About half-way through, I was at a 3-star, despite my personal inability to connect, but as the album kept rolling I realized this fell below the mid-mark in my book.

Raunchy. Classic. The riffs kill. The band sounds lean and mean. Love the call and response vocals throughout. Bonn Scott was all of rock and roll debauchery rolled into one skinny MF and this album brings the years the band spent honing their songwriting and performing to a sharp point.

I thoroughly enjoyed this. I was hearing things that reminded me of Pearl Jam (in only good ways) and The Cult (might be because I was listening to them today as well), but I kept warming up to the band with each song. I'm not in the headspace to get too descriptive, but I've always liked the name of this group and can't quite tell why I never checked them out before. Another for the "listen to more" pile.

Really? Astrud's fine — even better than that — she has an unmistakable sweet voice and delivery. But a second album of hers here? What more was there to offer? Not her fault, this was pleasant, but is a pretentious addition to this experiment, IMO.

I bought this album when it was released and liked it plenty at the time. I'm pretty sure I had the band's first three albums in my collection, and somehow none remain. So I know this album pretty well, though it's been, what? 30 years since I last listened to it. I wasn't prepared for how phenomenal this was. The playing is really really good — Skillings and Calhoun on bass and drums are just incredible. And Vernon Reid... I used to not appreciate his soloing. It seemed to me you could overlay any solo over any rhythm part and it wouldn't matter — like he wasn't even listening to the song. But damn, that was not my sentiment today, and more than that, his rhythm playing and inventiveness with parts is something special. Corey Glover's vocals stood out as another element I underestimated. I mean, I always thought he was good, but I was blown away on this listen. Lyrically, there are spots where they can get a little heavy handed, but that's part of what these guys are all about. I knew I'd enjoy this, but I freakin' loved it.

I recognized David Gray from the first tune, but couldn't place the voice and vibe until Babylon played, and while I knew the song, I couldn't figure how I knew it — it had somehow entered my psyche likely at the time of its release. It's a great tune, and while the rest of the album set a nice mood, I couldn't help feel like it didn't really go anywhere. Seems like this album resonated with a rabid group of fans, and while I enjoyed it, I can't say it made a fan of me on the first listen. So, maybe short shrift for a landmark album for the artist, but I didn't get thrilled enough to get past a 3-star rating.

I always liked the vibe of this group, though I find this album long on repetition and short on substance. I'm a bigger fan of the follow-up, 100% Columbian, though I don't know that it stands the test of time enough to be a classic. This one doesn't, but it was fun to revisit.

While there were legends built on great music in the '80s, there are as many things to poke fun at. For me, this band is an amalgam of everything I didn't like from the era. The keyboard sounds are deliberately Casio Atari, the drum sounds are simply awful, dude's voice ... ugh, and the songs themselves sound to me like a 7th grader's diary. I was baffled that people liked this when it was being released, and it certainly hasn't aged well.

Similar to my experience with a recent album we reviewed (Alannis Morrisette), I bought this when it was released and had an immediate negative reaction. I couldn't listen to it without getting uneasy — something about her vocal delivery was discomforting and I never played it again (despite Marianne being a fan of the album). I groaned when I saw this was included in the 1001 list, and had that same reaction when I saw it was served up today. I'll say, I didn't have an immediate recoil on this listen, I do like the grooves and some of the playing is really good, but by the time "Pass In Time" came on, I was finding her vocals difficult to endure. The harmony with whomever is singing on that made it worse, and I bailed. So, a 2-star might be harsh, but if I can't get past the halfway mark before seeking respite, what's a reviewer to do?

I wouldn't list Lucinda Williams among my favorites, but there's no denying the strength of the material and her authenticity. This is an album that has grown on me over time, and while it's not necessarily one I'll go to, I'm enjoying it more and more as I listen to it over the years.

I'm almost at a 4-star on this one. As has been said of this genre, it's difficult for me to sink my teeth into it due to the repetitive nature of the compositions and the electronic-ness of the whole affair, but this was entertaining, and the various vocalists add a welcome element to the proceedings. Even the drum machine isn't an offense to this drummer, though the loops did start to beat my brain into a dull thud before the album finished. But this is a 3.5 for sure... do I go up or down from there... ?

A middling Talking Heads' album is better than lots of other bands' best. But if you're going to include this, you may as well include their entire catalog. I don't believe this album belongs on the list. Did y'all catch the tune Living Colour covered?

I laughed out loud more than once listening to this. So I suppose I enjoyed it. But I wasn't really able to take it seriously. "Next," in particular, was something. This was a strange combination of sincerity, irreverence, pushing boundaries, overly produced, totally ridiculous music.

As I mentioned before, I can't believe I didn't already know these guys and I am now a certified fan. This album was a little more frenetic — it feels like the record models a coke binge, from the spastic unrelenting pace and mania of the first 3/4 of the album to the come down slow down of the final stretch. This, more than "In It For The Money," is a situational listen — not right for every mood or occasion — but damn good and lots of fun.

Did I really need to hear this? I owned Ocean Rain on vinyl back in high school, and I recall thinking I was supposed to think it was cool (for some reason, maybe the goofy name?) and I didn't get it. While I differ from my high school self in many ways, here's something we still have in common. I don't get it.

I guess I'll admit to being a little disappointed by this. I like the Monkees, their hits are great. This album proved that, yes, they were more than just four guys with charisma and charm, there was musical and vocal acuity at work. But it's also like the first form of AI. Like, someone listed a bunch of popular artists (the Beatles, for one), a bunch of signature production ideas from the '60s, and a limited number of song themes into a music generator and this was the result. It's a fun listen, but it's akin to eating a bag of Skittles. Little pops of sweetness that sorta taste like fruit — or a color, or something — but there's no nutritional value and your tongue turned green. That's my analogy and I'm sticking to it.

These guys are cool. I owned their second album (the studio album before this) and felt like I didn't need to explore more. So this was interesting in that it caused me to explore more anyway. But, I listened to the album via Echo (Alexa) here at my mom and dad's (not ideal, but it's my best option when here). So the album plays without me knowing names of tracks, etc., which is fine. But, I paused the record as I needed to actually think whilst working, and when I resumed, I thought MAYBE I was hearing tracks I had already listened to, but couldn't be sure. Three songs in, I verified, and that was indeed the case. So it says something... I've been listening with intention, and can't even recognize tracks I just listened to an hour or so before. Not exactly high praise. I think it's a little too disjointed for me to truly love.

I suspect no one loves listening to Rufus Wainwright more than he does. That used to be too much for me to even give his music a chance. On this listen, I appreciated his talent, even heard lots of things that reminded me of other artists I really like — who is the influencer and influencee (?) ... does it matter? But, long before the album was over, I had had more than enough of Mr. Wainwright's wavering moan. A 3 because the dude obviously has talent, but my enjoyment level is squarely at a 2.

Man... I don't know. The stuff that was good didn't strike me as that interesting, and there were many other moments that were downright unenjoyable. I've heard lots of Arabic music in my lifetime (mom's Lebanese, after all), and there was something forced about that material, along with the other foreign language tracks. I couldn't bear a few of them. So, A for effort, I guess, but this was actively unsettling me enough that it dipped below a 3.

God this dude's voice bothers me to no end. So they layer it to make it even more unpalatable. This album... I was teetering between a 1 and a 2-star rating, and while a 1-star feels reactionary and maybe even petty, I didn't enjoy a minute of it. And I HATE the song "Self-Esteem." It's the proverbial nails on a chalkboard. Hasn't been a great week for me with these latest selections — I think my personal hell might be The Offspring opening for Kid Rock opening for The Offspring opening for Kid Rock....

Working at my standing desk and dancing through my workday. Still wish they had paid more attention to lyrics, but this is funky positive music and I like it.

This was fantastic. I liked the fact that it was a long double album as I warmed up to the sound and songwriting more and more as the record progressed. I'll spin this one again. I was taken by the sprawling scope of the album, certainly played as an ambitious and serious endeavor, and while there were moments when the vibrottic trills were a little much (was that Robin? I don't know the distinctions of the brother's voices), the harmonies and symphonic treatment and grandness of the production were impressive and well executed. This might be a 5, there was too much to take in in my first listen, but these guys get more interesting the more you listen.

WTF can you say about this? I'll do my best... I can totally understand and not even argue with someone who shrugs this off as noise or unlistenable or just an exercise to strain the limits of what's definable as music. But there's a certain something that differentiates nonsense from experimental music (art) with substance, and I'm falling squarely in the latter camp on this one. It's as strange as it can be, and while I can't describe the quality I hear that makes this worth paying attention to, I think I can use the word "enjoy" to describe my reaction to this. I was drawn in and amused, intrigued by Beefhart's verse, amazed at the structured musical cacophony. Kudos to the weird ones.

It was impossible for me to get one coherent listen of this album for some reason, so I don't really have any sense of the pacing or continuity. I heard every song, and there's lots of solid material. I know Gram Parsons is something of a legend among songwriters, and I liked what I liked, but I didn't finish the album with a sense of having heard something astounding. It may be due to the disjointed sessions, but I can't go higher than a 3 without a better sense of the album as a whole.

I've been in a groove with a lot of the recent offerings from this list. I'm rounding up, I guess, but I really liked the songwriting and vibe and sound of this band — another I don't believe I'd ever heard before. There was something familiar about them, and maybe that's because I heard a host of other bands right on the surface — Nirvana, Hole, Smashing Pumpkins, Local H, I was literally making a list as the record played. And that might typically not be sign of praise, but I was really enjoying these guys, in many cases more than I dig the bands I listed above. So, Ash. Pretty cool.

This album is just so freaking brilliant I don't know what to say. Their follow-up is (dare I say) even better. I don't LOVE the cover of "Stop Your Sobbing," though I know that's a fave for others, so maybe I'm just wrong about that. Everything else... perfect.

I'm a big fan of The Cult, but this album does not rank among my favorites in their catalog. Astbury is a bit too raw, the riffs are a bit too derivative — not to mention the cover of Born To Be Wild. Where Love, the predecessor, is way more alternative (and much better IMO) and the album after this is magnificent (Duffy's guitar tone is superb on that), as are others after this release, Electric lacks the defining characteristics that make me love the band and I don't understand why this album is so revered.

I'm a bit down the middle on this. I liked the compositions and the vibe, but deliberately bad singing is difficult to endure. And OK, "bad" is not a great descriptor. Non-musical? Creatively atonal? All over the fucking place? Whatever. I recognize the dude is wildly expressive, but I kept thinking, if I had walked into an audition when I was in my early 20s and the guy started singing like that, I would have picked up my sticks and headed for the door in three minutes. Like, how do you hear that and decide — Yes! That's the sound we were looking for? So, good on them for turning that into a "must-listen," but I stand by my decision to decline their offer to join the band.

Tapestry gets a 4 because there are undeniably great songs on the album. But in every instance, I have to admit preferring other artists' versions of these songs to Carole herself performing them. From the production to the tempos to her sometimes strained vocals, her's are not my favorite renditions of the unmistakable classics on here. The other material, by definition, doesn't reach the same highs, so I think I'm more at a 3-3.5 in my personal affection for this album. But there's too many great tracks to dismiss this as anything less than excellent.

After disliking the studio album Ace of Spades as completely as I did, I was not looking forward to this one. Perhaps it's a product of low expectations, but live, Motorhead's relentless energy is more engaging, and the guitar work was solid. Lemmy gets hard to endure, the riffs start blending together, but I get the appeal of the band in this context.

While not necessarily my favorite flavor, there's something magical going on here. The attitude, solid musicianship, interesting songs, cool detatched delivery — there's swagger to this band. It sounds like a time capsule, you can still hear how fresh this must have sounded in 1979.

This was a fun listen. In a strange way, there were more than a couple of moments that reminded me of Laurie Anderson with the backup singers and the melody choices. It was dated, and eclectic, and upbeat, and I even enjoyed the "supreme team" theme that ran through the record.

These guys are excellent, and somehow I only know one of their albums (the follow up to this, Mighty Joe Moon) which I think I like better by degrees. Could be a familiarity thing. There's something innately confident about this band, they sound like they've been around forever.

Nice enough, but I didn't hear anything that made this stand out.

I can state, for the record, that I cannot abide schizophrenic rambling folk accompanied by incessant string arrangements. Newsom's childlike delivery with the bonus "Winehouse" affect helped none at all. I didn't enjoy this.

I LOVE the Cowboy Junkies 1996 release, Lay It Down. That's a 5 in my book. I've always found this album rather boring. I get that it's a one-day recording and that's some big deal, but the end result is an album that sounds very much the same from start to finish. Cool concept, but not my fave.

When this began, I was feeling OK about it — not my genre of choice, way too synthesized for my taste, but I was smitten with the sounds they were producing. By track 4, I was really tired of the sound. Seems to me there's nothing under the sheen. My dissatisfaction only grew from there.

Man. When I first discovered Frank Zappa, it was around the era of "Baby Snakes" and "Joe's Garage," which are later in his catalog (1979) and while musically challenging, are nowhere near as strange and experimental as his work with the Mothers of Invention. I didn't much like this early stuff at first and wrote these albums off as experimental oddities that were the necessary process of Zappa discovering his "true art." Well, many years and countless listening hours later, I've got an entirely new vantage on Zappa's material, and this early stuff in particular. It is, without question, challenging music. I was going to write that it's challenging by design, but I think Zappa wasn't trying to be difficult so much as he was uncompromising in his musical vision and it's not always easy to connect with his musical genius. And it is genius, despite the loony sounds and goofy lyrics (not so much on this record, but in broad swaths of his catalog). So, I don't want to suggest it's an acquired taste so much as one that might require persistence. For me, it was finding the way in with material that I could relate to, and once I had that baseline, the more experimental music made much more sense. I think it's brilliant, and funny, and insightful, and socially stinging. Let's also call him out for being strangely un-evolved when it comes to his attitude toward women. No one escapes Zappa's scrutiny, but that doesn't make him infallible, and he is consistently shitty to women (despite having the brilliant Ruth Underwood in his band for so many years). It's relatively minor here, his allusion to groupies on "Motherly Love" hints at his stunted insights on the matter. So anyway, this album... it's amazing, dense, and difficult to listen to from front to end. An incredible debut that will never be mainstream and is still inventive 58 years later.

On one hand, this seems like a very safe record. On the other, I was struck by how clean and flawless every performance is on this album. I really enjoyed the interplay of the guitar and sax — it was just so pro from the first to the final note. Also, recognizing that this is something of a first — the first samba album recorded by American jazz musicians — I guess it's wasn't so safe in 1962.

When this landed, I couldn't be bothered. The concept of music made with the express intent not trying to be "good" musically was anathema. And having heard a couple of tracks, I basically felt like I had heard what I needed to. And guess what... that's true. After three songs, what more is there? As a social statement, as an institution, I'm on board. They certainly made their mark. And God damn, the letter they wrote to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame when they were being inducted is enough to cement the band in infamy, where they belong. (And yes, the HOF is a piss stain, Mr.Rotten. Well said.) But good lord, do people really set the proverbial needle on this record and listen through all the tracks for enjoyment? https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/sex-pistols-johnny-rotten-handwritten-letter-rock-hall/ P.S. The fact that Alexa won't say "bollocks" is another gold star for the band. But not in my review...

I'm a bit at a loss on this one. First, I love the title of the record. I don't even have to understand what it actually means. Second, hats off to anyone who can make a name for themselves with basically a guitar, a voice, and some songs they wrote. The production is a little more than that here, but not by much. And, while I haven't listened to a ton of Billy Bragg in my life, I feel very familiar with his music. By the way, is there a more British sounding vocalist — ever? So, the album... I liked it, couldn't really dig into the lyric on every song, though I'd call "Ideology" a miss. He gets a bit monotone, for all the accolades for his melodies, it gets a bit tedious over the course of an album. So, I liked it on many levels, and sort of had to slog my way through it in others. I'd considered a 4-star, but at the end of the day, I didn't like all of it enough to get there. So it's a three+. Good show.

I really liked this. Marianne hinted at not enjoying it, so I was expecting to feel the same, and while it doesn't exactly check all my boxes for music I'm prone to like, I felt like I understood where the band was coming from and the rough and frisky approach to playing and writing (and singing) totally fits. So, I'd call this an unexpected gem and one that warrants the "must listen" tag as I would have never stumbled on this on my own.

No question, Christina Aguilera can sing. She's got a nice depth to her voice that sets her apart from many of her contemporaries. But I find so much of this record sounds sterile. Or distant. I'm not finding the words to describe it, but there's some music that can evoke a serious emotional response, and this flavor of pop just can't — not from me, at least. Even the song "Beautiful," which I've heard (I wouldn't have known it was Aguilera), it's a beautiful song. The melody is striking, the production is pretty sparse, until the harmonies kick in, and still, I feel like there's a wall between me and the performer. She just sounds distant and untouchable. It's a product of the product — which is why I don't relate to this genre in general. I hear the talent. I am unmoved.

Before this experiment, I would have said I was mostly indifferent to ambient, electronic music. Now, I mostly don't like it at all.

I appreciate the artistry, but this was too much for me. Too brash and frenetic and nonstop. Too horny, baby!

Is it me, or does everyone in this band seem lazy? Starting with the lead vocal, there seems to be no interest in exerting themselves musically or otherwise, and it made for a less-than-inspiring listening experience. Ho-hum.

I was tempted to say this sounded like the Rolling Stones if they had gone spacey psychedelic — or whatever. I don't know what to qualify this music as anymore. I didn't love it. I'm getting pretty sick of the repetitive loop offerings from this list. This is another that falls between a 2-3 for me. But I've been harsh lately, so this gets the bump just so I don't seem like such a dick all the time. Just some of the time.

For all the great Cure songs and albums that contain them, this seems a curious choice to pick out of the group. The album sets a mood, but the songwriting is lackluster, IMO. More like soundscapes. Not a huge fan of the drum sounds (is that a live drummer?).

I'll have to take whoever suggested this album's word that this is any good. It was something of an endurance test to get through the entire thing — which I did. But I think I might have enjoyed 20% of it. The other 80%... WTF? I mean, seriously, what's the point? I guess it's good I made it to the end, as the last song was probably my fave. I thought Spotify had started another album.

No doubt, there is powerful and amazing material on this album. Harrison's guitar playing (and others who appear) is superb, and his vocal melodies are inspired. But... it's an overly long album, not only in terms of the sheer number of tracks, but some of the songs linger for minutes past where they needed to. Coupled with the sameness of the production and a predilection for mid/slow-tempo tunes, I found my interest waning well before the album wrapped. So, a brilliant effort, but I think Harrison was less interested in the listener's experience and was just brimming with so many ideas, he packed this with everything he had.

Enough already.

There's just something about Aimee Mann that repels me. I can't quite explain it. But it encompasses everything — her vocal melodies, the tone of her voice, the compositions themselves. Marianne remarked not long ago that she can't understand why I don't relate to Mann's music as she seems to check all the boxes of music I like, but not so. A one-star is, of course, as harsh as it gets, but I couldn't even get through the second song before I bailed. It was actively aggravating me. Sorry.

I always thought the name of this band was pretentious, but then again, I don't know that I ever actually listened to anything they did. The opening notes were encouraging, but this quickly delved into territory I found less than enticing. Something about their pop/jazz didn't sit with me. I don't find it pretentious, but it isn't a flavor that appealed to me. I think the compositions weren't grabbing me, and it was, for lack of a better descriptor, pretty bland. When "A Gospel" hit, it really dated this album and confirms how difficult it is to blend styles and come out with a winning combination. On the whole, I was mostly waiting for this to be over, which is certainly not what any artist is seeking to achieve.

I'll admit to liking this more than I wanted to. The last few tracks aside, I was taken in by the musical aesthetic. But in the end, I prefer my music to be unambiguously non-fascist, and not being able to understand what they were saying didn't help in this case. From the little research I did, I'm not certain that would have cleared things up. So, this won't be a band that makes my regular rotation, or even irregular rotation, for that matter.

Damn. I guess I'm a Nick Cave fan. Got a lot of catching up to do — he's got like 250 albums. Yeah, this is long. But I sank into the sonic sea and was mesmerized by Cave's haunting moan.

This was pretty cool — probably not great that it came on the heels of the Nick Cave album only because it made the comparisons impossible to avoid, and Cave has more depth, IMO. This sets a mood and has its quirky charm, but I never felt like it revealed insights beyond its serene surface.

If nothing else, this project makes me feel like I've established an appreciation of rap and can discern what I like and don't like. I liked this. Flow was good, dude has something to say, I felt like I got a snapshot of what his life is all about, and I'm there for the beats and vibe.

I've always been indifferent to Roxy Music. Well, more than that, I've never really liked the band, mostly because I've never been able to warm up to Bryan Ferry. But, I appreciated the band on this listen a lot more than expected. Ferry still has the capacity to annoy, but there's a lot going on here I liked, and he was much less of a hindrance than anticipated. I'll even admit to liking a lot of what I heard. So, while I may not reach for this for sheer pleasure, I've found a new understanding for what the band is all about.

I'm a big Todd Rundgren fan, though this is not an album I am familiar with. His career is pretty impossible to pin down, in terms of a musical label. He produces such a diverse, unpredictable, sometimes bizarre range of genres and styles and compositions, every album has a different flavor. Admittedly, it took me two listens to get into this, but on the second, it clicked immediately. As I've been pondering Zappa and Prince and their similarities (nutso work ethic, intensely prolific, musical genius, forging their own irreverent paths), I'd include Rundgren in the same camp. This album is fantastic. Not everyone's cup of tea, certainly a bit schizo, but I'm really glad I gave it two spins. I loved every song, I loved the medley, I loved the crazy swings from moods and sounds from song to song. Wild ride.

For the first half of this album, I was thinking it was a 4 for sure, maybe even a 5? Erykah Badu has a style I've heard emulated, and there were some fierce moments I wasn't expecting, and I was really impressed with everything happening. But as the songs rolled on, the album started growing tired, and by the end, I was wondering if it had sunk to a 3-star rating. What sounded fresh and inspired started sounding monotonous, and the mid-tempo vibe of the latter half didn't help to bring the diversity I was craving.

Ok... Maybe I'm warming up to Buckley after three albums, but I stand by this rating being about the material and performances here — notably the vocal performances. While I didn't love every tune, there was an unmistakable personality to this music, and Buckley's vocal talents are evident. But more than his ability to hit notes, he just makes odd choices that could go either way — he doesn't play it safe, which is admirable. I think it was a total miss on Welcome to LA, and Happy Sad was better than that, and here, I think Buckley got most everything right. But... are we done now? I mean, I would have been happy with this being the Buckley album of choice and that being it.

This is one of a handful of jazz albums I own. Killer. What to say other than it's regarded as one of the best ever for good reason.

From the opening notes and sounds, I was very optimistic about this album. I think I said it in an earlier review of an Eno album, his contributions to the canon of popular music is significant, he has produced some of the all-time great albums over the years, but I find his efforts as an artist difficult to embrace. So it goes with Another Green World. The sonic landscape is fantastic, but the material sounds like it was written by an alien. There's something so detached and odd about the songs themselves, lyrically and melodically. So, there was a lot to like, but in the end, this did not speak to me and reinforced my estimation that Brian Eno is one strange cat.

PJ Harvey is brilliant. I really admire her drive — and ability — to continuously push her art to new and challenging places with each release. When this album came out (I can't believe it's been 13 years), I was blown away. On this listen, I was equally captivated and really struck by how this seems to channel ghosts from the past. The songs sound like they were written a century ago, and there is something haunting the album as a whole. As much as a collection of thought-provoking and emotionally evocative material, there's a heart-wrenching sheen cast by the performances here, and I am all in.

I'll admit, when I first saw we had another Nick Cave album, I was not enthusiastic. I've really liked the records of his so far, but it felt too soon on the heels of Ghosteen. But damned if I wasn't reeled in and forgetting all about that as the record played. It didn't have the immediate vacuum suck pulling me in from the opening notes, and the first lyrics made me wonder if this might be where the limerence fades and I come to Earth. I know, that's all a bit dramatic, and this was great. Lean production, let the songs to the work, I'm more and more impressed by Cave's versatility. Adler listened along with me and he dug it too. Said he heard a bit of a Johnny Cash vibe in Cave's delivery.

As much as I like my heavy rock, Iron Maiden is a band I've never really spent any time listening to. I'm familiar with the "hits" on this one, and damned if I wasn't taken in and enjoying the ride. There's a great energy on this record, the riffs are rolling, Dickinson elevated the band's sound, and kudos for freaking out the religious right. I may not play this a lot, but it's a great album and a classic in its genre.

I was already on a mission to listen to PJ's entire catalog, and while I was tracking through the albums in chronological order, these past couple of weeks have put me closer to completing the task, even if it's throwing my plan askew. This was a classic the minute it was released, and while I've vacillated in where it fits in ranking among her releases, it's a 5-star album in that every song is just so good and PJ tapped into a strong, ethereal energy that permeates everything. We saw her on this tour... well I did. Marianne was crumpled up in a ball on the seats not feeling too well, but we weren't going to miss the show. She was amazing. PJ was good too. :) She's one of the few artists that I'll not complain about having too many entries included here. It amazes me that more people (especially musicians I know) aren't familiar with her work. Maybe that's a US thing as she's the Mercury Prize Queen.

I owned this album on vinyl, and while I knew I'd be somewhat familiar with the material (not having listened to it in decades) I remembered way more than I expected, and at the same time, it was a revelatory listen. This is a brilliant record. The riffs never stop, the arrangements are superb, it's not pretentious, but it has a sense of being music for adults (for lack of a better descriptor), so in that sense, it takes itself seriously enough. The band is excellent, the songs are all fantastic, the lyrics interesting, and did I mention the riffs? The blend of acoustic and electric and the flutes... this is exactly the kind of album that belongs in this endeavor. Anderson and company were brimming with ideas, you can hear it in every song. Loved it. Great start to my day.

There were some standout passages on this album, and a couple of covers that made things fun, but there was something about this that felt stuck in neutral. The performances blend, each song has a similar sound—vocally, musically— it's like everything gets fed through the same grinder and you get an Isley. I really don't know anything about the band other than they've been around in some incarnation for an age, and I have a vague understanding that they are influential, but I wasn't swept away by magic on this listen.

There was a time when I actively disliked Lou Reed's music. It inspired anger in me. Maybe not anger, but something strong and negative. That's no longer the case, at least not as I listened to Berlin, but I kept wondering, what was Lou Reed's compulsion to create music? He's like the opposite of auto-tune. He can take anything and make sound out of key and unmelodic. He sounds bored and uninspired... so why do it? I get about as much enjoyment listening to this as he sounds delivering it, which is to say, not much.

I've tried with Bjork more than once. I have some musician friends (well, one in particular) who is totally smitten with her which made me wonder if I was somehow missing out on something extraordinary. When this started, I was thinking I might be able to sink in, but as the tracks rolled on I experienced that familiar nagging sensation that it all sounds so similar, and the disjointed strange articulation seems like a gimmick after a couple of songs. I don't doubt her authenticity, she's staked a claim to a genre all her own, but I just don't hear whatever it is that turns on her fans. It sounds like a disjointed mess to me.

I enjoyed this album a lot. The combo rap of Chuck D and Flava Flav was a great mix of heavy and light, the humor went a long way to keep this fun. There are hooks and things to connect with, the beats and bed were interesting and rollicking. I completely ignored this when it was released in 1988. I probably wouldn't have liked it so much back then, but I'm glad I dove in now.

This was bad ass. I own Degüello, which was released six years later than this, and I thought that was a great snapshot of the band in its "first" prime, but damn, Gibbons' guitar playing on this is stellar. The songs are concise and tight, the band is locked in (nice to hear Frank Beard swing), the attitude is there but they aren't testing the childish raunch that shows up in later albums. I was really impressed with this. Not a bad moment on the record.

This was cool. I've heard the opening track and another on the album a million times and had no idea what I was listening to, so it's nice to have that new knowledge. On one hand, the tracks I'm familiar with are obvious standouts, they swing and groove and swagger. The rest of the material was pretty good, but it gets the 4 as it seems to me the band nailed what they were attempting to do, and while it might not be the most ambitious album in history, they don't all need to be.

I expected to find this really difficult, but that wasn't the case. That said, this wasn't an album I connected with. There was some cool stuff going on throughout, but it never quite ascended to something that struck me as sublime or even above average. Perhaps, with multiple listens, I might better understand and appreciate what these guys are up to — though unless I'm trapped in a room with Scott for a week with nothing else to listen to, I don't see that happening. It may have even crept up to a 3.5, but I can't get to a 4, so a 3 it is.

Here's one I own and love, and I went into this listen with the prejudicial bias that it was a 4 before I even started listening. It's brilliant, and chock full of good tunes, but it's incredibly long and I considered that would be a detraction. But, god damn, it's just really good from start to finish. For us CD lovers, the album is packaged as two discs, but more than that, as two distinct albums. It's not so much a double album as two simultaneous releases. And that makes a ton of sense, given the material within, and doing it differently would have been detrimental to either release. So I am fully on board. Big Boi's Speakerboxxx is pretty frenetic, but I love the eclectic sounds and vibe that he produces. At the end of the day, it isn't even super rap-heavy, or at least rap is one of the many elements that make the album what it is. Great production. Excellent album. And, while it's been a little while since I listened to this (loved that I had to grab the CD out of Sylvia's car because he was borrowing it), I'll admit that, with each listen, I wonder if Andre 3000's schtick is going to start feeling tired. But, man, it's not a schtick. Dude is ice cold, and I can't think of another album that makes me want to dance and groove and then makes me laugh out loud as I'm doing it. I love his sense of humor and style, and his album is killer. The song Roses has always tread on being a little sillier than necessary, but damned if that wasn't the song running through my head all morning after having heard it yesterday. It's a big ask to get through this whole thing in one sitting — it took me a day and a half to do it — and I typically listen to this one album at a time. But it's an extraordinary work, and for that, what else can you rate it?

This is a stellar album, and from what I know, marked a point in Waits' career where he transitioned from a relatively straightforward piano bar fixture to the more flamboyant personality that fueled the rest of his career. It's an impressive collection — just when Waits' over the top performances seem to have have run their course, he hits with a beautiful interlude that grounds everything and sets the stage for more wild oats.

This was really good. I was working while it played, so I wasn't giving it 100% of my attention, but this was the type of album where I might have found the compositions didn't quite warrant the listen, even if the production and playing were pretty decent, but the songs themselves were interesting and engaging and eclectic. Bonus!

Wow. Memory is a funny thing. When this got served up, I was vaguely familiar with the name and even had a feeling I liked the band, but my mind was a blank. As the album played, I remembered so much of it, and somehow it was like hearing it for the first time. But I played this album a good amount when it came out (where the hell did my CD get to?), and somehow this band totally fell off my radar. Skin (vocals) is a monster — in all the best ways. Yes, there are moments when perhaps backing off a smidge might have been the better move, but who the hell am I to tell her what to do. She's a force. Thank god. The band is equally fierce. I love this.

I just don't love this band. As a performer, Kim Deal is pretty annoying, if I'm being honest. But it really just comes down to the musical aesthetic of the group as a whole. It's noisy and blustery and I find it all more grating than anything. Even Gigantic, which I guess is the most mainstream thing going on this, sounds like something of a mess.

While I suppose it's obvious to state this, I'll admit that I can't always be objective. But... here's another duo clowning around with sequencers and synths and shitty first-generation drum machines writing — what is to me — generic, forgettable material. I didn't need to hear this when it was released, and that goes double for today. I bet there are tons of folks that are transported by this, and I'd bet it's all about nostalgia. As a stand-alone record out of time... I ain't buying it.

Hot on the heels of my faulty memory (see my Skunk Anansie review), this one is indelibly printed on my brain. By the time this was released I was a full-on Kate Bush devotee, owned all her albums, was steeped in her catalog and thought The Dreaming and Hounds of Love were both incandescent albums. So her outdoing those releases seemed pretty impossible. I bought the CD, raced home — by this point I had discovered cannabis, so — I smoked up, put on my headphones and listened to the album twice through, staring at the liner notes and album cover and just immersing myself. And, while I love the album, there are many moments of genius, it ultimately does pale slightly in comparison to the aforementioned incredible albums. So, you get it, I'm a massive fan, but not sure this is a must-listen, as good as it is. But that doesn't mean I wasn't thrilled to revisit this. I love the dreamy landscapes, Bush tempers her vocals on this outing — I guess you'd call it maturity — there are evocative images of sexuality, "Deeper Understanding" spoke of how computers might integrate with human relationships way ahead of its time, and "This Woman's Work" is just a beautiful song.

This is an album I feel like I should like more, but I find it hard to warm up to. Gabriel is meticulous, and he checks lots of boxes for music I like — intelligent, well-produced, a bit off the line of the mainstream, great vocals — and still, I don't feel it. It's all too serious. I gravitate more to his "poppier" side, which flies in the face of what I just wrote, but there it is. This album falls flat for me, and I've listened to it a few times by now.

Funny... here's a band that, on paper, shouldn't be in my list of faves, but I've always had affection for the Pysch Furs. I own (still!) a few of their albums on vinyl, this included. I don't know that I have a favorite, they all blend a bit in my memory, but as I listen to this, it may well be the one I'd pick if I had to. The opener is a classic (and this version beats the remake), and there are lots of other gems. Richard Butler is not a vocalist I'd list among the better singers of his era, but there's something that just fits the music so well, it couldn't be anyone else singing these tunes. And the band has a knack for creating noise that hangs on to musicality just enough to sneak under the wire. This speaks to a vey specific era, before the '80s became what they were, but definitely post '70s. Enjoyed this one a lot.

For the life of me, I don't understand what it is about this band that makes anyone get the slightest bit excited. It's fine if you dig mid-tempo whispery blokes singing over nondescript synths and programmed drums. But I vote meh.

What to do... James Taylor has an unabashedly sweet voice and never overuses his talents or strains himself to hammer them home. He's understated and confident — to a fault with the inclusion of "Oh, Suzannah — and the standouts on this record are timeless and beautiful. They also speak to a depth of sadness and loss which belie the sweetness of the sounds he produces. But, I'll admit that I also lose interest as the music plays, it's understated to the point of abandon. So I'm going with a 4-star because everything on here is quality, but I'm more at a 3 in terms of my being enamored with the material as a whole.

I tried to like this, and I did to a point. It started with some promise, and there were moments within that clicked, but on the whole, I kept thinking the vocalist was very reminiscent of the Violent Femmes but the material lacked the pith and immediacy of the Femmes, and I kept thinking I'd rather be listening to them.

Rage Against The Machine seems to be popping up in my video feeds these days, so it was interesting that this album got served today. I was familiar with it when it was released — I remember the bassist in my band brought the CD to rehearsal and was like, "You have GOT to hear this." We covered "Killing in the Name Of," which was a lot of fun to sing, so these guys were on my radar from the jump. Ultimately, the rap/metal fusion was only interesting for so long, in my book, and I was always an admirer of what these guys were up to though I didn't follow their every release. But holy hell, this is a ferocious album and still has urgency and relevance. And no one, not even these guys (from what I know of their later material) ever matched this in terms of its influence and sheer vitality and emotion in this genre. This is a beast. I wavered... is it a 4-star? It does seem to hang on one emotional note for the entirety, but fuck, it's so good. The riffs kill, de la Rocha leaves nothing on the field, and while Moreno's guitar solos sometimes wade into a bit of a wank, he's creative and explosive and it works on this album. So yeah, the criticisms pale in relation to the sheer energy and fearlessness RATM brings to the fore.

Turns out "The Weight" isn't the only song by The Band that I never want to hear again in my life. I know folks see this as a seminal album, so I get that this belongs on the list, but I find it ponderous and boring.

This is badass. Carl Palmer is among the great drummers in rock, he's got chops for days but doesn't overdo it — he always plays in service of the music. And while the music here is ambitious, he's just so tasty. Greg Lake was also a force, and it was nice to hear some of the various timbres of his vocals in this live performance — not to mention his mean bass tone. And Keith Emerson ... one of a kind. Clearly, this material speaks to his classical inclinations, and he handles it all with mastery.

I'll admit, I didn't have any idea what I was wading into with this album. I suppose the issue is I just don't relate to the country/rock genre, so while this sounded fine and was well-executed, I was totally indifferent throughout.

Knowing how much Sinead O'Connor means to some of the folks in our group, I listened to this with a little extra care, as my impression of Sinead going into this was simple bemusement. I never understood the depths of emotion she provoked (or evoked) from fans and detractors. I admired Sinead's willingness to be provocative, even if I thought some of it was manufactured. But... the album. I come to this with ever more compassion and a desire to want to enjoy the music, but it fails to make any impression. What makes listeners go so wild? I can barely make out what she's singing about and have a hard time discerning one song from the next. Yes, I can sit and pore over the lyrics, but what's my incentive? Everything gets swallowed in moody swaths of keyboards. Even the signature Prince tune falls under the "I prefer the version by the songwriter" category (though I can understand what she's singing in that tune), so the whole affair goes by and I've forgotten about it before it's over. For such a lightning rod, I never did and still don't understand why she touched a nerve — from her short hair to her music to her being banned from NBC (the fallout to that moment on SNL was ridiculous — I thought she nailed it), the reactions always seemed way out of proportion.

This one surprised me a little. I knew Marianne didn't love it (she's not known for her poker face), and when it started, I was thinking it might veer into silly territory. But it wasn't long before I was clicking with what this is all about, the sheer majesty of BIG sounds and industrial grooves and while it is not the soundtrack for every moment (or every day), I guess it hit me at a good time because I was rolling along with it. 4 is pretty generous, but what the hell, sometimes you gotta crank up the agg.

When I pulled this album up, my first thought was, "If 'Yesterday' is the most covered song in history, I bet 'The Girl From Ipanema' must be the second." I did a quick Google search that resulted in: "It ['The Girl From Ipanema'] is believed to be the second-most recorded pop song in history, after 'Yesterday' by The Beatles." I guess a recording of a song by the writer isn't a cover, but I think this settles the debate as to whether I'm Mensa material. Here's another example of my prejudice influencing my take on an album. I can't abide Frank Sinatra, though I can't really find fault with this recording. It's well produced, the performances are good, you can hear that care was taken in the making of this record. And, while by today's standards, this might be best enjoyed in an elevator, I suspect this was pretty novel for its day. But... whatevs. I cannot warm up to Frank Sinatra. I don't know that I can describe it, and I mentioned it in a previous review, but there's something so overtly confident and intentionally cool (or hip, in the parlance of the time) that makes me feel gross. Maybe I'm just a knee-jerk reactionary. Or just a jerk. I guess I'll have to live with that. 17th floor...

Another teetering between a 4 and 5. This is the best blend of Tom Waits in many ways — the weird careening compositions, the stark strange arrangements, the mood of despair and danger, the generally avant-garde approach to art and music... it's all here. So I guess I just wrote my way into a 5-star. I mean, what else do you want from the guy? I suppose I'm hesitant only because an album like this requires a lot from the listener, and its bleak eeriness also requires a certain mood — otherwise this could be a chore. But good art can be challenging, and I think that's what we've got here.

This is pretty fantastic. I've seen the name of this band but never heard a note before this listen, and it's pretty much right up my alley. I was afraid it might be too predictable '90s alternative when it first opened, but it took all of 90 seconds to dispel that as the album gave way to pretty progressive elements while always holding on to something that resembled mainstream rock. But just barely. I appreciated the ambitious approach to everything — the playing, the entire album's worth of songs, the vocals (I thought it was a woman singing), this is creative and unpredictable. I gave it a second listen, wondering if that might bring me in even closer, but strangely, it was almost the opposite — there's a lot here to digest. It was something like Silversun Pickups meets Tool meets Rush. Wild ride.

From the shouting to the stealing, I found this unenjoyable in every way. Not my kind of party.

I think Dexy's mom is on the board of the 1001 curators as there are three albums from the band on the list. WTF? This really wasn't good. I mean, dig 'em if you like, but a must listen? What? Just to prove they recorded more than one song? Musically uninteresting, certainly not enough to support drawn out material like this. Dude's got a strange, and by that I mean annoying (unconventional?), voice. I'm at a loss.

This felt more like a time capsule than a timeless album. Hard to exactly place this amongst what else was going on in rap at the time, especially as I was not exactly steeped in the genre, but I expect this was accessible and contemporary without being groundbreaking.

The thing that stands out, more than the songs, is how slick this whole affair is — the production takes the front seat. The melodies are ok, the harmonies come in at the right time, every instrumental choice complements the sound. But it's empty, like she's wearing a Kacey Musgraves suit — I don't feel like I've met the real person inside. And I don't think there's an up-tempo tune until track 11. That didn't help any. I'm at an enjoyment level of a 2.2, with .8 going to professional studio production.

This was just OK. As I mentioned previously, Roxy Music never really did it for me, and while I'm gaining an appreciation for them, this is an example of an album I just don't get what the fuss is about. Ferry's goofy vibrato is just that, and the vocal melodies seem stuck in neutral. Add to that some obtuse and, sure, goofy lyrics, and I'm left scratching my head. Especially as the music also seems to lack direction. So, I wasn't nearly as put off by this as I might once have been, but I fail to get what makes these guys so beloved.

Strange that I haven't dug into this band more than I have as I've liked everything I've heard and T. Rex is on 1001 artists' list of influences. In that regard, this sounds like a band without a roadmap — it seems to me Bolan was treading in unexplored waters. The songwriting is somehow simple while sounding profound, or important, or at least something you shouldn't pass up. There's a gritty sleaze to the whole affair, which is so much a part of the intrigue. There's a party going on, and I sure want to be there. In the end, I don't know that the material warrants a 5, but I'm on the bus to wherever they're going.

Yeah, this was OK. Sounds dated, there wasn't enough variety to make me love it.

I wanted to go higher on this, but ultimately didn't enjoy this one as much as the first of the band's we listened to (1991's Arise). This one seemed a little starker, though I thought the inclusion of some of the Brazilian percussion elements was cool. The rhythms in general were my favorite aspect of the album.

Was excited to pull out my vinyl copy of this one. I think I mentioned in an earlier EJ review that I don't tend to love his albums, I'm more of a singles guy with this artist. This is an exception to that. I've always loved this album, and though I don't turn to it often, today's listen was a reminder of how good it is. The hits are all great, even if "Candle In The Wind" has lived one too many lives at this point, and there are a good many of them on the album. But the treat is this is rife with excellent deep cuts, there really isn't a clunker in the bag (well, maybe "Jamaican Jerk Off"). I'm all in... the arrangements are right on, the lyrics and vocals are Elton/Bernie at the top of their game — this is a highlight in EJ's catalog for sure.

I was a bit all over the place with this listen, and maybe that's because the album itself was just that. I admire King Crimson's willingness — or compulsion — to explore new and strange territory. I did feel like this was a bit loose, it was hard to sink in to the songs, and the band seemed to be keeping the listener at arm's length. So kudos for this being an experimental affair, but I couldn't get past a 3-star rating, at least not from this single spin.

This was a really easy listen. Good songs, good arrangements. That said, I couldn't get to a 4-star. A solid 3.5, but I guess there is still something about the genre I have yet to embrace.

I have a difficult time taking this album seriously. I suspect it's an earnest effort, but now it reads like the platform that launched Spinal Tap. I owned this on vinyl, and I think I listened to it once — seems my younger self had the same take (though this was before Spinal Tap had made their mark). Anyway, it gets the 3 (up from a 2.something) only because the title track was the unlikeliest "hit" ever.

I realize how different this music must be to anyone across the pond, and I admire The Pogues for all the brilliance they embody. The punk-soaked mangle of traditional Irish music, the sound of alcohol-infused intelligence and abandon, it sounds inevitable and necessary. But I can only truly enjoy it 2-3 songs at a time. As one-offs, they are all great, and in the proper context, I'm all in. But as a sober review, I grow weary way before the album ends.

This was just so innocuous, and then there's that awful '80s snare sound and this became difficult to listen to. Other than that, I've already forgotten what I didn't like about this. There was nothing that stood out.

There were many moments during my listen of this album where I thought I was losing the thread, but then the song would build and grow and I was swept away. I can't claim to remember a lot of the details of what I heard, but I really liked it.

As a general rule, I think I like adventurous, unconventional songwriting. But the fits and starts and careening compositions of this record were too much for me, and as the album played there was a predictable unpredictability that got a bit aggravating.

This was okay. I'll admit, I had assumed Destiny's Child was going to be more bubblegum and less substance, and I was wrong about that. But, in the end, this was too heavy on vocal aerobics and too light on tunes with hooks to do much for me. And, sidenote, I had recently watched a video with guitarist Waddy Wachtel, journeyman guitarist who played the "Edge of Seventeen" riff, tell the story of hearing the Destiny Child tune for the first time where they sampled that riff and being smitten and loving it. I was glad to hear that for myself. I thought it was the low point of the record.

This may deserve a higher rating in terms of the group achieving what they were hoping to, I'm just not sure I'm on for the ride. I liked that there were vocals and melodies, and there was a lot of movement in the arrangements, but the robotic vibe wasn't appealing to me.

I kept hearing things that reminded me of Siouxsie and the Banshees as this played, which is fine by me. It got noisier than I typically am inclined to enjoy, but I was never put off by it. But, as you may be able to discern, I don't know that I ever really warmed up to this. I'd give it a 3.5 if I could, but not at a 4 after this one spin. There was a lot I liked, but something was keeping me at arm's length. Dug the immediacy of the production and the energy of the band.

So WTF with the album cover? I mean, I guess I know the answer, but where's Otis? Worth noting that Redding was 24 when this was released. He sounds like a grizzled veteran. This is a classic, contains renditions of songs I hadn't heard before, not to mention his original "Respect," which puts Aretha's version into sharper focus. I'm not at a 5-star only because this isn't music that moves me personally so much, it's just an era before mine, I guess. But damn, dude can sing, he was a pioneer, and you can hear why. Not sure why they left half of "Satisfaction" out of the tune, but that was a fun inclusion.

I do love this band, and while I am very familiar with their "best of," remarkably, this is my first time listening to this album through front to back. So... the album kicks off with my least favorite of their hits. The music and groove of "Bodhisattva" are amazing, but the repetitive lyric has always been a turn-off for me and this listen did nothing to dispel that. Fortunately, the album also includes what may be my favorite of the band's songs, "My Old School," which just kills from every angle, including a brilliant horn line, fantastic guitar breaks, and sublime drum performance by a guy I just had to look up (Jim Hodder) as I knew nothing about him. As I mentioned in my Aja review, the sounds alone on Steely Dan records are worth a review. Their catalog is a study in expert studio production. Anyway, really enjoyed the album despite the opener. These guys are always quality, the degrees vary just slightly with the material from one album to the next.

On paper, Peter Gabriel's music should appeal to me. Progressive, ambitious, majestic — this album is all of those things. In fact, all of his albums are these things, as far as I've heard, but it's not until "So" that I really relate to the songs. This album went by and somehow, nothing stuck. Well, "Solsbury Hill" is something I'm very familiar with, but even that is growing tired. So it's hard to articulate why I don't relate to PG's music, but the same is true of his work with Genesis. I'm fond of a couple of the early albums after he departed (Duke, Abacab) but unmoved by their earlier work in much the same way this fails to make an impression. Lots of words to say that, as grand as this all is, this is eminently ignorable music for me.

If nothing else, this album makes me want to investigate Fairport Convention's catalog. From the little I've read, this release has its devotees and detractors, which makes exploring more from the band seem necessary, considering I thought this was captivating, rich, and just really good. I've heard tracks of theirs before, had a vague understanding that they went through myriad member changes over their career, and recognize Sandy Denny as an iconic voice. So, great selection for this endeavor. The release that preceded this, Unhalfbricking, is also on the 1001 list, which is listed among the band's best from the sources I checked out. Let's find out!

Damn — here's another band I can't believe I didn't already know about. These guys are totally cool. It sounds like straightforward punk-flavored pop, but there's a lot more going on here, and it makes for music that reveals more the more you listen (I'm on my second spin). I was expecting to not like this, based on the band's name, but I guess that's fuzzy logic. This hits my sweet spots — quirky enough that it makes you listen, poppy enough that it makes you bop, harmonies that sweeten and augment the melodies. Thank you Mr. 1001.

Groovy.

I didn't love it. Scratch that... I didn't like it. I think I've established that house, EDM, electronica or whatever this music is is not my thing. It's getting less my thing with each new entry.

I own one Portishead album, but had never heard anything else by the band. I think I may like this one more — hard to say, it's been a while. There's a unique blend of haunting humanity and detached humanoid to this music, and though it started fading into the ether late into the album, there were so many moments that captivated and challenge me that it's a solid 4-star album in my book.

I loved this. Another band of whose I owned one album but am mostly unfamiliar with the rest of the catalog. That said, a lot of this was familiar — and it reminded me of so many artists as it played. I was struck that this was reminiscent of the Beach Boys in a more adult way, and I really liked that (strange, considering I'm not super fond of the Beach Boys). Anyway, smart, understated pop. Great stuff.

These guys are great. Funky, jazzy, soul-y — just a classy blend of genres with solid songwriting and musicianship.

I was intrigued to listen to this as I'm familiar with the band's name and have heard some tracks but never really explored anything beyond that. Now that I have, I'm underwhelmed. The singer's got an affectation — or maybe just a natural singing style — that I couldn't warm up to. The music was just fine, but somehow never engaged me. 2 stars is harsh, it's not terrible music, but I would actively change the station if something came on by these guys — I find them mildly irritating — so I can't get to a 3. And what a crap album title.

This is a fantastic example of Aretha's prowess and power and exemplifies why she's part of music royalty. I'll admit, I sometimes find her voice can get a bit shrill when she's really going for it, but I didn't experience that at all on this record.

Back in the late '80s, I was listening to "Big Generator" (a 1987 Yes release) and hit a wall. I decided I never again needed to listen to another Yes album and sold my CDs to a music store and that was the last time I listened to the band. So, I went into this thinking I wasn't going to enjoy this session. Alas, perhaps my 35-year hiatus was all I needed to renew my appreciation for the band. It was Jon Anderson's vocals that sent me over the edge all those years ago, and on this album, I found him much less difficult. The bass tones are ridiculous (in a good way) on this, the drums and keyboard work are exceptional, and I'm all in for the 10+minute explorations and odysseys. So, OK. Bring on the early '70s Yes, at least for now.

I can hear the meticulous effort and time that went into this recording. My recurring thought as I listened is that it would drive me completely insane to have to listen to this over and over and over in a studio to get all the details together. I've said it before, but to whomever this music speaks, good on you. It's little more than annoying noise to me. I'm past the point of trying to hear it any differently.

I find this music deliberately difficult and it just doesn't appeal. I read a glowing review about how this was a meld of a million genres and influences and all I hear is disjointed rhythms and barking samples that put my brain on edge.

Damn, I loved this album. I was almost at a 5, and this launched me into an exploration of more of their stuff — all of which was cool. Funny that I was recently discussing the fact that the song "Valerie," which most everyone knows as an Amy Winehouse cover, is commonly assumed to be an oldie that was resurrected in 2007. Alas, no, it's a 2006 release by The Zutons that for whatever reason, wasn't enough for me to explore their catalog earlier. I listened again, and it's just a good song — both versions have a lot to offer. So... this album... there wasn't a bad track on it. I'm going to cycle through all of their releases (there are only four) as I suspect something that came after this might only improve on the good stuff going on here.

This was great. I was wavering between 4-5 but went with a 5 because what the hell. She killed it.

This was OK. I bet I might warm up a little more over time, if I were to give it any. It's more a 2.5, a little too heavy on the meandering psychedelic — I prefer mine a little more focused. But I was able to sink in to most of the tunes — the 11+minute "Suicide" less so than the rest.

Fantastic.

Queen is among my all-time favorite bands, and I'll admit, it took a little while for me to really get this album. I'm only at a 4 (instead of a 5) because there are a slew of others in Queen's catalog that I personally like more, but it's telling that more than one devotee I know lists this as their favorite Queen album. In many ways — and certainly most consistently — this album showcases the band at its heaviest and most explorative and hints at so many elements that would work their way into the band's later material as flourishes and adornments. I'm thinking vocal harmonies that burst like thunder, Brian May's blistering guitar (often in harmony), drum fills that take you by surprise, and so much more. The band is tight as hell and completely on its own path, and you can hear so much of what is to come in the wild meanderings of this record. It's a great inclusion in this endeavor as it's one that non-Queen acolytes are likely not familiar with, but it really helps define who this band is.

I do appreciate that Fiona Apple chases her muse wherever it leads and makes the music she wants to. As a listener, it's way too much for me. There are musical passages that are engaging — killer even — and some lyrical and melodic passages that are gold, but taken as a whole... whoa. It's asphyxiating — there's no room to breathe.

This was fun, and certainly not something I would have come across on my own. The laughing dude on track 13 was not a welcome addition, IMO, but other than that, I'm going down the middle because what do I know about '60s South African music? This is it.

As spectacular and (now) iconic and magical as these gentlemen are, a cappella has a 20-minute expiration for me. After that, the magic fades and I'm ready for something else.

This was decent enough, and while it lacked the intensity and kick in the crotch that "Fever To Tell" brought, it is arguably a more complete and coherent album. But that doesn't make it a more compelling listen, and consequently drops a star IMO from the other. I guess maturity and experience doesn't always translate to more exciting music. While I get why the debut was a must listen, this one is competent but unremarkable.

The album and aesthetic grew on me as it played, but the affected nonchalance of this band will never be a sound/vibe I'll actively enjoy. It's a little too precious and aloof for my taste. But what started as a 2-something crawled into 3-star territory.

I was skeptical going into this, based on the little I read about the album. Just the whole experimental "synths before synths were synths" element made me wary. But this surprised me in all the right ways. Interesting compositions, arrangements, and sounds. Cool blend of electronics and analog instruments and voices. Sounds like it was influential, or at least predicted elements that later bands would use — Portishead, The Flaming Lips, and The Move among them. Kept me invested throughout.

I liked and was disinterested in this in equal parts. More than anything, I realized that I've always confused The The with Was Not Was.

I love this album — been a staple since high school, and this isn't even my favorite X album (More Fun In The New World!). Call this punk if you gotta, but there's a lot of musicality going on, and intelligent commentary too. They shoot for an aesthetic and hit it — between the bizarre harmonies (there was one album where Exene thanked her vocal coach in the liner notes and I just found that hilarious), rockabilly shuffle, excellent guitar playing, and great tunes... turn it up.

I found this difficult to endure.

Incessant frenetic repetitive drum loops interspersed with repetitive vocal and bass clips reminiscent of the sound my car makes when someone forgets to put on their seatbelt. Sound like something you want to play on your stereo? Good for you. I choose no.

I never paid a whole lot of attention to The Replacements, not for any particular reason. And for whatever music-critic cred I may think I have, I would have been sure this band hails from London in the shadow of The Clash. So, wrong there, bud. I'm hearing what must have been an outsized influence on Jeff Tweedy and Wilco, in addition to tons of other bands, and while this is a little more raw and raucous than I gravitate toward (hence my unfamiliarity), this is great stuff. I loved the un-ironic cover of Kiss (Black Diamond) and appreciate their "can't give a fuck" aesthetic. But you can tell they really do. Hard to pull that off. It's rough in places, beautiful in others, and somehow it all stands together.

I loved this. I thought I might miss the traditional Latin percussion that propels a lot of this Central and South American music, but Manu Chao brought the flavor through other elements, and I appreciated his seamless blend of English, French, and Spanish. Super cool.

This album is brilliant. The only blemish, for me, is "Meeting Across The River." It just doesn't capture the magic that every other song on the album does. From the sprawling "Jungleland" to the Bo Diddly "She's The One" to all the classics. Springsteen was on fire — lots of joy, lots of muscle, great story songs, killer performances. The E-Street Band is as fired up as he is.

This was really good. Soulful, hip, groovy — never tried too hard to be anything it wasn't. Vey self-assured.

Killer. As with lots of rap, there were plenty of lyrics and ideas I wasn't completely down with, a lot I didn't quite catch on the one listen, and others that landed good and hard. The diversity of styles was impressive and the music was quality throughout. And, no question, dude's got chops. I get why he's a titan in the rap game.

I'm really at a 3.5 with this, but there is undeniable brilliance on some tracks, so it gets the bump. I'm a fan of the Black Crowes, though this was never my fave in their catalog. I enjoy the albums where the band started stretching out and got a little more experimental and perhaps even contentious. But this is a solid debut, lots of swagger and confidence and they emerge as a pretty self-realized outfit. But it's a little too straight-down-the-middle to rise to the top of my charts, and IMO there's more interesting material to choose from. But, we're witness to the birth of a classic here.

I was going to go with a 3-star review, just because this is so out of my wheelhouse I wasn't feeling fit to render a real judgment. But as the album played, I realized I couldn't find a single thing to criticize. Merle's voice is golden, the arrangements are solid, it's just plain well done. I took a quick look to see where this fit in Haggard's discography, and it's amazing: this was his fifth album, coming within three years of the release of his first. What a different era. These days, if an artist knocks out an album in three years it's a quick turnaround. Pretty amazing. Anyway, not a 5 because I'm never going to be a hardcore fan of the genre, but good music is good music.

I was really enjoying the first half — for anyone familiar with the movie Repo Man, the song "TV Party" was always on my radar. There was a lot to like in that first half of the album — good riffs, good lyrics, there was something going on. But that seemed to stop on a dime and give way to a much nosier, less coherent set of songs that were way less intriguing and which really changed my take on the band. Shoulda been an EP!

Wow. Not sure if this resonated even more than "Butterfly" because I was really dialing into the lyrics, but this is an amazing album. Kendrick Lamar includes so much of what you might expect from a rap album, but his material feels so personal and his stories seem real and I feel like, more than any other rapper I can think of, he's revealing himself in profound ways. And, as with any true artist, he reveals the listener at the same time. And while my reality may be pretty fucking far removed from his, I related to this in a way I didn't anticipate. I'm blown away. The music, the delivery, the way he blends the interstitials into the music and narrative. I don't think I've heard anything better in the genre.

Tough one to rate. It gets the 4 because, objectively (as much as that's possible), this was solid. I thought the execution and production was tight and never too much or too little. As far as my personal enjoyment, this was right down the middle. It was fine. Good even. But this is the kind of breezy pop that doesn't quite make an impression on me. Wouldn't turn the channel, but I wouldn't seek it out.

As one might expect, there are gems on here that really hit their mark — "Hurt" for sure, and "Personal Jesus" among them. But there are others that really don't work, "Bridge Over Troubled Water," "First Time Ever I Saw Your Face," "In My Life," "Desperado." On paper, I really like the "big star plays covers" idea, but they are now too prevalent and I've yet to hear one that is good from beginning to end. Well, the Rush EP "Feedback" is pretty awesome (smart to only go for eight tunes), and I guess that also speaks to the fact that you really need to be a fan of the performing artist to go all-in. So, awesome to snatch a couple of standouts — and I know not every track here is a cover — but as a whole, this hit-or-miss affair gets the middle-note rating.

As I mentioned earlier, I had given up on Yes after a little too much exposure in the early '90s. It was all a bit too much Jon Anderson for me and I snapped. Listening to this reminded me why I liked the band in the first place. There's just a lot of great music on here — the bass tone is just plain raunchy, great drumming and keyboards and guitar and vocals. The songs are excellent and weird and non-linear. I'm not exactly ready to restock my record collection, but I ain't no Yes hater.

Strange and difficult in ways I didn't enjoy.

Oh, Van. Another I went into with a heavy bias. Van Morrison has always been an artist I didn't like listening to. Was I just being an ass? The album opens. OK. When he's singing in the lower part of his range, he's really pretty good. Not sure what the hell being stoned like jelly roll means, but I'm not aggravated. Maybe today is the day I discover the wonder of VM. "Moondance." Yeah, I've heard it about 700 too many times, but at least it's not "Brown Eyed Girl," which legit sends me into a downward spiral. There's a begrudging charm to the tune. And then... it happens. The whiny upper register. The suspicion that he doesn't actually mean anything he's singing. Like he recognizes these words would sound sensible if he sang them in this way, with just the right pause here and here, that he might get listeners to believe he's got a real suite of emotions under his arrogant exterior. And on it goes. And it gets harder to endure. And the arrangements start revealing themselves as trite and forced. Those background singers must have really hated working on this project. And then the record starts again and I'm mad at myself for tolerating the lyric about the fucking jelly roll. Fucking Van Morrison.

Paul Simon is nothing if not 100% pro. The arrangements on this album are all spotless, his vocal performances are clear and pristine, the songs are all expertly written. All that said, this amounts to a very pleasant listen, with some obvious standout tracks, that failed to excite me. Really well done, but not one I'd feel compelled to listen to out of the sheer pleasure it gives me.

I liked this, but I didn't love it. Iggy and the Stooges are iconic, and deservedly so. But at the end of the day, this album didn't reveal anything new to me.

Does any other album more clearly define classic rock than this? It's a lean affair — eight songs, no production bells and whistles, the arrangements are no-nonsense, everyone sticks to the basics. Paul Rodgers has one of the most recognizable (and killer) blues/rock rasps in rock history, and there are a few timeless tracks on here. So how is this not a 5-star album? I don't know. It just landed at a 4 in my brain and musical heart.

This is a dense and complex album, and I really enjoyed it. It would (will) take multiple listens to dig into all the nuances of the compositions and production, but I was struck by how fully realized the album is. More than once I thought that the scope and breadth rivaled some of the more interesting arrangements and performances by the Beatles, though these songs were far less catchy and immediate. "Time of the Season" seemed like an afterthought, and was a strange closer. Good stuff. I never would have stumbled upon this on my own.

Considering the guitar histrionics and standard metal double kick drum and intentionally difficult musical phrases and disjointed riffs and the endless circuitous path this music puts you on, I have always marveled at how dull the end result is. For all the metal we've listened to that's noisy and boisterous and loud and aggressive, there's an energy you can relate to — or at least recognize the existence of — even if the music itself doesn't speak to you. Megadeath has those elements and somehow strips it down to a bland mess of notes. A 2-star rating is harsh, there is a fair degree of musical acuity to speak to here, but when the end result is a forgettable porridge of burnt toast, what's a reviewer to do?

There is a quality reminiscent of Tom Waits going on here — though this precedes Waits, so I guess he's reminiscent of Dr. John? Not that it really matters. The bayou flavor is heavy, and it's a tangible part of the appeal of this record. And as much as I enjoyed it, I never got to a 4-star. There was something too ephemeral — nothing stuck. Could be I need more time with it, but this isn't something I see myself going back to. It's cool, and I'd groove to it if someone else fired it up, but I'm on the sidelines with Dr. John.

Before I even spun this record, I started penning some thoughts about GnR and how enthralled I was by their energy and what seemed like legitimate danger inherent in the band when this album came out in 1987. I saw them open for Aerosmith when this album was starting to launch and there was a feeling of a changing of the guard (which didn't exactly happen, I guess) — GnR was a young FORCE and Aerosmith was hitting Phase III with Permanent Vacation. Anyway, I was going to lament the fact that everything after this album was second-rate and GnR's being heralded as one the all-time greats was overstated considering they only really had one great album — and one that doesn't necessarily hold up after all these years. Then I spun the record, and OK, there's some legitimate greatness here. Axl, as big of an asshole as he is, was a revelation when this album landed, and while I'll argue that over a larger body of work he's kinda predictable, on this album, he's gold and there's no one who ever sounded like this. The riffs are big and scary and meaty and the whole package is enthralling more often than not. And in the same breath, the album is bloated — and I'm not even going to go into the misogyny and posturing because it may really be a portrait of the lives they were living. Like it or not. But bloated... indulgent soloing, too much Axl — I think they knew they had something special and they packed everything into these 12 songs. There are undeniable moments of brilliance. And you can also hear where things were going to go off the rails. Maybe they got too big too quick and were able to indulge themselves without restraint way too soon. Perhaps it's that touch of restraint that makes this album great. But it ain't perfect, so it gets the 4-star. I went into this feeling it might not get to that, but it's a landmark record. I just think it's all the band ever needed to release. Everything after this punched a hole in their legacy, IMO.

Blondie is awesome. Let's just get that out of the way. In terms of their albums, it always astounds me how the hits, or let's say, the superior material, leaps out of the speakers in a different way than the other tunes. And, while Blondie's B-material is solid, for the most part, it just seems to lack some indefinable spark. The A-material is just killer — great vocal melodies, Clem Burke's under-appreciated drumming, interesting arrangements, propulsive energy, often quirky lyrics. And always, such a distinctive sound, even as they float through a variety of styles along the way. An aside: I have always loved Clem Burke and rate him among my favorite drummers. I say "under-appreciated" because he's rarely listed as one of the greats, but he's just so solid — something like Keith Moon without the mania. Thankfully, this album has a bunch of A-material... but then again, every one of the band's first five albums is rich with great songs. I think any one of those could have picked as "the one" to listen to. Glad I got to spin this one this morning.

This form of blues is always a little lost on me, and while I recognize this is first-generation bad-ass groundbreaking music from 1960, musically it's only going to take me so far. I admire and appreciate it more than I enjoy it. I was struck by three things. First, damn but Muddy Waters is polite. He's a gentleman, reserved even, and then launches into singing about his mojo and being a hoochie coochie man. It's fantastic. Second, I was surprised at the difference between his singing and speaking voice. That gruff power when he sings was not there when he addressed the crowd. Third, no one says the word "work" like Muddy Waters. I was trying to emulate him, singing in my kitchen... it just don't woryk on you. I'm 95% sure I wasn't going to fool anyone. So, I listened closely and admire everything about this. But I'm still going with a less-than-deserved 3-star because I just don't have the blues.

Admittedly, I went into this not expecting to like it, which can be self-fulfilling. It can also yield surprises, and in this case, it did. I REALLY didn't like it. A 1-star rating is a statement, of sorts, and I was inclined to go with a 2 to indicate displeasure but not just seem like I was dismissing Ms. Jackson outright. But then I analyzed what I was reacting to, and it brought me to this place. First, whoever thought trying to pen songs about social awareness and homelessness and hunger and addiction but, by God, we'd better make it danceable, was misguided. Second, the production is awful. Is there an organic, acoustic sound on this thing (other than Jackson's vocals)? Trying to craft an album that's built on beats — "rhythm" is in the freaking title — requires a much defter hand. These rhythms are ham-hocked hammer-and-anvil drum machine blasts of fury. Everything is maxed out, there's no nuance. Third, Janet is just OK as a vocalist. I'm not trying to be mean, but her voice is often thin and overwhelmed by everything going on here. "Black Cat" was a temporary moment of cool, and that's really just me reacting to a bad-ass guitar riff. The drum madness continues. It's not enough to raise this from the mire it already created. So when the lyrics, the production, the arrangement, the talent, the performances, and the whole freaking premise is a miss... yeah. One star.

This album is hopelessly tethered to questionable '80s production aesthetics, and it doesn't help that the majority of the material is just OK. But damn, Tina Turner is singing like she means it, and her voice is the one thing that transcends the production and the material. She's singing at a 5 and swimming against the current of the material and production. Except on "What's Love Got to Do With It." That sounds like a hit. I wrote a retrospective of Tina Turner last year (she died in May of 2023), and this album has a pretty dramatic story. It was her first release as a solo artist after her tumultuous divorce from Ike Turner, and probably her one shot at putting a solo career on track, and she ultimately had to pull the whole thing together (and record it) in two weeks. So, I suppose the choices were born of trying to sound as relevant and current at the time, and I guess she really was singing like it was her last chance. Good for her on achieving massive success with this, but it doesn't exactly hold up as a great body of songs, IMO.

I was immediately sucked in when this album kicked off. Something about those first three tunes really had a magical element that's hard to describe. While those moments cropped up throughout, the album settled in to a "yeah, this is pretty good" vibe and not the continuous sublime promise of the start. So, I suppose I'm really at a 3.5+, which bumps this to a 4. I'll admit that I was confusing Weller with The Replacements and Paul Westerberg when this got served, so there was also my brain acclimating to the Jam and Style Council history. Anyway, very solid album that I would likely not have stumbled upon on my own.

I like the description and the notion of The Cramps a lot more than I like the music of The Cramps.

I tried. The relevance of this one is totally lost on me. There was a Monty Python element to "The Minotaur's Song," which goes a long way to describe my reaction to the bulk of this material.

New one to me. Found it funny and interesting enough. More my flavor of punk than many others (if punk is really the right genre for this) — just enough musicality to bring it over the line. That said, not quite ready to bump this into 4-star territory. I'd call it a better-than-average 3-star album.

There wasn't anything I particularly enjoyed about this, and the guitar work (and vocals) actively bothered me in places. The production, unfortunately, threw everything under a microscope — there was nothing there to smooth out the edges. Perhaps by design, perhaps a matter of budget and resources, I don't know. But it added up to an album I where my anticipation of when it would end was foremost in my mind.

I knew just a little going into this — somewhere in my past Ozomatli crept into my consciousness. On one hand, I loved a lot of it. Particularly the Latin, Spanish-language fare stands out. The rap, largely, isn't my preferred flavor in the genre and there were other times during the album where it felt a bit forced. So... rating such a beast. The highs were high, and the lows were mid, so the 3.something gets the bump. I didn't love it like a 4, but it was a good soundtrack for the weekend.

I was really surprised at how much I ... what's the word ... not exactly enjoyed ... was dazzled by this album. There's way more aggression and fury packed into these 11 songs than I long for in an LP. I marvel at how relentless this music is. But holy hell, the drumming is a clinic, the guitar playing is an amazing blend of raw speed and precision — and is somehow tastefully done. The vocals blend melody and a sense of song with the barking rant of the genre. But I think it's when the talk-box guitar showed itself that I crossed the line and went for the 5-star. These guys left everything on the field. So, will I go back and listen just for the joy of it? Maybe not the entire album at once, but this is an album outside of my wheelhouse that is worth another go.

Music that's more fun to play than listen to. Cool enough vibe, not my first choice for active listening, but fills in the background nicely.

I was getting a massive Deftones vibe, which is a good thing (I'm not super familiar but really like the album "White Pony"). But this started out with a bang and then sorta held check in the same space throughout. There wasn't much of a journey. It sounds cool, there were interesting elements in just about every song, but nothing differentiated one from the next.

This starts out pleasant enough and by the middle of the album, I'm exhausted. Not sure how to explain it — the melodies and dense lyrical content add up to brain fatigue (the opposite of relaxing). It's a lovely cup of tea, it's just not mine.

I guess it's not high praise to say you liked something more than you expected, but this could be described as an unlistenable mess of noise, and I somehow heard the thread in the music. I even heard sparks of bands like Flaming Lips and Beck and a host of others in there among the strange sonic landscape painted by Liars. I can't say I liked it. I did want to keep listening, though — I was never compelled to skip. Another less than stellar review note. Didn't hate it!

Come on. There's no way this band warrants three albums on this list. This was OK, better than Porcupines. But god damn. Where's the humanity?

I want to like ABBA more than I do. As it is, they're indelibly seared into my music brain, and I actively like a couple of their songs (SOS comes to mind), but it's hard to get past the camp. It seems pretty earnest. Good on them for cementing their place in music history.

First, what a great name for a band (musical collaboration, etc.). Second, each song on this album is pretty excellent. And they are songs, not just sonicscapes, which I find to be true of many other contributions in this genre. But... it's just a lot in one sitting. I guess I'd say it's too much. Even if the MDMA were kicking in, I don't know that I'd hang on this vibe for over an hour.

While I can appreciate and even enjoy some of Beefheart's otherworldliness, this was too disjointed and strange for me in too many places.

I'm learning I'm really not moved by this brand of diva pop. And it's unfair to pigeonhole Beyoncé, I suppose, it's clear she's an ambitious and fearless artist who seems set on making every album a message and doesn't tread the same ground twice. It's really just the trappings of the presentation that don't appeal. And by that I mean all the super-expressive singing and embellishments that get to be too much for me. I was going to rate it a 4 because this is clearly a massive piece of work, but I'm going with a 3-star to align with the enjoyment I derived from my listening experience.

I'm familiar with Joan Armatrading — not that I know her catalog, but I did own "The Shouting Stage," which was released a dozen years after this, and I've heard this album as well. Anyway, I feel the same way about this album as I did back in the day. Armatrading is talented, and there's a precision and professionalism to the writing and performances and production here, and I'm left utterly unmoved by it. It's fine. It's pleasant. But it's as though it were processed through an emotional compressor and the end result is... pleasant. And fine.

While I rated them the same, I found this a much better listening experience than was "Dub Housing." This was less challenging, though still struck me as equally experimental and unconventional. But the songs, music, and vocals were more palatable and relatable. That said, I can't say I loved the album. This was a worthy inclusion, as an introduction to what appears to be an underground but influential band. So while this rose to a 3.5 on my personal scale, I'm not in love with it enough to give it the bump in the star rating.

This was OK. Honestly, I listened to it days ago and never got the chance to post this, so it's not fresh in my memory. It was never my favorite, but didn't cause upset.

For goodness sake.

I love this album. This is where the Queen formula — for lack of a better word — really comes into its own. All the elements... fantasy, careening guitars, exceptional vocals, vaudevillian escapes, pop sensibility, massive hooks, great tunes, the sheer grand scale of it all... come into play. Plus, the bonus tidbit of the title track showing up three albums later on News Of The World. I love it! Play it loud!

I enjoyed this, I liked the smooth vibe. I'd say it's better than a 3, but I'm stuck on the fact (at least, for me) that there wasn't a ton of variety in the music or delivery. So while it struck a cool note, it never really varied much and for that I'm not inclined to go higher than a 3. Another that's better than the rating in terms of my level of engagement and enjoyment.

I liked this more than I thought I would. But... I really didn't like it that much. Bjork has her own approach to music and singing, and she can wail, I'll give her that. I just don't much enjoy it. When she was a bit more subdued (on the first half of the album), I was starting to have a change of heart about that, but as things progressed, the reality set in. Oh well... I did appreciate the off-kilter writing/arranging sensibilities of the band.

This album was an important one to high-school me. I was already introduced to U2 — a classmate/guitarist had discovered Boy and October, so we were ahead of the curve with these guys in the US when this was released. It was miles beyond the first two albums, in terms of the songwriting, vocals, performances, production... they took a major leap here. The highlights are most certainly 5-star material, and as a concept/statement, this album also earns top ratings. But, I'll say, on this listen, I tired of Bono's overuse of his "high-emotion" register, and for that, it falls short of the 5. It's a great record, and the best material here is timeless.

I was pretty smitten with this for the first half. Creative sound and approach, repetitive melodies and passages that layered upon one another. And then, just like that, the formula became a liability. Just a bit too much of the same musical aesthetic that after a while, became tiresome. So it's an easy 4 for the unique musical stylings and compositions, but brought to a 3 for its nagging incessance.

There were moments of brilliance on this album, and the opening track is a classic. That said, this was too warbly and unfocused to rise to greatness and didn't match Odessa in its scope. There are two Bee Gees albums on this list, and how one of them is not a later offering from their pinnacle heyday is a mystery. There are at least two or three in their catalog that deserve a listen ahead of this one.

This is an album I've listened to countless times and somehow I still hear new things and different songs strike me differently. Rundgren played everything on the first 3/4 of the album, and the final side's live free-for-all is a welcome rowdy endcap to the proceedings. I know it's a lot — any double album is — but this one is excellent from beginning to end. It's maybe really a 4.5, but it gets the 5 for its slow burn and enduring brilliance.

This is easily the best Hendrix album I've ever listened to (and yes, I've never listened to this from beginning to end until today). Hendrix, for all his import and trailblazing and genius, was never my favorite artist to sit and listen to. I appreciate his brilliance, I get his impact, I recognize why everyone in music (especially while he was alive and blowing everyone's minds) is over the moon about what he was doing. But it never resulted in me loving the music. This album has an experimental assuredness that comes across — and the band is amazing. Too bad Noel Redding didn't get to sing more, that's one of the detractions for me with Hendrix. So, a lot of words to say this is excellent, but since I don't love all the material and will still likely never spin this just for the pleasure of it, I'm at a 4. This is very much a case of, "it's not you, it's me."

Not sure of the historical relevance of this one, but I found it too shouty and repetitious to be anything more than a curious time capsule. For that reason, I can see why it's included here, but I won't be returning to this album by choice. As a big fan of Jackson Browne's "Running On Empty" album, I found the version of "Cocaine" here to be of interest (Browne does a version, lyrics and vibe are different), so there was that bonus for me.

This is a great album — Robert Smith and company can set a mood and atmosphere and take you somewhere over the course of an album. And while it sounds like I'm gushing, I'm not a massive fan. I mean, I like certain songs, and can dig the mood to a degree, but I don't necessarily connect with what sounds to me like a wash of despair that clouds this work. At least in this stage of their career. Early Cure has a different, more angular bend and I enjoy that more. So... a 4 because it's good music, even if this was never part of my Cure album collection.

This is a band I simply never took note of. Well, that's not entirely true. I know a guy in NY who ended up joining the band when they reformed in 2006 (Steve Conte, he "replaced" the late Johnny Thunders), so I own that album and know enough about the band as an institution. But I was six when this was released, and by the time I started exploring music, they were long gone. And this was not the kind of music I would have gravitated toward in those days, anyway. Today, this hit me as a seriously good record. I'm not the first to say it, but there's a heavy Stones-meets-Bowie dynamic right out of the gate. But the band cultivates a unique personality and sound — and look, of course — that is raucous, fun, irreverent, sleazy, gritty, and glam... I mean, if that's not an apt definition of rock and roll, what is? It started to run out of steam just at the end, but the songs and performances on the record are raw and visceral and it holds up all these years later.

Did I miss something or was this just VM vamping over endless two-chord progressions throughout the entire album? I couldn't take it... I started skipping past songs... I honestly can't stand the sound of his singing on this one. It's unbearable.