1001 Albums Summary

I enjoyed listening to this album. I really dig the guitar sound they had going throughout. I didn't like the vocals much, and despite thinking I'd love this album due to Where Is My Mind and Gigantic, it was a bit too much punk for me.

I've always felt "Surrender" is one of the all-time teenage rock anthems, so I was really anticipating loving this live album. However, I was left underwhelmed by the first half, feeling like it dragged and felt like a generic rock show. But once it hit "Need Your Love" I was pretty impressed and that stretch lasted until the end of the album.

I can't figure out whether Aerosmith is a good band that I think sucks, or if they are just completely overrated. I'm honestly shocked by how well-reviewed this album is. It's so generic. The only "good" song on it is Sweet Emotion. Granted, all the guitar solos absolutely rip, but that's the only thing I can think of that this album has going for it.

Oh man, I'm so glad I listened to this album. I guess I've never really understood what Meat Loaf's style was (with "I’d Do Anything for Love" as my only reference). I can't say it's my thing..I'm still not a fan of the ballads, but now I can say I get it. I think it's really cool, like Broadway meets rippin' guitars. The title track was the standout song for me.

I went back and forth on how I would rate this album. One minute I'm really digging it, and the next I can't wait for it to end. I think ultimately this album suffers for being too long and too boring. The beats on every song are SO good, but the vocals come off as minimalistic and uninspiring and way too repetitive. Standout tracks include Wildfires and Monsters.

So this was just an enjoyable listen from start to finish. I'm hesistant to give it 5 stars for a couple of reasons. 1) the fact that only three songs are originals 2) the covers don't have a particularly unique spin on them, they just sound good 3) I can't see myself putting this album on to really listen to it, though I do see myself putting it on in the background while making dinner, etc.

Like many others (I assume), my only exposure to the Bee Gees is their disco hits. So needless to say, I was a bit taken aback by the sound of this album. And, in many ways it exceeded my expectations by a ton. There are some really stand-out tracks like "How Can You Mend A Broken Heart?" "Israel" "Trafalgar" and "Walking Back to Waterloo" but on no planet should this album be considered a must listen.

17-year-old me would have loved this album, which is ironic because despite my Static-X, Slipknot, NIN-loving teenage self, I never got into Marilyn Manson. I think I just thought his music was too much based on a schtick and not actually music. I guess in a way that's kind of right, but also wrong. Let me explain. Antichrist Superstar is an excellent industrial metal album of the mid to late 90s. I kept hearing Trent Reznor's influence throughout, so I wasn't surprised to see that he was a producer on this. But, to me at least, what's holding this album back from greatness is the vocals. I'm not saying this in light of Brian Warner's real-life creeper-ness. The songs are dark and disturbing, and not in a good way...more so it feels like it's for shock than anything else. And it worked. His persona is what made this album wildly successful. But it's also what turns me (and many others) off to this music. If this had been a Nine Inch Nails, Trent Reznor vocalized album, I'd probably be raving about it and giving it 5 stars. As it stands, its a middle-of-the-road albeit highly influential and noteworthy metal album.

This album is impressive to say the least. What a quintessential 80s pop rock album. There are so many layers of sounds that merge together to create a sublime listening experience. I also had no idea how many songs from this album I would recognize. Obviously "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" is well-known, and for good reason, that song is incredible. This was almost a 5-star album for me, and one that I will certainly return to, but "I Believe" felt like hitting the e-brake on perfection and really killed the vibe. I was just bored to tears (get it?) listening to that one, and couldn't believe it was a single. Highlights include the aforementioned hit single, "Head over Heels / Broken (reprise)" and "Working Hour"

It was just a few songs into this album that I became fully aware that 80s hair metal is just not for me. By the time I got to the title track "Hysteria" I was so over this album and just wanted it to end. How on earth did this have seven hit singles? The only remotely memorable song "Pour Some Sugar on Me" is filled with the same cheesy lyrics, over-the-top production, scratchy-voice vocals, and repetitive guitar riffs with basic solos that all the rest of the songs on this album have. Man, I do not understand how so many people love this genre and how this is considered among the best. Hated it.

The first half of this album was a fun, dance-fest with rhymic beats and repetitive lyrics. It reminded me of bands like Daft Punk, who were almost certainly inspired by music like what Chic has created here. I don't see this as an album I'll really return too, but I thought there were some fantastic cuts such as the pop hit "Le Freak" and album closer "(Funny) Bone"

This album has a pretty good sound, though I wasn't prepared for a lot of the vulgar lyrics. It's funny...I'm OK with the n-word, p*ssy, etc. when a gangster rapper does it, but for some reason it was jarring when Sza did it. That being said, once I got into the album it was really enjoyable and she has a great voice. But, a huge turn-off for me was this trend that started 5-7 years ago where singers would do this thing with their voice where they sound like Elmer Fudd. Maybe Sza is the artist who started it and the rest mimicked her style, but I hate it. I couldn't get past that style of singing to really like this album/artist.

I keep going back and forth between this is a "great" album and this is a "good" album. Some tracks really do sound amazing like "Fall at Your Feet" and "It's Only Natural" but others come across as cheesy. Ultimately I decided to give this album 3 instead of 4 stars because I only see myself returning to a few tracks, and even then rarely.

I probably listened to more new music in the late 2000s than any other period of my life. So, the fact that I had no idea Portishead released a new album in 2008 I think speaks to its lack of popularity. This is a wholly unremarkable album. Lots of mundane background effects with Bjork-esque vocals layered on top. The only song that seems to break this mold is Deep Water and that song might be the worst of the bunch. Don't get me wrong, there are some cool moments here, such as the ending of "The Rip" and "Machine Gun" but no song feels like it wants to do more than "hey, that's a cool effect, let's repeat it." I feel like the only reason this is critically acclaimed is because they put out a great album in the 90s and critics were impressed they could mount something of a comeback.

Is this the most overrated album of all time? Rolling Stone puts it in top 200. 5/5 on many review sites/magazines, NME named it best album of all time in 2013. I'm not saying this is a bad album, it's just...mid at best. Morrissey's vocals are unique but a few songs in and I'm over it. So much moaning. So much repetition. There was definitely a stride from "Cemetary Gates" to "The Boy with the Thorn in His Side" where was thinking this is really good, but overall I'm just not that impressed.

This probably could have been a 5-star review for me, but I just really did not get the title track opener. I understand it's dark and morbid and what propelled Black Sabbath into defining a new genre, but it just didn't do it for me. The rest of the album absolutely slayed, however. It was more reminiscent of the progression of blues rock (i.e. Led Zeppelin) than it was "heavy metal" but I get that it's just a deeper sound. They totally nailed it.

This is prog-rock at it's finest. The musicianship is outstanding and the way the layers of bass, drums, and guitar add to one another is stellar from track-to-track. However, I couldn't bring myself to give this 5 stars due to one reason: Geddy Lee's vocals. It was just too high-pitched, nasally, and generally off-putting for me to truly LOVE these songs. Also, to me, the best songs on this albums are the ones I already knew due to radio play.

Admittedly I went into this one with very low expectations. For starters, I don't view Queen Latifah as a prolific rapper, moreso just a TV personality and actress. Secondly, this album peaked at number six on Billboard hip hop charts? And it was #124 on Billboard top 200? Neither of those seem remarkable enough to warrant being on this list. So with that in mind, I was somewhat impressed when I first started this album. There's some good beats, albeit very obviously a product of the late 80s/early 90s, and she's got a decent flow. I can't say she goes toe-to-toe with some of the best from that era, like A Tribe Called Quest and De La Soul (the latter of which was a guest on arguably the best track on the album). But eventually this album lost me. It's a lot of the same schtick: she's a female rapper and we should call her Queen. I get it. If this album had stopped at Ladies First (or shortly thereafter), I could probably give it a 3 or 4 star rating, but when it was all said and done, I was just so over this sound.

While Queen has a great sound going on this album, I don't think they ever got beyond the impressive 1-2 punch that was "Brighton Rock" and "Killer Queen". "In the Lap of the Gods" and "Misfire" were other stand out tracks for me, but the album lacked cohesion and anything as memorable as "Killer Queen". If I could give half stars, this would be a 3.5 for me.

It's really great start to finish. Not an album I see myself returning to quite often, but I would love to put a vinyl version of this on for background music. Not a bad track and some definite outstanding ones from the title track to "Walk from Regio's" to the monumental 20-minute opus "Do Your Thing"

This was a pretty solid 90s Britpop album. While I didn't really LOVE any track, I thought they were all pretty decent. I would give this another listen. I thought mostly the singles (opening track, Something for the Weekend, Hometown Unicorn) were the standout songs, with the solo/outro in Bad Behavior up there as well. 3.5 for me.

When I told my wife how great this Eric Clapton album was, she replied, "Of course...it's Eric Clapton." Well, yeah. But I guess I kind of always considered Eric Clapton a greatest hits king. Even one of my favorite artists of all-time, Tom Petty, only has a couple albums I truly love, but he has tons of hits that are among my favorite songs. This Clapton album, however, was solid from start to finish. I loved his tone, the twang of the slide guitar in so many of the tracks, and of course, the solos. What I didn't love, or at least why this album is a 4 or 4.5 instead of 5, is Clapton's vocals. I can't tell if it's that his voice isn't great or if vocals were just too low in the mix (or maybe the vocals were muddled because it's not his strong suit!). Either way, I really loved this album and have already returned to it since my first listen-through.

I am one of those people who knew nothing of Deep Purple other than Smoke on the Water. I have to admit, I believed them to be a 70s one hit wonder, with a sound that was reminiscent of Zeppelin, Sabbath, and other staples of the era. I was not prepared for what Deep Purple brought with this album. First of all, it is HEAVY. Way heavier than I imagined. I know Black Sabbath gets credited with being the genesis of heavy metal, but I found this album to go way harder (albeit not as "gutteral") than Black Sabbath's debut. The riffs are hard, fast, and yet memorable, and the solos absolutely rip. The drumming is phenomenal and together the band just sounds so cohesive. Secondly, it's way more "jammy" than I ever expected. Every song seems to go into uncharted territory with some studio improvisation. This is the kind of stuff I live for when it comes to music. And sure, it's not as exploratory as a band like the Grateful Dead, but it's unique in it's own way. I actually got assigned to Deep Purple's Made in Japan live album immediately after this. And initially I was disappointed to have to listen to the same band, the same style two albums in a row. But, I actually went on to listen to a third Deep Purple album. They are that good.

Strangely I was giving this album immediately after Deep Purple In Rock. As I mention in that review, this was my first exposure to Deep Purple beyond "Smoke on the Water." After listening to these back-to-back I came to two conclusions: 1) Deep Purple is an insanely good band 2) I'm not a huge fan of live albums As far as live albums go, this one is a banger for sure. But, I just don't think a live album can capture the essence of a band's performance, especially if they are well-known for their extravagant live shows. Sure there are exceptions to this (Nirvana Unplugged comes to mind), but there's something about the audience interactions, the clapping along to the beat, etc. that just don't work for me when I'm driving along in my car. That being said, I thought every single song on this track was fire. Every song had solos and interplay among the band that was top notch and jamming as good as some of the best I've heard (Allman Bros, Phish, the Dead). At the same time, I don't need a five minute drum solo when I'm sitting at home. This was tough to rate. I think it's a five-star live album...among the best. But I just didn't love listening to it I think more due to my own reservations about live music on tape.

I am a fan of this era of reggae music, but overall this Burning Spear record didn't really grab me. I thought both Marcus Garvey tracks (title and "old") were great as well as "Live Good". Solid vocals I've come to expect from Burning Spear, with meaningful messages, just want more oomph from my reggae whereas this felt more like chill background music.

Why is Tori Amos acclaimed for anything? This is a serious question. There's nothing noteworthy about her voice, her piano-playing is nice but nothing special, her lyrics range from generic to daft to bad (though I think she's trying to sound profound), and the songwriting is just bland. In fact, in most cases, I think it's not just that she sounds uninspired, she's downright annoying when she starts in with her "ooh" and "ahh" pseudo-yodeling. The best tracks in my opinion were "Winter" and "Happy Phantom" but even those weren't very enjoyable. This album is laughably bad, and I can't fathom how it made the list let alone considered in the top 100 and regularly cited as one of the greatest albums of all time. It's trash.

This could have been a phenomenal album, but the vocals are laughably bad. The singer sounded like a drunkard trying to keep up with the music based on lyrics he scribbled down on a napkin at the bar. He was off-beat and off-key and it just made it overall unpleasant. I get singers have "unique" voices (i.e. Thom Yorke) but this was just bad. Pity because I really dug the sound of the band.

I really, really dug the sound of this album. But, I found that I mostly enjoyed the tracks with vocals. They seemed to have a lot to offer and really did something with the music ("Strawberry Letter #23" is outstanding), but where this album fell short for me was the instrumentals. They always started with a nice groove but then just kept going on with the same theme. They sounded cool but were just repetitive and got boring fast. I'd love to give this album a higher rating because some of it was SO good, but he lost me with the other half of the tracks.

This album opens with the thunderous "Seven Nation Army" a song that will live on for ages not just because of it's awesomeness, but because every college football team in the USA now uses it as a jock jam, usually as a kick-off anthem. Despite being tired of hearing that song, I can't deny that it has to be one of the all-time greatest opening tracks on a rock album. And this IS a rock album. I actually don't think this is the best White Stripes album. Heck, I don't even think it's the best Jack White album. But, it is a very good album. It's one hard-hitting blues riff after another, with the Jack White flair we've come to expect. Personally, it's gets a bit overdone by the time I get to the end of the album and the songs all start to sound the same (to be fair, this is probably true of the White Stripes across the board). Still, there are some truly fantastic tracks that make this an album worth checking out. Not sure what's up with the final track, though...such an odd way to end the album and the song feels totally out of place on Elephant. Really wish we could give half stars. This one's a 3.5 for me. Highlights: Seven Nation Army, Ball and Biscuit, Hypnotize

I smiled the instant I saw this Franz Ferdinand album to review. This is the first album that I can say I have memorized from start to finish. I was studying abroad in England the summer that "Take Me Out" took over the airwaves. Being in the UK, particularly on my weekend getaway to Scotland, this song was ubiquitous. You heard it on the radio, on the bus, in the mall, everywhere. And for good reason too: "Take Me Out" is one of the most quintessential alt-rock anthems of this era of music. So, everyone knows their hit single, but probably view Franz Ferdinand as a one hit wonder (at least in the U.S. where the other singles never really hit mainstream popularity...though a single off their second album did decently well here), and that's a shame because this album is killer. To me, there are some criteria that make for a perfect album, and this hits most of them: 1) not a single "bad" song...sure there are some you maybe don't love, but they're all listenable enough. 2) an opening track that pulls you into the album and sets the tone 3) not too repetitive...the sound is unique but not every song sounds the same. Franze Ferdinand's self titled release nails all of these and more. It's iconic early 2000s alt-rock with danceable rhythms at it's best. "Jacqueline" kicks off the album with a mellow vocal intro and then just rips into drums and bass and guitar riffs. "Take Me Out" is still the stand-out song, but they've all got their moments. Particularly, for me, "This Fire" "Michael" and "40'" are among the best, which is saying a lot because so many albums start strong and fizzle out. This album never lets up and finishes just as strong as it starts. Is my nostalgia clouding my review of this album? Surely. It's not a "masterpiece" by any means, it's just really really great. Is it a "must listen"? No, probably not. It's not like it's an original sound and spawned a whole era of music inspired by it. In fact, it probably doesn't deserve to be one of 1000 albums you MUST hear before you die (which is likely why it didn't make the most recent round of cuts). But, if you are a fan of alternative rock, especially this early 2000s era with The Strokes, The Killers, White Stripes, etc., I think you will truly love this album. 4.5 for me due to the aforementioned reservations, but I'll bump it to 5 since I think it's pretty flawless.

I normally read the entire Wikipedia for an album, sometimes delving deeper into the band, when I'm listening to these 1001 albums. For this one, I wish I had waited until I had formed an opinion about it before I read that Spin put this as album of the year over Nirvana's Nevermind. Hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy to listen to Bandwagonesque and scratch your head as to how anyone could rate it over Nirvana. But, is that because of how great the Nirvana album is or more based on how iconic it's become or how clearly influential the album was? It was hard for me to separate these thoughts from my analysis of this album. The question kept remaining: is this an essential album? Is this an album everyone should listen to before they die? My overall consensus was that this is a good album. Some of the songs could even be called great. They open up with a long jammy "The Concept" before some much shorter, punchier tunes. I felt the album really hit a stride in the second half and finished strong with some of my favorite songs being "Alcoholiday" and "Is This Music?" I'll probably return to this album someday, but I'm in no rush to. It's just a good album, nothing great, nothing profoundly influential, nothing terrible deep, just fun indie rock. And there's nothing wrong with that, but is a must listen? Probably not.

I'm no electronic music expert, but I do enjoy the genre as a whole. So, despite reviews absolutely slamming this for being drivel, I thought "surely I'll find things I like about this album." Well, not really... Maybe Goldie is the pioneer of the classic drum and bass sound we know today that is so prevelant on this album. I don't know. But, listening to this, it doesn't sound innovative, it doesn't seem to stretch the boundaries, and half of the beats aren't even that catchy and danceable. I guess since this came out in '95 it was groundbreaking for the time? If you look at YouTube comments for each song as you go through, you will see that people LOVE this and consider it a masterpiece. Personally, I found it to be mostly boring and repetitive and the female vocals not outstanding. To say this album is too long is a massive understatement. I'm honestly looking forward to more EDM albums on this so I have something to compare it to, because in my mind, I don't see electronic music lending itself to "must listen" albums but rather signature artists and must-hear songs (a la "Sandstorm"). This one had it's moments, I suppose (the standout for me was one small section of "Sea of Tears"), but all the songs had basically the same drum and bass loop and never went anywhere.

I try to separate the art from the artist for these reviews, and Jerry Lee Lewis is no exception as he's a pedo and an abuser. So, are his contributions to rock and roll still valid despite his behavior? Let's head to a live recording to find out. For starters, what is available on Spotify doesn't seem to be the full Live at the Star Club album experience. It's only 22 minutes and they're almost all short, blazing-fast tracks with ripping piano. I can't help but agree that JLL rocks the club, but I'm still not convinced it's anything special. Maybe he pioneered this style of music, but you can get a similar experience at a piano bar these days. Not to mention, half of the tracks were first made famous by other artists; he's just putting his spin on them. Which is fine, but it's not what I'm looking for when evaluating the "essentialness" of an album/artist. Lastly, I've written about my disdain for live albums several times now on this site. I personally don't think they should be included. And this one is definitely not an exception. In fact, I found the mix to be horrible, and when reading about the recording process, it makes sense. It's just all the instruments blended together on a single mic with some audience ambient recording added in. Overall, there is some great energy in this live show, but I think Jerry Lee Lewis is overrated (though fun) pianist and the recording itself sucks.

I was a little surprised to see a band synonmyous with one hit single from my high school days show up on 1001 albums you must hear before you die. As it turns out, there was another single from this album that I recognized as soon as I heard it. But otherwise, the Verve (at least in my world) faded into obscurity after the obssession with "Bittersweet Symphony" died down. Imagine my surprise when I fell in love with this album! Sure, the aforementioned hit song opens this album up with great fanfare, but there's truly nothing else that sounds like it on the rest of the album. Instead, I'm met with an interesting mix of psychedlic Brit-pop tunes. The first five songs really had me thinking this would be an absolute masterpiece, perfect album, but then the middle kind of descended into mediocrity for a bit. Overall, I found myself getting sucked into almost every track and really digging the layers of sound and variety of styles presented by The Verve here.

Album #35 and the first that I don't need to listen to in order to review it. Of course, I'm listening through it again as I write this because it's that good. Time Out is an all-time classic jazz album. I do enjoy jazz, but I'm not one of those fans who knows everything there is about musicians and their instruments and time signatures and movements and all that jazz. This is an album I can put on almost anytime. Purely enjoyable from start to finish with just brilliant musicianship throughout. The fact that Brubeck did do challenging things with time signatures does make me appreciate it more even if I don't actually understand what's happening. Time Out is 40 minutes of jazz bliss.

What can I say that hasn't already been said? Nirvana's Nevermind isn't one of my favorite albums, despite being at an impressionable age when it was released and even more coming of age when Cobain died (Nirvana Unplugged was a definitive album of my middle school years). For some reason, it hasn't been one that stuck with me over time. Giving it a re-listen, I can see why it was so critically acclaimed. The first five tracks alone make this worth the listen. Also, as someone who grew up with 90s grunge bands, it's obvious in hindsight just how influential this was on that genre and everything that stemmed from it. Is this a perfect album? No, but it's hard-hitting, emotional, original, and every song is worth listening to. I think this is one I'll be putting on more regularly from now on.

About a minute into the first song: This is so good! Incredible baseline, rhythm, dancable as hell. About three minutes into the first song: Alright a bit repetitive, but it's a dance track so OK. At the end of the first track: Alright this is just like the last CHIC album I reviewed. Laying down funky, rhythmic, catchy beats even if a bit repetitive, and it goes on a bit longer than it needs to. At the end of the second song: Man, this is really repetitive, and not that good compared to the first song. At the end of the third song: Actually this just isn't good. By the end of the album: This sucks!! When I first reviewed CHIC (the album with "Le Freak" on it), I saw them as innovative and certainly inspirations to some my favorite music, mainly the electronic/funk/pop alternative stuff in the early 2000s like Daft Punk and LCD Soundsystem. Their songs were catchy and groovy even if they did run for too long. This album on the other hand, had one good song on it (the opening track). The rest were boring beats aside from some solid basslines and a few groovy guitar riffs. The vocals were horrendous: uninspired, repetitive, and at times cheesy.

I genuinely enjoyed this album. I found the songs fun and some of them even catchy. The arrangements were definitely cool and often unique. However, I can't get over how much this band seems to try to sound like other bands that obviously influence it. Of course, the first that comes to mind is the Beatles. Go ahead and listen to "Day in the Life" and then "Mr. Blue Sky". Both are great songs, but it's no question how much Mr. Blue Sky sounds like something that's trying to mimic Sgt. Pepper's. There's also some clear Queen influence and potentially more classic rock outfits like Boston, although that's probably a coincidence since their album came out just one year prior, likely when Out of the Blue was being written. Overall it reminds me of one of my favorite bands from the 2000s: Dr. Dog. They have some great, punchy, catchy tunes, but they sound like they are trying to be an alt-rock Beatles band of a new era. There's nothing original about the sound even if it is enjoyable. I felt the same way about ELO, and though it's likely I'll return to this album again, it's going to sit at a solid 3 for me to just being a sound I've heard all too often before.

It's funny how many reviews are either 4-5 stars calling it a masterpiece or 1-2 stars saying it's garbage. Usually this tells me this is mostly due to differences in genre preference, but with Tommy I think it's mostly due to how one perceives the execution of the concept. I seem to be the rare reviewer who falls somewhere in between. I see Tommy as both a work of creative genius and a confusing mess. The Good: Well, it's completely unique being the first true rock opera and essentially creating a new genre of music. There are songs that work as standalone tracks independent of the story (i.e. the singles, most notably "Pinball Wizard" which is undoubtedly the best song on the album). And then there are songs that you wouldn't necessarily put on just for fun (or catch on the radio) that are beautifully composed and interesting. The bad: Despite the aforementioned comment about the good, some of the songs just aren't good (e.g. "Holiday Camp"). Others come across as mere filler. Now, I remember seeing my local high school perform this decades ago and I really enjoyed it. Middle school me liked it so much I watched the VHS of the official concert for it (Phil Collins was in this, right?) many, many times. But, something about the album by itself just doesn't connect, and it's easy to get bored. The ugly: the story itself doesn't make any sense. I read the synopsis before listening so I get what is SUPPOSED to be happening (not that it seems like it's a great story by itself anyway) but at very few points during the album is the plot actually comprehensible. Overall, I agree this is a must listen album, but perhaps we would be better served watching the concert for it and seeing some of the action take place on stage so it makes more sense and not just hoping it ends soon.

This album starts off with two absolute bangers and a ballad that bops. It had me thinking, "Is Britney Spears really going to get a 5 star review from me?" Then "Soda Pop" comes in with a record scratch moment. "You may be wondering how I got here." Indeed. This song is so laughably bad, that if taken out the album would easily be four stars if not five. The real problem isn't the one-off horror of "Soda Pop" and its not-as-bad-but-perhaps-cheesier cousin "E-mail My Heart" but rather that the rest of the songs don't come even close to the pop goodness that is the opening three songs. There are GOOD songs on this album ("Thinkin' About You" and "The Beat Goes On" to name some of the more memorable tunes) but only "...Baby One More Time," "(You Drive Me) Crazy," and "Sometimes" are truly GREAT.

I am trying to understand this album's inclusion this list. It feels like an album that one of the list makers really liked and decided to put it on. If you look at the Wikipedia it's basically like "yeah this album wasn't well received but some people have liked it more over the years." If I were to make a list of my 100 favorite albums, there would be a ton of niche picks on there that absolutely not every person needs to listen to unless they really like the genre or something. This feels like one of those album's. For starters, it's repetitive as hell. The lyrics in most songs just repeat and repeat and repeat "for a very long time." Secondly, aside from a few moments, the synthpop sound isn't even that noteworthy or interesting. I did really like the groove on the title track, but it didn't need to go on for almost seven minutes. And, "Soul Warfare" was a pretty repetitive, boring song until the totally ripping bass solo. Other tracks were downright obnoxious to listen to: "Geisha Boys and Temple Girls" and "The Height of Fighting " to name a couple. It's not necessarily a bad album, but it's not good either.

I wish I was more well versed in hip hop to give this a fair review. I mean, I know plenty of artists and know what I like but it was very hard for me to judge this album. Their lyrics and flow seemed sophomoric compared to what I was listening to in the later 90s and 2000s. They had some decent wordplay but I wasn't blown away by any rapping. As for the beats, I personally love jazzhop elements and was really digging all of those tracks. Reminded me a lot of Tribe Called Quest who I'd guess were contemporaries of these guys. Overall pretty solid outing but probably not something I plan on listening to much in the future.

This is yet another album that starts off with 3 great songs (obviously "Take On Me" being the real winner) and then it doesn't really go anywhere after that. The sound is quintessential 80s but there are much better offerings in my opinion, such as Tears for Fears's Songs from the Big Chair.

At first I didn't dig his voice but the more I listened, the more I really came to love the overall sound. But after a few tracks I started to realize he sounded a lot like David Bowie...so much to the point where I thought "Man I always thought Iggy Pop was a punk type guy but he's really going for a Bowie sound here." As I always do, I eventually headed to the Wikipedia article to read about this album, so imagine my surprise when I saw that not only did he and Bowie have a friendship, Bowie brought him to his studio to record this album and produced it for him! Yeah no so coincidental or even thievery after all. But then I read that Bowie actually wrote most of the songs and Iggy did lyrics and singing, which happened to be the parts I really didn't like. To me, this is more of a Bowie album than an Iggy Pop one, and to be fair, I don't know enough about Iggy's songwriting or singing to truly pass that judgment but that's how it felt. I feel like if Bowie had done this all himself with minimal help from Iggy on vocals or lyrics, it would be a 4 or 5 star album, but as it stands it's just mid to me though I did enjoy it overall.

When I was a junior in college, I studied abroad in England. On the weekends, we would take trips and several times we went to London. On one of those London excursions, our professor took us to the Tate museum, which is London's modern art museum. Now, I'm not opposed to modern art, I quite enjoy a lot of it. But, when I walked into this museum and the first exhibit was a TV with a loop of a guy inhaling and exhaling a cigarette, I thought to myself, "Well that's not really something, is it?" Later in the museum, we came to an exhibit that was simply a toilet seat hanging on a wall. "Ok," I told myself, "this is definitely not art museum worthy. What gives?" Thus began a long debate with my professor and some other classmates about what defines art. My concern wasn't so much "what is art?" ...of course, hanging a toilet seat on a wall can be considered "art", my concern was "why does this belong in a museum?" The same can be said about The Sabres of Paradise Haunted Dancehall album. There are moments where the melody is interest, the beat moves, and the song has rhythm. But much of the album is empty, repetitive noise. And still, there are tracks that sound like someone sat in a big empty room with concrete walls and played around with one of those old toy Casio keyboards we all had in the 80s, using the pre-recorded beats and banging away on the keys to make "music" This isn't horrible as other reviewers might suggest, but why, why why, would anyone think this is a noteworthy album, among a mere 1001, that everyone should hear during their lifetime?

This is a fantastic album. I especially loved the opening track, which is a cover a song Beck previously did with the Yardbirds. This version is much better in my opinion. But yeah, Jeff Beck absolutely shreds every track on this, and Rod Stewart's vocals are *chef's kiss*. The only reason this isn't 5 stars instead of 4 is because a) almost half of it is covers (which is fine, but I'm picking about wanting artists' original work) and b) the covers, which sound good, are in many cases just standard blues riff that are just enhanced by Beck's guitar and Stewart's vocals. Regardless, I'll be returning to this one again in the future.

When I listened to a bunch of indie rock in the late 2000s (and was coincidentally friends with not one but two professional music critics), the term "shoegazy" always came up and I knew exactly what they were talking about: distorted wall of guitar sound, sparkling, plinky guitar, and watery vocals. I'm ashamed to admit, I had no idea that shoegaze was an actual short-lived micro genre of the 90s. But apparently I love it, and by the third song in, I realized I loved this album as well. So why 4 stars and not 5? Well, one of my requirements for a 5-star (nearly perfect) album is that there is diversity. So while this is apparently a top-3 shoegaze album, every song follows the same formula. It's fantastic, but by the time I hit "Decay", I was ready for something new. Still, literally every single song resonated with me, and I can see myself including this album as a regular part of my rotation. 4.5/5

This was a really tough album for me to review. I grew up with the Beatles, but my dad mostly listened to Rubber Soul, the White Album, and Sgt. Peppers. As I got older and developed my own taste in music, I still loved the Beatles but had added Revolver, Magical Mystery Tour, and the goat, Abbey Road, to my rotation. I am a bit ashamed to admit that I am only a bit familiar with their early work. A Hard Day's Night is definitely from the boy band, pop era of the Beatles. Songwriting was overall still pretty basic but it's impossible to ignore how the good the harmonies are, and how catchy most of the melodies are. I was surprised how many songs I already knew despite only two of them being listed as singles. It just goes to show how ubiquitous the Beatles are if one can recognize most of their songs on an album that they've never sat down and listened to straight through before. All that said, how do I actually feel about this album? Well, it's not groundbreaking or anything, but it's fun and enjoyable. After awhile the songs do start to sound the same, and while I think the first half of the album is just incredible (up to "Can't Buy Me Love"), the latter half feels a bit like throwaway tunes. I'm sure I'll listen to many of these songs time and time again, but as an album, I probably won't really return to A Hard Day's Night even though I did enjoy it, which puts it in the 3 star category like so many of my "it's good, but not great" reviews. 3.5

If you would have asked me my opinion of Cyndi Lauper before this album, I would have responded something about "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" being an iconic 80s song that I'm OK never hearing again and writing her off as a 2-hit wonder ("Time After Time" is, of course, a pretty great song). After listening to this album I am convinced that despite Cyndi being a household name, she did not get nearly the recognition she deserved. This is an 80s pop banger from start to finish (minus the last two songs). Seriously she slays this, and her backing band is incredible as well. She has an interesting voice and great vocal range. I was seriously impressed and can't wait to listen to this one again. For me, it's ultimately 4 stars (probably 4.5) because although it's nearly perfect, I thought the last two songs weren't just unfavorable compared to the rest of the album, they were downright horrible. I can't fathom who made the decision to end a pop masterpiece with a Betty Boop impersonation.

This album started out with a bombastic, eclectic sound that was pretty unique. I kept thinking there was something familiar about the elements and wasn't surprised to read it was produced by DJ Dangermouse. Once I knew that, it was obvious his fingerprints were all over this thing. Unfortunately, I felt like the album ended with a whimper. I was bored and everything sounded similar in the second half.

While I agree with other reviewers that it's hard to distinguish one song from the next, that's not always a bad thing. There's an iconic and classic sound here that simultaneously feels both timeless and representative of a distinct period of time. This was an enjoyable listen, and although there isn't anything remarkable or award-winning happening here (yes even Frank's vocals, as pleasing as they are), it was such a nice listen. I'd love to own this on vinyl and put it on as background music on a lazy Sunday.

I was totally taken aback by how much I enjoyed this album. I've always been the type of person that says I have a pretty diverse taste in music, but I really struggle getting into country. I've been proven time and again that older country such as Merle Haggard and Johnny Cash, that I do, in fact, like some country, just not the bubblegum popified version currently dominating the air waves singing about red Solo cups and pick up trucks. These songs are punchy, catchy ditties that stick in your head afterward (with some somber ballads as well). Overall super enjoyable though I don't see myself returning to it often. After all, country really isn't for me, even if I do like some of it.

Most late 80s/early 90s rap hasn't aged well. This album is perhaps a quinessential example of that statement. While I'm sure Public Enemy is important to annals of rap history, this album just isn't good. The beats are super lame often verging on annoying. The rapping is just whatever. And though lyrically it's interesting, it's not profound or anything...just dated. Really did not enjoy this one.

Hot damn, this album. I knew I had heard Air before but I could not have described their sound before hearing this album. Turns out, I did at the very least know their radio hit from the Virgin Suicides soundtrack, but this album has a sound I immediately fell in love with. To me, it almost feels like chill hop before chill hop was a thing. Similar to Daft Punk but more jazzy, less funky and less repetitive. Nearly every song had me feeling good vibes like grooving to the Animal Crossing music while hanging out on my island. The only reason I'm not giving 5 stars is a few songs where the vocals kicked in really ruined the vibe for me. I think I would have liked it better as a pure instrumentals album even though some of the vocals are fine.

I came to this album thinking Peter Frampton is generic classic rock. I mean, "Oooh baby I love your way" is a super cheesy song, and that mouth-guitar gimmick he does? I mean...c'mon. So, when I listened to this album I was SO close to giving it at least 3, if not 4, stars. It wasn't that bad, in fact, some of the songs were pretty darn good. I dug the way Peter and his band jammed out a lot of the tunes. It's not like he's bad at guitar, just nothing special. Also, I've mentioned many a time on here how much I do not like live albums. I mean, live albums are fine, but to me, they are not "true" albums. They, in many cases, are representative of an artist's best work. And, they are often poor audio quality...not to mention how annoying I find it when audiences can be heard singing or clapping along. Or some antic is happening on stage because the crowd is reacting to it, but that translates only to me being bored when I only have audio. So when I found myself kind of digging this one, I even thought, heck maybe this is a four-star album? But the more I thought about it, and the further I got into the album, I realized just because this is better than I thought and I found myself digging some of the songs, doesn't mean it's still not exactly what I expected it to be: generic classic rock. After all, it's the generic, appeal to the masses, formulaic rock here that has me thinking it's not too bad to listen to. By the end, I was tired of the formula and able to more clearly think about what's so special about this album. To me, nothing at all. It's fine, but it's just that...fine. Peter Frampton definitely has his place in the annals of classic rock. This was a big album. But, I think there's a reason it really took Frampton Comes Alive to propel him to stardom. There are some hits here, some catchy tunes, and some nice guitar playing. But the songwriting remains simple and cheesy. And aside from a few solid tunes, there's nothing to write home about.

I went through a metal phase in high school. At the peak of nu-metal, I was donning JNCO jeans, bead bracelets, dyed hair, and a bass guitar. Slipknot became relevant during this time and, of course, I loved them. I have a core memory of tailgating during a high school football game, blaring the self-titled album out of my car as some jocks and preps kept yelling at me to turn it down. I still cringe when remembering that today. When I got assigned this album, I wondered: will Slipknot stand the test of time? I doubted it, but here we are to find out. The answer, it turns out, is that I'm not sure. This is Slipknot's 4th album, and it was released almost a decade after I was listening to them in my teens. While some of the classic Slipknot, noise metal sound was there (especially in the drums), this album ultimately fell flat for me . Even though I don't listen to much that's very heavy these days, I was disappointed in this one almost because it wasn't metal enough. The slower songs were just lame, and the heavy songs didn't pack enough of a punch. I dunno, I'm sure if I went back to the self-titled from 1999, I wouldn't love it, but I'm sure at least I'd understand why I thought it was great at the time.

Since I grew up listening to Tom Petty and the Heartbreaker's hits, I was pretty excited to hear their debut album. But, really the only memorable songs on here were the hits. The thing about Tom Petty is that his greatest hits rival most artists's best albums, but I can't think of a single Tom Petty album that I love from start to finish. There are some great ones, Wildflowers being my favorite, but every album seems to have just a few good songs. Don't get me wrong, he's a prolific musician, but this debut was pretty blah. 2.5 solely for Breakdown and American Girl, two of my all-time favorite classic rock songs.

I've always disliked Sting's music. It just seems so...lame. Like, fake bohemianism combined with cheesy lyrics and a commercialized sound, but I've never sat down and listened to a Police album. I figured..they've got some classic singles, and there are definitely some Police songs that I love ("Demolition Man" for example) so one of their highest rated albums must be good, right? To say I was bored is an understatement. The lyrics are still cheesy, the guitar is kind of whatever, and while the bass is good, it just feels like Stewart Copeland's amazing drumming was wasted with The Police. I know that's just me, and many feel The Police is one of the all time great bands of the 80s (heck BBC called them the "biggest band in the world" which is insane considering the Talking Heads were recording at the exact same time.) Maybe The Police were huge, and I guess that's a good enough reason to put their albums on the list, but if that's the case, I'd call this one of the most overrated albums I've listened to yet.

Pretty great standard blues album. I just find the blues repetitive (like that first song...wow great riff but it just repeats the entire song). Muddy Waters is a pretty great soloist and I enjoyed most tunes but I don't see myself returning to this one.

Really great reggae album from start to finish. The only songs I knew going in were "Legalize It" and "Ketchy Shuby" but there are so many solid tracks here. In fact, I think the title track might be my least favorite of them all. It's a great message, especially considering the year it was released, but it's a repetitive song.

At first I thought. "Well, this album definitely is NOT for me." But the more I got into it, I realized that while I didn't like the more country songs, I did enjoy some of the songs that got a bit psychedelic. They reminded me a lot of the Grateful Dead. Made me think of if the Beatles did country rock instead of pop rock. Not a bad album, but not necessarily one I really enjoyed or will return to. Not exactly sure why it's on the list either.

This is only the second jazz album I've gotten on here, and it's another 5-star album. I love the frenetic energy of this with the soulful Cuban drums. Truly every song is amazing from start to finish. I loved this album so much that when Spotify started playing recommended tracks when it finished, I just started it over. This will be a regular part of my jazz rotation from here on out.

Everytime a song would start I'd be reminded that I don't really like ZZ Top. Cringy lyrics, annoying vocals...just, no thanks. Then I'd get to the instrumental portion and think, "Hey this is pretty good!" Then either back to the cheesiness and the cycle would repeat. I guess I came away from this feeling ZZ Top has a place in rock and roll and can certainly play the guitar, but their overall vibe? Nah, I'm good. Didn't hate it, but this is a one and done for me.

I'm getting sick of early 90s rap on this generator. I do really like hip hop, but I'm getting stuff Queen Latifah and Public Enemy and Gang Starr, which did not age well, when there's plenty of early 90s hip hop that absolutely slays like Tribe Called Quest, Notorious B.I.G., Nas. This album fell somewhere inbetween. It was better than the stuff that shows it's age, but still not anything exception to my ears. Overall enjoyable, but not something I'll be returning to. Give me the good stuff!

I don't love this album as I'm not a huge fan of Skynyrd's hits, but who can hate this album? It's southern rock at its finest. Not really my thing, but the amount of big numbers on here is impressive.

This album is fine. It's solid reggae but nothing insane. Not sure why it's one of the 1001 albums everyone must hear.

I love Wilco. I have most of their albums and have seen them multiple times. I'm sure this album is on here because it established their sound. It's good, don't get me wrong. But, I'd rather listen to YHF, A Ghost is Born, or Sky Blue Sky. This one has a few amazing tunes, but a lot of kind of boring songs. And it's a looooong album. I actually gave up on 1001 albums for awhile because I couldn't finish this one.

I'm not a huge blues fan, especially not in a live setting. But, this is a pretty eclectic blues album with all the guests on it. I do think the songs with guest are stronger (probably because they bring a little bit of flair and blend genres a bit. Not to mention, Hooker can play a mean guitar. The album as a whole is probably a "one and done" for me, but I could see myself returning to a few of the tunes.

I've said before that I think live albums aren't great picks for "must listen" albums of all time, and this one is no exception. The audio quality isn't particularly good. It's a good show because Sam Cook is incredible and his songs are great. But, as someone who loves a good Sam Cook record, just listen to those instead.

I decided to read some reviews before writing mine... normally I avoid this but sometimes when I'm thinking of a half star, I check out other opinions to see if I agree with any that might take it up or down a peg. Turns out, this is a very divisive album and people are very split on the "genius" of Dylan. I quite enjoyed this album and I can see why it's considered a great one. But, I also found it a bit boring with a somewhat repetitive sound. I'd definitely much rather listen to other albums of his like Nashville Skyline. All in all, a solid album even if it isn't revolutionary, but I guess you kind of have to like Bob Dylan (or at the very least appreciate him) to feel that way.

Call me crazy, but I've always disliked "Cult of Personality." I think maybe because the local rock station overplayed the hell out of it in the 90s. The opening riff does indeed rock, but I find the song annoying. I was curious how I'd feel about the rest of the album. Well, as it turns out, more of the same. There are some solid riffs, and I found myself in nearly every song going "ok this is great," but there was so much of the album I didn't like...mostly related to vocals or being repetitive. I do appreciate how they brought together many different sounds from hard rock to create something more diverse and interesting but, to me, it only holds up in a few songs.

This would have been a decent album if John didn't sing.

Really solid album. I felt like the only song Neil truly showed off his guitar skills was "Southern Man" but overall I enjoyed most tracks.

I really loved the opening track and thought this would be on its way to a 4 or 5 star album for me. But, I found it to be a bit lackluster. I either loved a song or I found it to be pretty meh. About 50/50 on tracks I enjoyed or didn't. Solid 3 for me.

I mean, obviously this is a classic live album. I haven't changed my tune on whether live albums should be on this list or not, but if any deserves to be here then Cash at Folsom is it.

I don't know what I expected from this album, but I definitely didn't expect to enjoy it as much as I did. That being said, I still wasn't super impressed with this album. It was definitively 90s pop grunge, but I can think of many more bands who did it better (Bush) and quite a few who were female led like Hole (Garbage). So, although it was an easy, enjoyable listen, there wasn't anything remarkable about it, and I'm left scratching my head as to why it's a "must listen".

This is such a goofy album, and I truly had fun listening to it. De La Soul is old-school rap at it's finest. And, although I haven't heard this particular album, it reminded my of one of my favorite rap groups: A Tribe Called Quest (of course, they do end up making a guest appearance on a track). Even though it was funny, I didn't particularly enjoy the non-songs on this album. I thought they ruined the flow of one solid hip hop song after another, and I found the "Delaorgy" or whatever sex thing was happening in the middle, completely jarring. I'll definitely be spinning tracks from this in the future, but I'll be surprised if I ever listen to the album from start to finish again.

This album was a great reminder of how incredible the aughts were for music. I don't even like Coldplay, and yet I found myself completely sucked into this album. Coldplay is a band where I'm mostly familiar with their hits, but I've never given them a deep dive. This album had some popular tunes on it that I remember from back in the day, but I also really enjoyed the songs I had never heard before. It's such a cohesive sound, and yes, it's pop rock, but it's not overly saccharine. I really enjoyed listening to this and can see myself returning to it. Maybe I was too hard on Coldplay all these years.

This album grabbed me by the throat and didn't let go. Somehow I've never heard of this band (I did recognize "Alright") despite them obviously being an influence of my favorite bands of the a Aughts (The Strokes, Artic Monkeys). Really great album only falling short of 5 stars because I think it kind of fizzles out and the last 1/3 isn't nearly as good as the rest.

I like Jack White. I'm a huge fan of the first two Raconteurs albums. The White Stripes albums can be hit or miss, but they all have absolute bangers on them. I feel like White's first solo endeavor is a little bit of all those styles that make him the guitarist he is. And, it's a really good album with some interesting songs. But, none of them have that "wow factor" that some of the best White Stripes songs have, and none deviate from the norm like some of the more interesting Raconteurs songs do. Lastly, I'm not getting a lot of emotional depth on this album. Don't get me wrong. This is a solid 4 for me, and by my ratings, that's a very strong album. But I guess that for Jack White's first solo album (especially one that made this list), I was honestly just expecting a bit more?

My parents had to know something was up when I visited home one weekend my first year of college and asked to borrow my dad's "Dark Side of the Moon" CD. This album went on to imprint itself on brain, thanks to many psychedelic listens, dorm room background music, and of course several viewings of the Wizard of Oz with this as the soundtrack. I knew before pressing play that this would be a 5-star album for me, but I was curious how it would hold up to my aged and sober brain. Thankfully, it's no less a masterpiece, and perhaps even more so, passing the tests of time, circumstances, and being a "lunatic on the grass." It's so cohesive, each song blending seamlessly into the next; rich with layers of sound, perfectly mixed; and all thematically tied together. There is nothing like it, and it's a rare perfect album.

Admittedly when I first saw an album from 2000 (an era I'm most familiar with) that I had never heard of, I was a bit skeptical. But, I decided there's plenty of great albums I've never heard of so I wasn't going to let that affect my review. Then, I saw it was a double album. Two whole hours of my time?! But I decided I was going to stick it through just like I had every other album before it. Finally I was ready to hit play. It was a little unexpected that this was electronic music, but I'm not opposed to that. Surely this is some sort of masterpiece of EDM . But here's the thing: the album is fine. I read a lot of reviews straight up bashing it, but it's not bad music. There's nothing offensive or off-putting about it, in fact, it's quite enjoyable. But that's the thing, it's good music for an elevator. This is the kind of stuff I'd put on to get some work done, or whittle away time playing cards or something. There's nothing remarkable about this album. No stand out tracks, no innovation, no creativity. And that's fine, but it's not something I'd put on this list

Let me first say that I LOVE The Allman Bros. Heck, I even own this one on vinyl. But, I'm just not a fan of live albums counting as "albums." If you like jam bands then this is mandatory listening, so I get why it's recommended, but to me, even though I enjoy the noodle-fest, I don't think this is a great choice for a must-hear live album, let alone a list of ALL albums you must hear.

Yeah this was good. I only knew Dusty Springfield from "Son of a Preacher" and "Spooky" so I wasn't sure what to expect. I don't think it was anything earth-shattering but there wasn't a song I didn't like, and I definitely enjoyed her unique voice. Even though this wouldn't be a go-to genre of music for me, I can see myself returning to this at some point.

Strangely enough I was given another female singer's album from the late 60s, Dusty Springfield's in Memphis right before this one. I enjoyed it but it didn't blow me away. This album on the other hand is a masterpiece. It only took a few songs in before I realized what I was listening to was absolutely the type of work that should appear on a list like this. There's not a bad track on it, and a great variety from more soulful tracks to funk to slow jams. Aretha Franklin can really, really sing and she goes all out on this one. Truly a classic.

I definitely liked my fair share of industrial music in the '90s, and I can definitely hear how this band influenced many of those bands (I don't know enough about the genre and what came out when to know exactly who influenced whom). But one thing I can tell you: I hated this. From what I can understand, the whole military sound thing was some sort of schtick? That we aren't supposed to take it seriously? I don't know. It just wasn't enjoyable to listen to. The vocals were harsh and discordant and the sounds abrasive, but not in a "this rocks my face off" sort of way. A couple of songs had some cool moments, like the ending to the first track, but overall this was just bad.

About halfway through Zombie I was ready to declare this a 5-star album. It is easily one of the best jazz fusion songs I've ever heard. But, just like football, a game lasts four quarters. And in this case, it cost Fela Kuti the game. While I was completely in love with Zombie, it was discouraging that the rest of the album essentially followed the same formula: James Brown-esque funk guitar riff, add a thumping baseline and rhymic drums, and then some horns that would make Dizzy Gilespie's hair raise; about halfway through the song, come in with a repetitive African chorus. It's good. Don't get me wrong. But it felt too much "rinse and repeat" to make it a 5-star for me. Plus, each song just seemed like an inferior version of the previous one and went on for far too long. I don't know if the songs actually got worse or if it was just the result of me growing tired of the formula. Still, a must listen for jazz fans and an album worthy of this list. By the way, don't forget to read his unhinged bio on Wikipedia.

This wasn't a bad album per se, but it didn't do much for me. I know Curtis Mayfield is supposed to be a soul master, but this album felt flat. If this is his best, then my opinion of his music is diminished a bit. While there wasn't a bad song, there also weren't any stand out tracks. To me, that makes this a fine album to give a listen, maybe even for some to love, but it doesn't make it one of the 1001 albums I should hear before I die.

Growing up in the 90s, I was of course very familiar with the Fugees' hits. I can't say I had ever listened to the whole album before, though. The Score suffers from abundance. It's long, probably too long, and not just because of the skits. The skits should be the first to go. Not only do they interrupt the flow of what would otherwise be a pretty solid album, many of them did not age well. But, let's pretend the skits were removed, would this album be an "all timer?" I don't think so. To me, The Score is feast or famine. Either the track will blow you away or it will sound like most other tracks on the album and bore you a bit. Obviously the radio hits are classics deserving praise (though I don't find their cover of "No Woman, No Cry" particularly compelling), and there are a few other stand-out tracks, mostly in the first half. Though admittedly it could have been fatigue that made the second half lack for me. Finally, no disrespect to Wyclef Jean and...the other guy, but Lauryn Hill steals the show here. It's no wonder she went on to release a solo album that's probably on this list as well. The tracks that prominently feature her characteristic singing and rapping are usually the ones that stand out. At the end of the day, it's a 3-star album for me that probably could only be improved to 4-star if they'd cut about 15 minutes from it.

It irks me that Stewart Copeland's incredible drumming talent was wasted on The Police. There's a good song here and there but most of it is typical Sting-led trash.

Just a really solid album start to finish. Many of these songs were already hits I was familiar with, but the rest were just as good. As a massive jazz fan (and Phish-head) I was not at all turned off by the 13 minute jam that was Sex Machine. Plus, I don't know enough about the history of music to write this with confidence, but it seems like this was very influential with the funk movement and hits social justice issues to boot. All in all, super enjoyable, perhaps revolutionary, but maybe not quite a masterpiece.

I could probably write the exact same notes as the previous Public Enemy album I reviewed. These guys may be pioneers of hip hop. They may be culturally relevant and historically significant. But, I. The grand scheme of all things rap: Public Enemy is weak. The only thing I will say is that I enjoyed the beats much more on this one. There were tons of recognizable samples used in interesting ways (like the Vincent Price laugh from "Thriller" during "9-11 is a joke"). If you want to understand more about hip hop's roots, listen to Public Enemy. If you want good hip hop from this era, listen to De La Soul, A Tribe Called Quest, Tupac.

It's laughable that an album like this would be on this list because this is the most generic rock I've ever heard. Rick Rubin produced this? I know not all his albums are bangers, but he generally has good taste and what makes an album and sound hit. This is...not bad? Decent guitar playing, vocals aren't my thing but I can tell he's a good singer. They are just creating the equivalent of YouTube copyright free background music in the style of 80s rock.

One of my favorite genres is alt/indie rock from the aughts, especially The Strokes. So, not only was I totally surprised how much I loved this album, I was even more taken aback by how much it sounded like something from the 2000s. Obviously Blondie inspired those bands, not the other way around, but of course, I'm coming around to Blondie in reverse. Anyway, there was not a bad track on this album, with a couple of recognizable hits. It has great flow, catchy riffs, and ripping solos. Man, I can't wait to come back to this one. Easy 5 stars.

The first few tracks of this felt like a greatest hits album. I've always enjoy The Cars without realizing I enjoyed The Cars (if that makes sense). I was curious how the rest of the album would hold up to the opening slate of radio hits. There are quite a few songs (including the hits) that sounds same-same but different. But, that's fine. It's definitely a cool sound mixing the riffs and vocals of the 70s (very Tom Petty-ish) with the incoming synth-sounds of the 80s. I especially appreciated the songs that deviated from the formula, like "Moving in Stereo". The album finished really strong. I wish I could give 1/2 stars because this is clearly a 4.5 for me; however, it's good enough that I'm going to bump it up to 5.

This is a hard album to evaluate. It's definitely not a great punk album. And, I'm not even sure it's a great rock opera. However, it's indisputable that Green Day made a great album. I somehow avoided this album despite living through the early 2000s. I was in my counterculture phase, listening to mostly jam bands, and ironically Green Day was decidedly not counterculture at this point in time. I'm not sure they ever were really, but at least Dookie was a punk album at heart. Of course, I didn't escape the radio hits. They just came and came and came from this album. But, I have to say, listening to the whole thing start to finish, I was really impressed. I knew the popular songs, but I didn't know how it all fit together into the concept album. In fact, I think the songs I enjoyed most were the songs that I hadn't heard before. I liked their composition, I liked their storytelling, and I liked how they incorporated diverse musical styles. This is one of those albums that I didn't love, but I appreciate it. I doubt I'll return to it, maybe a few songs here and there, but I can acknowledge it's greatness. And for that it's a four-star album for me.

There are albums on this list that are sheer masterpieces and deserve all the acclaim. There are albums on this list that hold cultural and/or historical significance and deserve to be recognized. This album is neither of those things. And, I'm not suggesting it's a bad album because it doesn't meet those criteria. On the contrary, I quite enjoyed this album for the most part. But I'm perplexed by it. According to Wikipedia neither this particular album nor the band had much significance in anything, and this album wasn't even well received upon its release. Instead it achieved cult status later on. Heck, even the Spotify top 5 most popular songs from this band doesn't include a single song from this album. It seems like this is one of those albums that the creator of this list fancied and felt like it should be included. The problem I have with this is there are dozens of albums that I could include based on my own personal preferences, but that are not "albums you must hear" I'm thankful I checked this album out. I definitely appreciated it more than a lot of the stuff I've heard on this list that are supposedly all time greats. It reminded me a lot of The Velvet Underground. However, this feels more like a "hey check out this album" suggestion then an essential listen. Overall this album would probably get 4 stars from me if I had stopped in the first half. The last half really drags, and while some of the slower tunes are nicely done, pacing is all messed up. Not to mention, the more you strip down the tracks and hear the vocals more prominently and clearly, the more you can hear how he really isn't a good singer. The warbly vocals work with the more upbeat, alt-rock songs that begin the album but it's pretty glaring and hard to listen to with the more folksy, slow stuff.

I remember enjoying a Dinosaur Jr. album in the late 00s or early 2010s. I had no idea that band had already been around for 25 years by that point. Funnily enough, the sound was instantly recognizable even though I never got super into the band. All in all, I enjoyed this one. The wall of sound noise rock, the garbled/lofi vocals, the shredding guitar. It was pretty good. There were definitely a couple of tracks I didn't like as much (the penultimate song was way too screamo for me and very hard on the ears) but overall this is a solid album. Is it a "must hear"? Probably not. 3.5

Obviously a lot of people dislike Van Morrison. But it's hard to argue against this being an all-time classic record. It feels effortlessly good, each song one you're surely familiar with. Is it exciting? Not really, but who cares? It's beautiful music. Just chill out and enjoy.

I am convinced that this is an album solely made for love making. Now, that might seem obvious, I mean it's literally called \" Let's Get It On\". But 30 minutes give or take? Sounds about average if you include foreplay. It even has a mid-point callback to \"Let's Get It On\" called \"Keep Gettin' It On\" as if to encourage lovers to keep going. You can do it! In all seriousness, it's a good album. A bit homogeneous in its sound, maybe. But enjoyable nonetheless. I'll definitely be putting this on next time my wife and I head to the bedroom.

My heart leaped when I saw this album come up next. Marquee Moon is already on my personal all-time favorite list, so I knew this was already a 5-star album. But I had to give it another listen, right? Of course it holds up. This album is masterpiece. I don't know what else to say. it's as good as anything from the mid to late 70s CBGB-era stuff and it's arguably one of the most influential albums of the aughts indie rock movement (which is uncoincidentally one of my favorite eras as well). My only "complaint" about the album is that, while the whole thing is great, I feel like the first 1/3 is this build up to an amazing climax in the title track while the rest of the album feels like it's playing catch up from the highs of the first half. But, pacing is a minor, perhaps personal, qualm in an otherwise perfect 5-star album.

2010 was a period in my life where I was so in tune with new music coming out, so when I see a "must listen" album from this era I am simultaneously intrigued and worried that it's going to be something stupid. This album is somehow both intriguing and stupid. I think it primarily comes down to the lyrics. The Beatles/Bowie-esque arrangements backed by lyrics that would make Zappa proud just doesn't work for me. He reminded me of a less serious, less poetic Andrew Bird, but I'd rather just listen to any Andrew Bird album than this. It's not interesting enough musically to make up for the weirdness and cheesiness of the lyrics.

Fiona Apple's debut album "Tidal" was a masterpiece, so I'm not discounting her as an artist when I say that this low-production value, self-indulgent album reeks of someone who is trying to hard to be "artistic". I'm convinced the only reason this album received critically acclaim is because the "recorded in a bedroom closet" sound captured a moment during the COVID-19 lockdown that many people can relate to. Listening to this some years later, the Tarzan "Trashin' the Camp" percussions comes off as cheap and lazy instead of inspired. And Apple's psedo-spoken word lyrics clash with the would-be rhythms of piano and bass. None of the magic captured in her first couple of albums is here. When I read that she recorded and produced this herself, I wasn't surprised. It shows...and not in a good way. To me, a couple of interesting tracks redeem this from a total 1-star failure. If you want to hear good angsty, dark, power-female pop, go listen to "Tidal."

Rumors is one of my all-time favorite albums. A sheer masterpiece of music. Despite this, I have admittedly never listened to Fleetwood Mac's follow-up Tusk. I was immediately taken aback by the opening track "Over and Over". It was slow and melancholic and beautiful, yet crescendoed with layers of vocals and guitar, drums and bass. It wasn't my typical opening track type tune but my god it was good. The thing is, though, this slow yet beautiful motif was pretty much prevalent throughout the entire album. So much so that I got pretty bored of it! Of course, not every song follows that formula but enough of it does that I'm practically falling asleep during a second listen. In typical Fleetwood Mac fashion, there are some truly incredible tracks...some I could see fitting right in on Rumors. But, overall I was just sort of "eh" about this album. Probably due in no small part that it's just too long of an album. Clocking in at 75 minutes, it needs more diversity to hold my interest. The tracks I love have already been added to playlists and will be revisited time and again but as a whole, I don't think I'll be returning to Tusk.

My 1001 album generator journey started off with Pixies' Surfer Rosa, and after listening to Bossanova, I have to ask myself, "How much late 80s/early 90s surfer rock do we need?" This album has a couple of songs I found myself bobbing my head to, but nothing that had me scrambling to punch that "like" button. In fact, I went back to read my very first review, and I feel like the same complaints I had of their debut album are here as well. It feels like this is just an inferior version of what I've already heard from them, and most notably without any of their hit songs

The instrumental jazz tunes aren't bad but nothing to write home about. The rest of the album sucks (with "Here's One That Got Away" being the only one not abysmal).

It's the summer of 2008. I'm in my mid-20s, trying to figure out how to navigate the world as a working adult. Little did I know, an indie band was about to release an album that would refine my musical tastes for the next few years. Of course, "indie folk" as it was dubbed at the time, wouldn't just influence my musical journey, it would be everywhere, even mainstream if you count acts like Mumford and Sons (completely overrated in my opinion). Despite me wearing out my ripped copy of this self-titled album, I haven't listened to it in probably a decade. So even though it helped define a period of my life, is it still relevant? Is it still just as good. Well, nostalgia be damned: Fleet Foxes debut is a masterpiece. I've listened to it twice since getting it assigned for this challenge and I'm tempted to spin it again. The harmonies are chill-inducing, the various musical styles from acoustic singer-songwriter poetry to baroque melodies layered in top of each other make for such a unique sound that has since been borrowed from so many other artists that wanted to cash in on the fake-folk movement. There isn't a bad song on the album but "White Winter Hymnal," "Your Protector," and "Blue Ridge Mountains," stand out to me.

Despite CSN (and Y, after this album) being one of my dad's favorite bands, I can honestly say I've never sat down and listened to an entire album of theirs from start to finish. Unsurprisingly, I knew quite a few songs on this one, and obviously I'm well acquainted with the sound. Still, I was pleasantly surprised how good this album is. I don't think it's necessarily a masterpiece, but it's very good musicianship with some great guitar playing, interesting rhythms, and nice harmonies (though not as masterful as some make them out to be). Overall a very solid album that was heavily influential and deserving of being on this list.

I was assigned Lady Soul not too long ago, and it absolutely blew me away. Now, whether that was ONLY because of Aretha's incredible vocals or if it is actually just a great album, is hard to tell because this album is very good but it's not quite AS good as Lady Soul to me. It felt a little more repetitive in sound and some of the tracks kind of lost me whereas Lady Soul kept me hooked for multiple listens. Despite opening up with arguably the best soul song of all time, this one fell just a little flat for me (again, perhaps just by comparison but that's the way it goes sometimes). Still a solid 4.

I feel like one's opinion of Big Brother and Holding Company comes down to whether or not you appreciate Janis Joplin's voice. To me, this is an all-time classic with a stand out sound. That sound is of course almost entirely thanks to Joplin. The band itself is great but it's fairly traditional blues rock. That being said, I still love the guitar riffs, the grooves, the musicianship all punctuated by Joplin's vocal talents. But I get it, her voice is gritty, sometimes irritating, but it's original and to me, totally fits the sound of the band.

Like anyone who's spent time listening to classic rock stations, I was familiar with Creedence Clearwater's hits, and on this album there are many. Yet, I've never sat and listened to an entire album from start to finish. On the one hand, with my exposure to CCR, nothing really shocked me on this listen. But that's not to take anything away from its greatness. In fact, the one surprise I had listening to this was the opening track not being the typical Southern "swamp rock" sound I'd come to know and love from Fogerty and Co. but instead a jammy, psychedelic groove clocking in over 7 minutes. My only complaint about this album is that every song written by Fogerty is better than their covers. They are a good blues rock band, for sure, but nothing that makes their covers exceptional and worth including on a major studio release. The only exception to this is "Heard It through the Grapevine." This cover has always been a favorite of mine and hearing it extended on here (as opposed to the more radio-friendly version I grew up with) had me locked in. Just a fantastic listen from start to finish.

I initially had high hopes for this album. I mean, Song 2 has always been an anthem and I love the first couple of Gorillaz albums, so surely this had to be good to make this list. In reality, I wasn't really a fan. But I will say, I mostly expected this to be full of post-grunge rock in the vein of "Song 2" but it was kind of all over the place. I can definitely see where Damon Albarn transitioned to the Gorillaz from Blur. I'm also not surprised I didn't love it, given that this album came out during my formative years, yet I didn't know any song other than their hit single. It wasn't necessarily bad, but it also wasn't anything truly good or even noteworthy.

This was my genre back in the day and I remember this album well. It was so hyped from everyone but honestly, I think outside of the 1-2 punch opener of Southern Point and Two Weeks, the album is just boring. There a few other songs that aren't too bad ("All We Ask", "About Face" and "Cheerleader") but over all, Vecatimest is such a chore to get through.

It's been awhile since I've listened to The Hives but I basically knew what to expect with this one. I remember listening to Veni Vidi Vicious back in the day and thinking that aside from "Hate to Say I Told You So," which is such a banger, these guys are just kind of lame. The vocals are annoying, the guitar riffs repetitive, and the sound is evocative of all their influences without sounding original at all. If you want this lofi, high energy dance rock sound of the early 2000s, go listen to The Strokes, The Rapture, or Franz Ferdinand. They all do it better.

I never really got into Soundgarden. The hits were inescapable during the MTV era, to be sure. And, my local classic rock station continues to play them. But, despite liking the genre in general, I never was a huge fan. Not much changed after listening to Superunknown. Some of the familiar tunes are on this, and I can definitely understand why this is such a successful album. I was also pleasantly surprised by some of the songs I hadn't heard before. I still don't love Soundgarden, and I'm sure I won't return to this album, but my respect for them grew after listening to this.

I grew up with the Beatles, but it wasn’t until I was older that I realized my dad didn’t really have anything in his collection before Rubber Soul. Of course, I knew there were Beatles songs that pre-dated that album but I had never listened to any of those albums start to finish. Even after I went back to Beatles “oldies” (which is kind of mind-blowing they did this all in a decade because their doo-wop Help! sound is completely different from their post-Rubber Soul psychedelic sound, and those albums released the same year..what?!). Despite my familiarity with the Beatles discography, I had honestly never heard of With the Beatles. I looked at the tracklist and even then, minus the covers, I wasn’t familiar with the songs. How was this possible? And, what does this say about the album if there aren’t any hits on it? Why is this the first Beatles album I’m hearing on this list? Did I miss something? Well, apparently I DID miss something because this album is incredible. Do the Beatles ever miss? I’m not suggesting this is a masterpiece, and all things considered, it’s still probably one of my least favorite Beatles albums, but it’s still so good. I was most impressed by “Til There Was You,” which I was utterly shocked to find that not only was this a cover, it originally appeared in the Broadway musical The Music Man. All in all, this is classic Beatles “oldies” with none of the hits, and it’s good. The harmonies, the melodies, the arrangements, it all works, and it’s easy to see how the Beatles were so successful. I’m still not sure how they managed to transform their sound so much over the course of a decade, but I’m glad for it. The originals on here are great, but not as noteworthy as some of the other stuff they’ve done (save for maybe McCartney’s “All My Loving”). This one is a solid 4.5 for me, but I’m bumping it to 4 since we can’t give half ratings mostly due to there being so many amazing Beatles albums, and I’m still a little surprised this one made the cut. The Wikipedia article did shed some light on it and convinced me it’s worth the entry on this list, but I’m hoping it didn’t get in over other Beatles albums.

This album didn't do much for me. It's Stevie Wonder, so it's pretty good overall, but, to me, the only standout songs are "Superstition" (which would certainly make a list of 1001 SONGS you must hear) and "I Believe" The second half of the album felt stronger than the first and probably pushed Talking Book into 3-star territory for me. It's not bad by any means, but just not memorable aside from one of the greatest songs of all time.

Slipknot accounts for two of my cringiest life moments, both from high school, that still stick with me today some 25+ years later. I mentioned one in my last review of Slipknot, so I’ll recount the other in this review. It was my junior year and I was the only boy on Yearbook staff. Every day we got to choose what music we listened to in the background, but given my tastes, I had very little say. Occasionally I’d be able to throw on Incubus’s Make Yourself or other pop-friendly rock albums, but most days resulted in a battle over whether N’Sync or Backstreet Boys were the better boy band. I actually didn’t hate that music, but it wasn’t my preferred genre, and my yearbook advisor knew it. One day while working on a spread after school, it was just me and the yearbook teacher, Mrs. Bauman. What compelled her to extend this particular olive branch is beyond me, but she said, “Hey you can put on whatever you want.” I said, “Anything? Are you sure? I like really heavy stuff” or something to that effect. She assured me that it was fine and I could play whatever. “Even if it has explicit lyrics?” Sure, she said. I then proceeded to assault this poor woman’s ears with an entire hour of post-industrial butt rock with screaming, scratchy lyrics, double drums, pounding bass, and wall-of-sound guitars. I’m not saying it wasn’t good (for what it is, it might not be bad, and I attempt to figure that out upon this relisten), but in hindsight, I cringe knowing that I probably never looked the same in that teacher’s eyes. I probably would have been happy putting on Led Zeppelin. As alluded to, this is actually the second Slipknot album I’ve had to review on here. With the first, I wondered if my appreciation of them from my high school days would carry over to an album that I had no nostalgic ties to. I didn’t hate it, but I didn’t think it was good music at all. However, looking back on that review, I noticed one phrase that stood out: This isn’t heavy enough for what I remember of Slipknot. One thing you have to realize is that this Slipknot album dropped when nu-metal was at the height of the cultural zeitgeist. Bands like Korn and Limp Bizkit had topped the pop charts (TRL anyone?) and for the general populous, that was all fine and dandy. But for some of us, those bands became a gateway drug into much heavier music. When Slipknot entered the picture, we were primed and ready. To an angsty teen wanting to escape the confines of suburbia, bands like Slipknot, Static-X, and Machine Head served as the soundtrack to my identity. How much cooler that Slipknot didn’t show their faces but hid behind creepy Halloween masks and prison jumpsuits? This album will certainly be heavier than 2008’s All Hope Is Gone, but will I look back fondly on one of this bizarre genre’s greatest achievements or will I cringe even more at my high school self’s obsession with it? Well, after perhaps the longest introduction to a review ever…let’s find out. I am surprised I actually enjoyed some of this. Sure, I suppose some of my enjoyment was nostalgia. I remembered some of the lyrics and recognized some riffs. Slipknot definitely had found a unique sound in a saturated landscape of nu-metal. Theirs relied less on the rap-rock gimmick (though it does show up in glimpses here and there) and more on a thumping drum and bass, fist-pumping, head-banging wall-of-sound industrial metal. I feel like this album took what happened in the 90s with industrial music and made it, dare I say, poppy? This is certainly not a pop album, but it has a catchiness to it despite it sounding like a mess sometimes. I think that’s what the allure was for me: the songs have hooks I could sing and head-bang along to. Now, I’d actually argue to my previous rhetorical question of fondness vs. cringe that the answer is “both.” Because although there is a neat sound happening here, the lyrics are embarrassingly bad. Yes, my angry teenage self resonated with all the “I hate everythings” and “f*ck yous” but that’s all it in: an empty void of anger filled with expletives to shout along to. By the way, I had two loving parents and grew up middle class in the suburbs. There was no reason I was so filled with hate during the last few years of high school (was the music rubbing off on me or did I seek this kind of music out?). Either way, it’s laughably bad despite there being something cool and fun going on in the sound here. Of course, the creepy costume gimmick added to the allure. I’m sure my 17-year-old self loved that. Probably a 3.5 due to the lyrics but I'll bump it to a 4 for exceeding my expectations.

Kind of weird that I get my first and second Stevie Wonder albums with only one album in-between. I'd say this one is still not as good as Songs in the Key of Life, but I did enjoy it a lot more than Talking Book. There were some real solid grooves on here ("Boogie On Reggae Woman" being top tier, but I also found "You Haven't Done Nothing" to be quite strong in the funk. But there are also a lot of great slower jams on this album. I like "They Won't Go When I Go" and Birds of Beauty" a lot. All in all, a solid offering that I plan to return to (and have already listened to quite a few of the tracks several times)

I actually vaguely know this album. I had heard a few of their songs before but my buddy scored free tickets to see them right around the time this album came out. He told me, "You have to listen to this 'Under the Pressure' song." So, I did and being a fan of jam bands, I wasn't put off by the runtime. The thing is: it IS a good song but the "jam" is just kind of boring. It doesn't do much. But I still like it. Well, the rest of the album feels the same way. It's enjoyable but just a little uninteresting. I'd definitely listen to it again but it's best as background noise.

Listening to this album has taught me one thing: I have underrated Willie Nelson. Growing up in the '90s, Willie has always just been "that stoner country singer." In fact, the only album I've listened to his before this one was the reggae album he released in the mid-2000s. That wasn't a bad album by the way, but it didn't really change my perception of Willie. In all honesty, this shouldn't have changed my opinion of him either. It's an album of covers which isn't my favorite way to judge an artist, but when I think about the crooners like Sinatra and Crosby I guess it makes sense that some of the all-time greats do just do standards. All things considered I still didn't know what to expect from this album but I was pleasantly surprised. I found myself listening and thinking, "Is this actually good?" It's not like Willy's voice is anything spectacular. It's smooth, it's subtle, but it works. And, it especially works on an album like this, where he can really put his own style into these classics. I didn't love every song, and I'm not here to say that this is a 10 out of 10 masterpiece or anything like that. But, it did make me realize that I've probably been sleeping on Willie Nelson. I honestly didn't even know that he was this major star in the 70s, and I certainly didn't know that this album of covers was as big of a hit as it was. Overall, a solid listen that probably earns a few extra marks from me from just exceeding expectations, but his arrangements of these standards truly are quite enjoyable.

It's starting to feel like I have a jazz bias. While I do really enjoy jazz, I wouldn't consider myself a jazz connoisseur. Yet every jazz album I'm given on here is either very strong or an absolute masterpiece. This Bill Evans album, despite being a live performance (which, to me, disqualifies works as "albums" in the artistic sense) is such a work of art, I can hardly believe it. I've listened to it three times now, and it just gets better and better. The bassist, who passed away shortly after recording this, is a virtuoso. Bill's piano playing is just gorgeous. Being a massive Disney fan, I knew of him really only from his "Alice in Wonderland" cover, which appears on the Complete Sunday at Village Vanguard Sessions, and I absolutely adore it. But I really was not prepared for how good this record would be. It's an instant add to my replay collection, and I'm already looking for it on vinyl because to me there's nothing better than jazz on vinyl.

Booker T and the MGs are kind of a one-trick pony. It's a good trick, don't get me wrong. The sound has a good groove, the keys are nice and funky, and it's just an enjoyable listen. However, it gets old after a while. I guess this album is really just nice background music, and not necessarily something I would dig into over and over to get deeper into it. There are some absolute bangers, and obviously "Green Onions" is the shining star, but beyond that it's just a solid listen and nothing more.

I'm not a fan of 80s music for the most part. If anything, this 1001 album challenge has confirmed that. There are a few bands I can think of that stand out, though, and one of those is the Talking Heads. I feel like Echo and the Bunnymen sound a lot like early Talking Heads when they're at their best. Which makes sense because 1980 when this album came out might as well be the late 70s in terms of music. So, this album was fine, and there are a few tracks I really enjoyed ("Do It Clean" being my favorite of the album). But, a lot of it sounded the same, and I felt that while it was mostly enjoyable, it wasn't anything remarkable, and I was ready to be done with this by the end.

I'm sure I'm not alone in seeing The Zombies on here and having no idea who they are. I'm also sure I'm not alone in seeing The Zombies and thinking they're probably some early punk bands like the Misfits or Iggy Pop and the Stooges. Of course, that second notion was dispelled about 5 seconds into the opening track. As for the first? We'll get to that in a bit. Imagine, then, my surprise at finding out The Zombies are a Beatles-esque band from the late 60s. Perhaps even capitalizing on The Beatles earlier sound that they had moved on from quite a bit by this point. Despite my slight accusations of imposterism, I actually really enjoyed this album. The melancholy baroqueness of the strings with the rich, textured layers of vocal harmonies made for easy listening. Odyssey and Oracle is no White Album (released the same year, believe it or not) but it's damn good at what it does. Oddly enough, the final track is the album's most popular track: "Time of the Season". So, it turns out, I have heard of The Zombies. Well, maybe not them as a band but certainly their hit single. But I guess that's the curse of one hit wonders. Everyone can know your song and not know your name. Which, in The Zombies' case, is even more extreme because this song didn't become popular until after they had broken up and moved on to other projects. The Zombies were so far forgotten that fake bands were made to your in their place. I highly recommend reading the Wikipedia for those one (and reading some of the reviews here) to read about their crazy story. All in all, it's good. I mean, really good. What a strange fate the members of The Zombies suffered after recording such a great album.

I try to give every album on here a fair listen, even when I am familiar with the band's music and not a huge fan. REM is definitely one of those bands that I don't hate, but I don't exactly like. Sure, they have a few good songs, but they're overall sound, mainly Michael Stipe just doesn't do it for me. Document, as it turns out, is a pretty decent album. It's much better than I expected. But, by the end, I just wanted it to be over.

"PJ Harvey...isn't she like an alternative rock chick? Pretty sure my friends who worked at the alt-rock station back in the day loved her." "PJ Harvey...wait, wasn't she in the Batman Forever soundtrack? That was my jam in middle school!" "PJ Harvey...is she like Liz Phair? Actually I don't know what she sounds like either." PJ Harvey is a name I'm familiar with but I can't for the life of me think of anything I've heard by her. For an album released in 2000, I'm a little surprised I haven't heard it, but then again I wasn't exactly seeking out good music my senior year of high school. I started this album, then, with concepts of an expectation. 90s alt rock, female vocalist. What I wasn't expecting was something that evoked Radiohead for me. This made a lot more sense when I had two more revelations: 1) she WAS on the Batman Forever soundtrack, so I had definitely heard (and probably liked) her before, and 2) maybe she gave me Radiohead vibes on purpose. Not only is it a similar era as some of their finest work, but Thom Yorke literally shows up on one of the songs on this album (and it's fire). You can probably see where I'm going with this: I really dig this album. It's moody, atmospheric and beautiful throughout; however, it did bore me at times and isn't quite a "masterpiece" I see myself repeatedly returning to. Not all of the songs hit me in good ways and sometimes I was either bothered by her lyrics or I couldn't understand them. I swear on "Horses in my Dreams" she kept saying "I poo myself." So there's that. But yeah, a solid offering and I'm glad I listened to it. I definitely won't be writing off Liz Phair, I mean PJ Harvey, in the future. 3.5 out of 5 for me.

Honestly, putting an album like this on a list of 1,000 albums you must hear, is it joke. I don't know what the author of the book was thinking when he put some of his picks in this book, but this is not it. It's not good, and it's not noteworthy. It's fine if you like it, but why should it be included on a list like this? I mean, hell, you can't even find it on streaming services. What does that tell you? It's forgotten for a reason. Good riddance.

You know the joke about sparkling water, how it tastes like it sat next to a fruit while it was being made? That's what this album feels like. It has the essence of music, but it's not quite flavorful. I genuinely like Lo-Fi. I also discovered through this app that I like shoegaze. But this is a little too much of both. I constantly feel like I would like this more if it were turned up. I constantly feel like I would like this more if the distortion wasn't drowning out the true sounds of the songs. I constantly feel like I would like this more if the vocals weren't so wispy. At the same time, I feel like changing those things would ruin the heart of what this is supposed to be. So I'm torn. It's not quite enjoyable, but it's not so bad. It has its moments where I'm totally digging it, and then I'm just bored to tears.

I enjoy EDM, but so far I'm 0 for 3 in understanding the EDM picks I've had to review for this list. I'm guessing these have been either influential in the genre or critically acclaimed. That's all fine and dandy, but also meaningless to me. I want the EDM that has been influential on the music industry at large. If that means we get more Moby and less Roni Size then so be it. I get that my ignorance of the genre likely means I'm being unduly harsh on this album. But, my God, it was so repetitive, so boring, and the vocals were part of the problem. Maybe this just didn't age well. I don't know. Drum + bass + vocal track + loop = yawn

I've always been under the impression that U2 has a free great songs but only one good album. Achtung Baby didn't lessen that opinion, but it was definitely more enjoyable than I thought. U2 is just very digestible pop rock. This album had a few good tunes (I especially like "Mysterious Ways"), but beyond a few tracks it's mostly generic. The thing is, I found myself digging what I was hearing. So, I'm inclined to score it higher but I think it's moreso that I didn't dislike it as much as I thought I would. Ultimately I'm settling on a solid mid 3 for this one.

This album has a hell of a run on the first side. I was totally hooked, and pretty sure I was on my way to a five-star album. But, the album really does fizzle in the second half. There's still a couple bangers on there but nothing compared to the opening run of "Peter Piper", "It's Tricky", "My Adidas", "Walk This Way", and "Is It Live". It's plainly obvious how influential this album was for the genre, and even more so for rap rock as we know it today. Truly a classic. 4.5 out of 5.

I really like The Doves. 2005's Some Cities is one of my favorite albums. But I do recognize that they are kind of like Radiohead-lite. To me, Lost Souls isn't nearly as fun or enjoyable as its successor, but it's a more diverse and interesting album in my opinion. Where Some Cities is your standard pop rock joint, this album is moody and atmospheric. The only song I didn't care for was "Catch the Sun." I don't know if it was the repetitive guitar and vocals (there's lots of repetition on this album, so I don't think it's that) or just the cheesiness of it, but it did not fit the vibe compared to everything else. Other than that hiccup, which nearly every great album has, it was solid from start to finish. Now if you're reading this, go check out Some Cities next. It's a little more upbeat but still decisively The Doves.

How does an album like this make it onto a list of a thousand albums that you must hear? Serious question.

I think people are a little overzealous in their reviews of Elvis Costello on both ends of the spectrum. The people that love him, praise every aspect of this album, call it a classic, gold, one of the best debuts of all time. The people that hate it, trash it as unoriginal and uninteresting. I think it's a fine album. I did get the constant feeling that it reminded me of something I'd heard before, and I don't think the spin he put on it was as original as people give it credit for. But, he did take a sort of classic 50s or 60s rock sounds and put a more modern twist on it, even including various genres such as the blues in "Blame It on Cain" and reggae in "Watching the Detectives." Even when I did feel the sound was kind of derivative, I always enjoyed when his guitar solos came in. All in all, I'm very much in the middle ground on Elvis Costello. This was enjoyable, easily digestible music without breaking any barriers. I'd definitely give more of his stuff a listen but I'm not going to hail him as a rock and roll great.

I've always liked the Beastie Boys. I liked them, but not loved them. They have a certain appeal, you know? I was even privileged to see their last performance at Bonnaroo. So, I'm familiar with Paul's Boutique. I also understand that the Beastie Boys are nasally, grating, and somewhat annoying white rappers. However, they're all so fun, and have some lyrical prowess. Most of all, though, is the beats. I didn't realize it until I read the Wikipedia article (I always thought this was Mid Master Mike's work), but apparently the Dust Brothers produced this album. in any case the beats, largely produced by samples, are phenomenal. Each track blends into the next, get you moving, and sets the backdrop for some interesting and often hysterical Beastie Boys lyrics. Beastie Boys aren't for everyone, but for those who "get it", this album is fire.

I'm surprised how funky this album started out. Really loved the first track (though I was worried it was about to be a live album, not my favorite). "Papa Was a Rolling Stone" is an absolute tear of a song, but even my jamband-loving self was a little bored with the extended intro and overall length of the song. The album got a little less funky and a lot more soulful as it went on. Overall, it was fine, but I expected to like it more after the first few tracks.

This album is a firm 3.5 for me. The problem is, we obviously can't give half stars on this website. So, the question is whether to bump this up to a 4 or down to a 3? On the one hand, this album is a classic, and I can recognize that it is truly a good album and highly influential. On the other hand, I didn't love it..perhaps it's not as good as I expected it to be? Instead I found parts of it kind of boring. I don't know... I have no real desire to return to this one, which has kind of been a hallmark of 4 and 5 star ratings from me.

Here's another one I have no idea how it made the list. It's fine, but also pretty standard 60s folk music, right? Personally I was pretty shocked this had so many reviewers raving about how surprised they were at how good it is. It didn't do much for me, though I did like some of the instrumental sections, especially the jam out of "Matty Groves".

Just because an album doesn't "deserve" to be on this list, doesn't mean that album can't be 5 stars. This album should neither be on this list nor is it 5 stars. But, it's still a very good album. There is an eclectic mix of sounds here that make for a very interesting album. Even more interesting is how much this band reminds me of a ton of indie rock that came out 10-20 years after this one. If I didn't know this released in '93, I'd be under the impression that The Boo Radleys just take a bunch of sounds for aight indie bands and are nothing original. The reality is that indie bands likely took inspiration from The Boo Radleys, and Giant Steps is actually well before it's time. I mean, there are definitely older sounds in here (60s Brit pop vibes in "The White Noise Revisited" for example), but more often than not I'm hearing shades of Sunny Day Real Estate, the Doves, Arcade Fire, Noah and the Whale and more. My favorite song from the album "Wish I Was Skinny" with its quirky sounds in the jam/outro part might as well have been released in 2012. It's *that* spot on to that era's sound. I didn't love everything on this album, and some of the noise pop was a bit much. But, overall, this was such an enjoyable listen and there are so many tracks I not only plan to return to, I will be sharing with others like, "Have you heard this?!? They're named after To Kill a Mockingbird!"

I'm always amazed when I hear something from this era that sounds like the Beatles. Not because I view this band as a massive rip-off or something like that, but rather just how far superior The Beatles were tonall the other groups from this time period who have a similar sound. Why do I say this? The Mamas & the Papas in 1966 sound very much like early Beatles. By contrast, The Beatles around the same time were releasing Revolver, and very shortly after this, arguably one of the greatest albums of all time, Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. When you hear such quintessential 60s hits like "California Dreamin," you think of how representative of the era that song is. You don't think about how innovative it is. I'm not saying this Mama's and Papa's album is bad. Actually I think it's quite good, but it's nothing new under the sun. It's nice melodies, with some excellent harmonies, and some catchy, poppy tunes in the mix. Is The Mamas and the Papas debut album worthy of being on this list? Probably. I'm guessing it was pretty influential, and like I said it is good. But, man, if this 1001 album challenge has taught me anything it's that the Beatles are worthy of all the accolades they have, and I've also learned that if something is coming out in the sixties, it needs to not sound like this to truly impress me.

There's a lot of punk music I like. I'm more into variations of punk, especially those that are more poppy like emo, pop punk, and the like. So, I suppose some of my favorite music owes a lot to this Sex Pistols album. But, I can't say I really enjoyed this. The iconic "half singing" of Johnny Rotten is probably one of my least favorite punk trends, and though I love the ripping power chords, this album left a lot to be desired in the guitar department. Still, there were some songs that I did vibe with like "Problems" and "Submission" Overall, it's easy to see how this was a total game changer, but I much prefer the evolution that followed to the originators.

Some of the picks on this list are trash tier music with no cultural, historical, or genre-specific relevance whatsoever. This is one of those albums.

I think I've written a similar thing on every single EDM album I've been assigned on this website. Either the person picking these albums knows something I don't about the history of EDM music, or they have terrible tastes when it comes to this genre. I'm sure this was revolutionary or something in 1989, but I don't know...

Not sure what it is about this album, but I didn't hate it. I could be giving it a more favorable review because so many people were bashing on it, I have never heard of it or even this band before and they have a nice sound, or the fact that I was coming off of a string of truly horrific albums this one wasn't that bad But, I was pleasantly surprised. Pretty much sound like a cross The Beatles and Bob Dylan. I probably won't ever return to this album, which is pretty much par for the course for a lot of my three-point scores (they're fine, but nothing I'd want to listen to again), but I'm definitely not upset I had to listen to it.

Despite being a Stranger Things fan, I actually don't really like "Running up that Hill." So, I went into this album with great trepidation: '80s albums are usually misses for me, and I already didn't think I liked the singer. Kate bush, at least on this album, balance is delicately on this line between being too bizarre for me to enjoy and stunningly beautiful. And because of that, I felt like the album was a little bit hit or miss depending on the song. She definitely reminded me of bjork in places, and not in a good way, and another place is it was just this completely original melodic, atmospheric, just gorgeous pop compositions. I definitely liked the first half better than the second, but even the second half had some of those gems that I truly fell in love with. This won't be an album that I come back to over and over again; however, there are some tracks that have already been added to my favorites, and I will continue to listen to hereafter.

A lot of people are going to trash this album and reviews due to Kanye's character, and I don't blame them. But just for a minute, I'd like to talk about the art independent of the artist in this case. College dropout was undoubtedly a game changer for rap. Kanye's unique style when it came to be making, and his creative wordplay with lyrics made him an instant success. This is significant because rap had gone through a couple different iterations by this point. If you've been listening to any rap on this album generator, you might have come across some '80s or early 90s hip hop like Public Enemy or Run DMC or you may be found yourself listening to '90s gangster rap like Biggie or Mobb Deep. Kanye took a sound more reminiscent with less mainstream hip hop like Black Star or Tribe Called Quest (both referenced on this album) and made it the most popular style of rap. If you went to college in the early 00s, Kanye was likely part of the soundtrack of your life. As far as the album itself. I don't think it's Kanye's best work, but it is indicative of his style (meaning you could listen to College Dropout and "get it"), and some of his best work, like "Jesus Walks" is on this one. But, the album is a bit too long, not just because of the skits, which I get are just a part of rap albums but they're not good here, but also because many of the songs just go on for too long and become quite repetitive. Also, I think the second half of the album is much better than the first, for whatever that's worth. Now, back to Kanye the artist. He's lost his mind for sure, and I can't think of anything he's released in the last ten years that's worth mentioning, but do we dismiss the first few albums of greatness? Well, I understand the sentiment of not giving him money via streaming, but let's say you had a ripped copy of this album somewhere, does it hold up? I'd say it does, but it's also rough to listen to knowing what we know about Kanye now. And, his massive ego and his misogyny are already present on his first album. Plus, we're not just talking about generic rap ego (like "I got more money than you" type stuff) but almost equating himself to God, which he does unabashedly and very obviously in his later work. All in all, I do think this is a great album and it's worthy of this list, but due to issues with who Kanye is as a person, I think it's a one and done for me, despite being such a huge part of my early 20s.

For someone who isn't a huge fan of country, and someone who doesn't appreciate K.D. Lang (based on what I've heard from her), this album certainly exceeded my expectations. It was a mostly enjoyable listen that I have no desire to return to ever again

If you looked at my genre reviews, you'd think I hate electronic music. I've yet to rate a single one above 2 stars. I'm convinced either those who curate these lists understand something about EDM that I don't, or they have terrible taste in EDM. Most video games have more interesting and less repetitive soundtracks than this.

Based on the limited exposure I've had to John Lennon's solo career (yuck) and Yoko Ono's music (huge barf), I thought I would hate this album. Turns out, Yoko doesn't show up on this (to the best of my knowledge) and the name is just something weird they did where they both released an album with the same name. In any case, it's all for the best that this is solely a Lennon album. After listening, I can say I quite enjoyed about half of it, and the other half wasn't bad, it just wasn't anything special. I'm not sure how this album was so critically acclaimed. It seems that people highly rated it more based on the artist than on the music itself. Or, it could just be that the album didn't age super well. All in all, it's a fine listen and I totally get why it's on this list. I might re-listen to it, and I'll definitely revisit a couple of my favorites from it, but that's about it.

I'm not surprised this album is as good as it is. Earth, Wind, and Fire is definitely a band that knows how to throw down. I can't give it 5 stars because there were a couple songs that were too weird and off-putting, such as "All About Love (First Impression)". I can accept one "auto-skip" on a masterpiece, but not more than one. Other than a couple total duds for me, this was so soulful in places, so funky in others. I loved it.

This is the only Common album I've ever known, so I was surprised to find that this was his sixth release. It's good hip hop, that's for sure. And, I hate to admit it, but it's obvious that part of what makes this album so good is the Kanye production. My only complaint about this album is that it's not very catchy. Despite this being an album that I'd heard many times over in my college days (mostly because my roommate was super into it), I could only recall a couple songs. Still, it's really well done, and I now know why my roommate liked it so much.

Some cool guitar work here and there, but overall I just didn't enjoy the vibe of this album. Normally I'd write more, but barely even remember listening to this one.

Yet again I'm listening to another band that sounds like the British Invasion from the 60s and I'm comparing them to the Beatles. Interestingly in this case, these guys are American, but they certainly have that sound. Here's the thing: it's not that I don't like this. I do. Actually I really enjoyed this album! "Kicks" was a great opening track, and I loved the sound in "There's Always Tomorrow" and "I'm Not Your Stepping Stone" was a bop to name a few. But I just feel like by 1966 there were much more interesting things happening in music. This album just sounds like everything that came before it, especially for something labeled "psychedelic". Songs like "There She Goes" are the most generic crap of this era. Consider you had Beatles releasing Revolver, Simon and Garfunkel with The Sounds of Silence, Beach Boys' Pet Sounds, and the Doors starting to do their thing. So final consensus is: good music, enjoyable listen, but nothing innovative or noteworthy happening here, and also nothing special about this band to warrant putting this release on a list of "must hear" albums.

Came here to write my scathing review, read the first few top reviews here, and realized I had nothing more to add. This album is the musical equivalent of La Croix sparkling water.

If I had a $1 for every Johnny Cash album recorded live at a prison that this website recommended to me, well I have two dollars, which isn't very much, but it is kind of funny, isn't it? I like Johnny Cash, and this album was fine, but after listening to Folsom, I didn't really feel like I needed this one. It's just more of the same.

This album is such an enjoyable listen. And I'm ashamed to admit, I somehow had never heard of Solomon Burke before this. His voice is rich, he has great range, and the melodies and little guitar riffs were quite catchy. This is very close to being a five-star album for me; there really isn't a bad song in the album. The only reason I'm not giving it the masterpiece treatment is because the sound is a bit homogenous, and it kind of wore on me by the end despite the runtime being on the shorter end. I'll definitely be listening to this one again very soon. 4.5 stars.

I don't know what he's saying, or why this is considered an album worth hearing. But, I sure am glad I heard it. I enjoyed every second of this, and I was surprised that it was over already when it finished. Will definitely be going back for more.

This is an album I have to listen to when my wife isn't in the car or room. It's noisy, busy, and most of the songs don't have a clearly defined structure. Still, there's some redeeming qualities here. I didn't find it as melodic and captivating as the last Dinosaur Jr. album I listened to (and I'm not quite sure we need more than one Dinosaur Jr. album on this list), but it's entertaining.

I liked this album more than I thought it would, but it's still crap. it's even more crap when you consider what else was coming out at this time. '70s Rock was iconic, bombastic, full of insane talent. Go listen to Led Zeppelin, or Deep Purple, or Queen and leave this gimmick hand for the losers

Finally an electronic album I've heard before. I'm not saying I love this album, but I finally am assigned one that I understand why it's included on this list. This album was everywhere in the late 90s, and back then MTV was still relevant, and you would see prodigy videos on it pretty regularly. My feelings on this album are somewhat mixed. A few songs are very good, straight up bangers. A few are practically unlistenable because of how annoying they are. The rest are just sort of mid. But it's no doubt this is an EDM album that you should hear. 3.5 stars

This is exactly the kind of album I got into this 1001 album generator for in the first place. I had heard of Carole King, and I definitely knew the hits on this album. But I've certainly never sat and listened to this start to finish. I was surprised how many songs I recognized, and not usually because of King's version but often because someone had covered her. This 100% qualifies as a perfect album in my book. Great opening tune that really grabs you, a consistent sound that's easily identifyable but not so repetitive that all the songs sound the same, and not an auto-skip song on the whole thing. Not only is this album one I know I will return to frequently, it's one I'd love to have on vinyl to throw on a lazy Saturday afternoon.

The first song pretty much says it all. It asks, "How much can you take?" And the answer is "not too much" as I quickly gave up on this one. DNF as I could barely get through five songs, let alone two and a half hours of this rubbish.

I am insulted that trash like this is included on a list of noteworthy albums. Honestly in the bottom five of the 150 or so albums I've had to review thus far. Absolutely awful.

I don't know what happened to my review of this album. But I gave it another listen and sort of skimmed through the tracks, and I definitely listen to this one. I remember feeling pretty mad about it, I've gotten PJ Harvey before and I definitely like her sound but I don't think it's anything special.

I went into this album being well familiar with the title track, "Back at the Chicken Shack." Knowing that song, however, really tricked me into thinking the rest of the album would sound similar: an organ-led groove akin to Booker T and the M.G.s. What I got was a straight, classic jazz album. The only song I didn't love was ironically "Back at the Chicken Shack." It's got a great groove but it's too repetitive and goes on for too long. The rest of the album is straight fire jazz, and I loved it. I want to add more Jimmy Smith to my listening repertoire.

Pet Sounds is the epitome of the type of album you *should* find on this list. It's largely considered a masterpiece. It has critical acclaim and commercial success. And, it's innovative, either within the genre or in a technical aspect. In the case of Pet Sounds, it's both. I remember when I first heard this album. I was 22 years old, studying abroad in England, caught between a failing relationship back home and falling for a different girl who was in my dorm. We were having a conversation about the best albums of all time, and she mentions this one. Fast-forward a couple of weeks, and long story short, she had moved back to the States. I was shopping in a used record store, and I saw this CD on sale for cheap. I immediately fell in love. I listened to it before bed, on the bus, walking to class, and so on. Of course, there was the strange sentimental attachment to it, and surely that has just as much to do with me remembering my first time hearing it as the greatness of the album itself. Classic and memorable in every sense.

When I was in high school, some of my friends who were mostly into heavier rock like Deftones or System of a Down, were inexplicably obsessed with Bjork. I couldn't stand it. I thought it was terrible music and hated every second of them playing anything by Bjork. Fast forward 25 years, my tastes have changed. Perhaps I was wrong about Bjork and she was the immensely talented musician my dear friends thought she was. I made it two and a half songs. I am now convinced that my friends only pretended to like Bjork because she was alternative and weird. She was artsy and unique. And, I think they thought she was hot. The reality is, this IS art. It IS unique. But that doesn't make it good. Bjork is the equivalent of walking into a modern art museum and seeing an exhibit of a looping video with a man smoking a cigarette. Ok, maybe that's art, and maybe the artist had some sort of meaning for it. But, why the hell is it in a museum? Let's stop pretending Bjork is a good musician. This album is unlistenable.

I listened to this album and reviewed it but for some reason it never saved. I just noticed it while looking back through my reviews and it's been so long that the only thing I remember is liking it more than the other Portishead album I reviewed, which received a 2. So this one gets a three with a shrug.

There is nothing truly "bad" about this album, but there's also nothing special about it either. The singing and music was fine but I was bored for most of it. Overall just a 'meh' entry on this list for me.

Some albums just have banger after banger regardless of whether the song ever saw radio play or not. Other albums have a good number of radio hits, but the rest of the album isn't very good. Joshua Tree falls somewhere in between. The three songs that open it are hits for a reason, but from there, the album sort of falls into a predictable sound. There are a few other decent songs, but nothing on the level of those three. Overall, the other tracks weren't bad, they were just boring by comparison.

The more I listen to late 70s/early 80s rock albums, the more I realize this stuff is really right up my alley. While I didn't like this Pretenders album as much as other stuff like Blondie, the Cars, Television, and the Talking Heads, it was still a super fun listen. 3.5 stars

The aughts are my favorite decade of music (that I've lived through), so anytime an artist shows up who I've never heard before, I'm immediately skeptical. This is electronic music, so I already know it's going to get crapped on. And for some of it, deservedly so. Some of the tracks get SO repetitive with the vocals, "Sunworshipper" and the title track "Destroy Rock and Roll" in particular. But overall this was a bop. It reminded me of if The Avalanches (same era) had a handful of samples in a track instead of 100s. It's nothing remarkable, and wholly undeserving of being included in this list, but it was easy listening and something I can see myself returning to again. 3.5

Although I could think of dozens of hip hop albums more worthy of being on this list, I still enjoyed this (minus the skits). I don't think that's an American bias as another reviewer suggests, I think it's "just ok" rapping. Pair that with the relative insignificance of this artist and you have a head-scratching addition to 1001 albums you must hear before you die. Some of the beats were cool with chip tune aspects and what not, but like many of the questionable rap selections for this site, I'm not sure why this one makes the cut.

Love Method Man's style. Don't love skits between songs. Overall solid hip hop but not my favorite

Joni Mitchell is a prolific singer-songwriter. Personally, I love her voice and this album was enjoyable to listen to. However, to me, it was good but not great. Maybe I'm holding it up to Blue too closely, but I couldn't help but compare it to that masterpiece of an album. As others have mentioned, this one has its moments, but overall it's a bit boring.

This is a fine listen but it's not a noteworthy album in my opinion. I was assigned some of Dusty's later work on this site and much more impressed by that. Yes she has a unique voice and this album does showcase it, but it's all standards and I feel like her district style is only starting to take it's fullest form here. Overall I left just feeling 'meh' about it

Literally the beginning of every track: "Damn this sounds cool." As soon as the vocals hit: "What the f*ck is this garbage?"

This was a super chill album, very easy to listen to. No, it's nothing groundbreaking, and only one track is truly a banger: the cover of "Only Love Can Break Your Heart". Even though it's not a "must listen," it's still a solid 3.5 stars for me.

The more I get exposed to stuff from the late '70s, the more I realize that this is absolutely an era of music for me....even when I've never heard the artist/album before. Although by the final track, I realized that I did know one song from The Damned. Strangely enough it was probably my second least favorite song on the album. Machine Gun Etiquette is such a ride from start to finish. To me, perfect albums have no skippable tracks or one track that isn't so bad it HAS to be skipped but I'd prefer to (I'm looking at you "Oh Daddy" on Rumours). For this album, it was the creepy circus clown song. When I heard this, I was convinced this would end up a 4-star album for me, but then The Damned continued to deliver song after song.b Absolute top notch stuff here, and I can't wait to return to it

This is another album that was fine, even enjoyable to listen to, but it's inclusion on this list is suspect. It sounds like pretty generic 60s psychedelic folk to me, and as far as I can tell it didn't do anything original or groundbreaking for the style.

This is probably a solid 4.5 for me, but I'll bump it up to 5 because it's just so good. My only knock against it is that CCR is just really fun blues rock but nothing groundbreaking is happening here. A couple of the songs felt a bit generic. But still a good 5 star album. Nothing skippable, easy to listen to but with some standout songs for sure.

I actually really enjoy reggae. I don't know a ton about the genre or specific artists, but obviously everyone knows Bob Marley. I've definitely listened to Bob Marley's Legend album, but that's just like greatest hits. What I didn't realize was that almost every song on Exodus is on his greatest hits album. Truly unbelievable.

I own this album on vinyl, so that means it's one of my favorites and at least very near a perfect album to me. But, the thing about Chicago is that you are either getting an in-your-face classic rock jam (like "25 or 6 to 4") or you are getting the hokiest soft rock (like "Saturday in the Park"), and they both exist simultaneously on each album. This debut album is really no exception, but I do think the cheesy songs are all pretty good...they at least contain some nice guitar work and musicianship. The songs that really show off guitar playing like "Poem 58" are just so good, though. It is no surprise that this album really helped the band take off. It's kind of the best of both aforementioned worlds. Yes, I get that we don't need the wank fest that is "Free Form Guitar" but this also didn't need to be a double album with live tracks. A producer probably could have made this a masterpiece, but instead it's a bit bloated and we'll have to settle for just really good classic rock. Thankfully, when listening on vinyl, "Free Form Guitar" is the final track on one of the discs, so very easy to skip.

I knew every song despite never listening to this album. It was an ethereal journey.

This wasn't AS bad as the reviews suggest, but it's certainly not good. If it weren't for the vocalist and lyrics, it could probably be a 2.5-3 star album. I'm just glad it was short.

I dug the vibes of this album, and found it interesting and engaging for most of its duration. And while I won't give it an amazing review, I feel like this is pretty favorable considering I immediately rolled my eyes and groaned when I saw the total run time. Double albums are a real gamble. More often than not there is a bunch of fluff that isn't all worth it to hear. Case in point: one of my favorite bands, Wilco, nearly made me quit this website when I had to listen to their double album a.m.. Lije calexico, it's not that it was bad, it's that it was so much of the same, and I just got incredibly bored of it. This album is actually better than that one in that the sound is at least eclectic enough to keep me listening, and the 90 minutes pretty much flew by. I don't get all the five star reviews raving about how great this album is, but it's easily a 3.5 for me.

After the jump scare of the link taking me to a 2-hour deluxe album, I reluctantly waded into an album I was convinced is hate after the first track But I thought it was actually pretty good? It's weird; it's brash; and lyrically it can be downright annoying at times. But it's fun, funky, and interesting. That being said, even though I enjoyed about half of the tracks, I totally get the negative reviews, and I'm convinced that Ian Dury's debut album's inclusion on this list is just, as the British say, taking the piss out" of us with making us listen to it. Favorite tracks: My Old Man, Clevor Trever

Elvis's life and career is tainted with controversy, but one cannot deny the cultural and historical significance of this album. It's a bit basic and repetitive, so not a 5-star album by any means, but still an important one and easy to listen to. My biggest complaint is he didn't write any of the songs, but he sure does sing em nice and play a pretty decent guitar.

I've enjoyed OutKast since 1998. I remember hearing "Rosa Parks" and just being blown away. Still one of the greatest hip hop songs ever in my opinion. I then went backwards and heard ATLiens, which became an all-time favorite of mine and probably what I think is their best album. When Speakerboxx/Love Below came out, the hype was unreal. But I remember it not grabbing me like other OutKast albums did. As a teenager I didn't think much of it. But looking back, and especially relistening with a critical ear, it's very clear tl;dr: like most double albums, it's too bloated and would have been much better had they taken the best of both albums. Now, I understand the reasoning between the double album concept and that they were essentially two creative visions brought together to improve sales rather than risk both artists releasing solo albums to potentially mixed interest, BUT I think Big Boi and Andre 3000 are at their best when they're working together. Speakerboxx feels more like an OutKast album but missing that Andre weirdness. Most of the best tracks do feature him anyway. I think despite this, Love Below is actually the better album. It's undeniably more creative, more full of risks, and more unique and feels like it's own thing. Not to mention it has what's probably the most popular OutKast song ever, and one we'll probably hear at every wedding for at least fifty years, "Hey Ya!" All in all, it was an enjoyable listen, which is saying a lot for something I had to put two hours into (it helps that I skipped the skits), but this totally didn't need to be a double album from two distinct artists. In a way, I think I was ultimately disappointed with this when it first released because it was supposed to be OutKast's final album and it isn't *quite* an OutKast album and it feels a little like we got robbed by what it could have been. Still, skip the slop and stick around for the bangers and I think you'll ultimately end up appreciating this one.

"Welcome to the Jungle" has to be one of the best album openings ever. But does that mean I loved Appetite for Destruction? Well, it's complicated. What I learned from listening to this is that I really just don't like hair metal. I've listened to other bands like Def Leppard and Motley Crue, and absolutely hated it start to finish. This one I didn't particularly enjoy, but I can see why people rate it so highly. The aforementioned opening track is an all-timer for this genre, and "Paradise City" is super fun as well. Of course, these guys are known for their ballads too and while I don't think "Sweet Child of Mine" really compares to "Knocking on Heaven's Door" and "November Rain" it's still a great song. So, even though I think this album is objectively good, beyond the hits, there wasn't much that really appealed to me.

It's funny how much expectations play into your perception of something. Hyped out of your mind for the latest installment of your favorite TV show? It's bound to disappoint. Get a decent and cheap meal at random restaurant you had no other choice but to stop at on a road trip? Impressive. I was 100% sure I would loathe this album. Not only did I think Morrissey is an insufferable twat (I mean, he is, but that doesn't mean his music is insufferable...I love Kanye's early stuff for example), but also I was assigned The Smith's The Queen is Dead, which is widely considered their best work and ends up on most greatest albums of all time list and called it "the most overrated album of all time." Needless to say, my expectations were beyond low. So naturally, when I kind of liked some of the songs, I was pretty impressed. When I found that I enjoyed most of the songs minus Morrissey's holier-than-thou lyrics, it was easy to rank this album outside of the gutter. So, yeah, it's a solid "mid tier" album for me, which makes it quite honestly a strong entry on this list.

What a bizarre album. The first three tracks sounded like Minecraft music and nearly put me to sleep. Seriously, I was driving at night and had to put on something else because I was getting drowsy! The fourth track sounded much more like what I've come to expect from "kraut rock." I thought it was actually kind of good even though the vocals were pretty grating. The fifth track was back to instrumentals but now a little more upbeat. And the sixth felt like a mashup of it all. Overall, it's fine but probably something I'll never return to and really begs the question: why is this on the list?

This is a definitive middle school album for me. I wasn't allowed to own it because of the parental advisory, but I heard it often at friends' houses (along with The Offspring, Smashing Pumpkins and others). The funny thing about being 13 or so, is that your tastes are much more informed by what your friends listen to or watch, and what's popular, and less to do with personal taste. at the same time, I listened to main stream country because my best friend did, and I got super into Led Zeppelin because my 20-something guitar teacher (who was basically the coolest person alive) loved them. The only one of the aforementioned artists that I still listen to regularly is Zeppelin. So, the question is: does my adult self, with obviously refined music tastes, still think Green Day rocks? Well, that's maybe a slightly complicated answer because I really don't enjoy Green Day. Their poppier stuff like "When September Ends" doesn't appeal to me, but Dookie isn't that..at all (despite what some die hard punk fans in the reviews here might have you think...this album might pop but it is certainly still punk). And quite honestly, I think it kind of fucking rocks.

I don't know if I have much of an opinion about ska. The pop radio hits in the mid 90s were enjoyable for me (unlike a lot of people who hated them) but I never got deep into any ska album or catalogue. Although come to think of it, I did love Less than Jake's Hello Rockview, so maybe I do have an affinity for ska. In any case, I freaking loved everything about this album. It does get a bit repetitive around 2/3 of the way in and the last third is definitely a bit weaker than what came before it, but still overall just really, really dug this.

I kind of enjoyed listening to this but mostly because it made me feel like I was at Disney's Animal Kingdom, which has music like this around the park. I don't think it's something I'll put on just for fun, though, and I definitely don't "get" it. I do like world music, but overall this was a bit too 'yayayaya' for me, and it was definitely too long.

I have to admit, I was kind of dreading this assignment after I had just finished Bob Dylan's Blood on the Tracks. I thought for sure it would be folk overkill, especially with such a slow, moody album. But this one surprised me as it was quite beautiful. Yeah it's a bit slow, and I didn't love all the tracks but it's just damn good. Favorite songs: Revelator, I Want to Sing That Rock and Roll, Everything Is Free

It took me way too long in life to realize how good David Bowie is. I'm familiar with his hits like "Let's Dance" but the only albums I've listened to start to finish are Hunky Dory and The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. Both are beyond fantastic...masterpieces in my opinion. So naturally, I was super excited to not only get assigned a Bowie album, but to have it be both one I haven't heard before and one with iconic album art. Surely this has to be another masterpiece, right? It's good, don't get me wrong, but it's not great. The aforementioned masterpieces eclipse this one by a large margin. And that's ok...not every thing and artist makes has to be mind blowing, original, perfect, etc. It's a mid tier album for me to be sure. But I did enjoy it, especially the first two tracks (which were so good, I was convinced I was heading into yet another Bowie masterpiece). My biggest takeaway from listening to this one was how clearly he is a major influence on my favorite band Phish. Of course, it's not like this was unknown to me...they literally have a song called "David Bowie", have covered many of his tunes, and even dedicated an entire show to covering one of his albums. But I'd never heard the influence as much on the others I've heard compared to this one. So that was a cool experience amid what was ultimately a bit of a disappointment.

Bob Dylan is really hit or miss for me. I was curious how what many to consider his best album would appeal to me. It was really enjoying it until "Idiot Wind". The way he pronounces 'idiot' really set my teeth on edge and I had to endure almost five minutes of that one. The next two songs were great and then came "Lily, Rosemary, and the Jack of Hearts" which was so long, so repetitive, so utterly boring. It turns out: even Dylan's "best" is hit or miss with me. But the rest of the album was more good than bad, and I especially enjoyed "Buckets of Rain".

World music like this is cool. I probably don't need a whole album of it, but this was a solid listen nonetheless.

This album was a pleasant surprise. I had never heard of Joan Armatrading before, and I'm still not quite sure how she made it into the 1001 albums you must hear, but this was overall an enjoyable listen. My favorite tracks leaned into the more bluesy stuff rather than the softer stuff, but it was all pretty solid. Favorite songs: Join the Boys, Save Me, Like Fire

I've listened to Ryan Adams since this album came out. I've seen him live a couple of times. So, what I'm about to say will undoubtedly come with some bias. The site has a problem with separating the art from the artist. And that's all fine and dandy if you want to be a reviewer who rates based on character instead of music, but at least be universal in your application. Ryan Adams, who ended up on the hot seat in 2019 gets completely lambasted in a fair share of the reviews here. But go and look at Sam Cooke, an artist also marred by controversy, and you'll find nothing but praise OR criticism focused on the music alone. It's hypocritical to immediately write off an artist because they are a scumbag...at least in the case of someone like Ryan Adams or Dave Matthews or Elvis Presley. We aren't talking about the lead singer of lostprophets who literally did evil, unimaginable shit. Does Ryan Adams suck as a person? Sure seems like it. But, he's just kind of an asshole, right? Maybe a womanizer, a substance abuser, and more. So yeah, he's not good. But what about his music? Personally I think it's hard to argue against this debut album. It's original yet still within the confines of folk rock. Some catchy tunes, some emotional ones, and some nice guitar playing. Overall I think it's a solid entry on this list, not perfect but memorable enough to be worth listening to. My only complaint is that the album kind of fizzles out and ends with a whimper.

This album is cartoonishly funky. Like they are trying so hard to make everyone understand they are 100% about the funk. Don't get me wrong...it's good funk. My only complaint is that most of the tracks drag on and get repetitive before wrapping up. I get that you ride a nice groove for awhile but I prefer tighter funk compositions like what The Meters or Sly and the Family Stone bring. Also, I'm surely letting the fact that I saw P Funk perform well beyond their prime impact my opinion of this album. They were terrible.

I honestly wish I could give this album more than 3 stars, and honestly, I probably just wasn't feeling it at the time. But, what I've realized about Queen in two albums now is that their hits are top-of-the-chart near perfection good. Obviously this album has "Bohemian Rhapsody" and "You're My Best Friend" which the former alone puts this one in the 'worthy' category in terms of cultural impact and musical quality/influence. I mean we have Freddie Mercury vocals and Brian May on guitar. What's not to love? Yet, I just couldn't get into most of this. It was the same with the other Queen album I've been assigned. It's just a bit too weird, too all over the place to really find it's footing for me. I did enjoy about half of it, but some other tracks I couldn't wait to end.

Was this a masterpiece? No, not quite, but it is incredibly fun. It's even more impressive that it was captured live. I really kind of hate live releases on this site, but this one felt like an actual album with a live show feel. Loved it!

An album that didn't sell well but was way ahead of its time and later became a cult classic? What a surprise. This album was crazy to me. It was like if blues decided to be raw and wild. You can definitely hear the Jim Morrison and Doors influence, so it made sense to hear that it was a Doors concert that pushed Iggy Pop to make music like this. It was gutteral and abrasive at times but overall I really loved it. I need more of this game-changing music on this site.

Yet another late 70s rock album that further proves that this era of music is just the type of stuff I'm looking for. This one was a little more punk than I'd like it to be and so doesn't hold up to the likes of Television and Talking Heads, but it was still super enjoyable from start to finish. And, like I've noticed in all rock entries from the late 70s, the influences of these groups on the alt rock of the aughts is undeniable and The Undertones are no exception. I'll be returning to many tracks from this self-titled album to be certain, if not repeated listenings of the whole thing start to finish.

I was in my 20s in the 2000s, so even though I never really got into Muse, I recognized a lot of the tracks on this album. All of those radio hits were of course bangers, but I was most surprised by some of the songs that were new to me, especially Take a Bow, City of Delusion, and Glorious. To me, it falls just short of 5 star for two reasons: 1) there were a few songs I didn't particularly enjoy, and 2) they definitely have a bit of a homogeneous sound. Though, in defense of the homogeny of their sound, it is a pretty cool sound they have going on even if some of the tracks sound the same. It's like Abba meets Radiohead and the heaviness is cranked up. Overall, a very strong entry and another reminder as to why I like this era of music so much.

I remember being in college in the early 2000s and having a talk with my boomer dad about music. He was lamenting that they don't make albums like they used to, and that nothing coming out today would stand the test of time like so many of the classic acts from the 60s and 70s. I begged to disagree, to which he challenged me to "name one artist that people would still be listening to fifty years from now." I said Radiohead. As someone who has listened to Radiohead since Pablo Honey, I came in fully prepared to give this one 4 stars since it one that I don't return to as much of the others. I feel like OK Computer is the album that really got me into them, and it was also the one that completely changed their sound from what was a fairly straightforward 90s alt rock band to something more...electronic? Not to mention Kid A through In Rainbows are all easily 5 stars in my book, so I was a bit let down that this was my first Radiohead on this list. But what a fool I am! This may be Radiohead before they truly defined themselves, but it is 90s alt rock at its absolute peak. Literally every track is good. I can't believe I had kind of forgotten about The Bends over the years. Yes, Pablo Honey started it all, and as the Wikipedia entry for this points out, The Bends was not able to reproduce the commercial success that came from "Creep". But to me, this is where Radiohead truly begins to take off. They'll reinvent their sound with OK Computer and refine it with each album that follows, but The Bends is undeniably Radiohead to it's very core. In fact, it's probably the most accessible Radiohead album out there. Now, it's only been 25 years or so since that conversation with my dad, but with [spoiler: I looked it up] six albums on this list from them, I don't think I need to wait another 25 to be proven right. Maybe my dad should start with The Bends.

I was ready for the 1-2 punch opener of "Tiny Dancer" and "Levon" but I wasn't ready to absolutely love the first four tracks. I guess "Razor Face" has kind of dumb lyrics, but the outro absolutely rips. "Indian Summer" is one of those songs, though, that the melodies and bridges and solos, no matter how beautiful, can save the beyond cringey lyrics. Even if this wasn't offensive in the 70s, I still have to think wtf were they trying to do with this song? Then "Holiday Inn" is such a banger I completely forgot about how bad the previous song was. The rest of the album was solid, but I didn't like it nearly as much as the rest. The choir in "All the Nasties" definitely threw me. Overall, this is really good and makes me want to listen to more Elton John. But also I never realized how weird his lyrics are.

I remember liking M.I.A.'s "Paper Planes" song back in the day. It's catchy and fun to dance to. However, I always felt like the song goes on for too long and is way too repetitive. Turns out, that's pretty much M.I.A. in a nutshell. But, it's even worse because the songs tend to be more annoying than catchy. Yeah, there are some good songs but they are still repetitive and overstay their welcome. Then there are the annoying songs that are also repetitive. It's definitely a cool, original sound, but that doesn't mean I need to like it.

If you like hokey stuff, you might enjoy this. Musically, I thought there was some interesting stuff going on; vocally, I could have done with less than half of what we got. I really dug "Hotel" and there were definitely some tracks I thought were pretty darn good even with all the cheesiness (like "Somewhere in Hollywood") BUT I cannot look past the fact that this album has absolutely no reason to be on this list. I didn't hate it but I was ready for it to end and have no plans to relisten. 2.5

The late 70s has been blowing my mind on this list, so when I saw this came out in November 1977, I immediately got excited. The band name and album cover were intriguing, so I rushed to listen to it Let me tell you that my excitement died about as quickly as it came. Good Lord there was nothing interesting about that first track. Noise rock, no chorus, no melody, whiny vocals, crappy lyrics (we get it, you wish you could die") for nine horrid minutes. GTFO Alright sometimes opening tracks set a vibe that just isn't for me but the rest of the album is good to great (Black Sabbath's self-titled debut comes to mind). Onto track 2. Some weird rant about Christianity in verse. Oh man, this is even worse than I thought. At least it's short... oh wait, they just keep going with it in track 3 but now it's set to "music" At least the next song "Annalisa" kicks off with some drum and bass that I'm digging, but at this point I hate this band, which is just reaffirmed when that turd starts singing. The album gets better after this and feels more like a post-punk album as it's described. Still, the first half is so bad --I mean literally one of the worst albums I've listened to on this site--that it made me not care that the latter half was decent.

One of my favorite CDs in middle school was Black Sabbath's greatest hits. This is my second Black Sabbath album on this site, and in both cases, my favorite songs were not actually on the greatest hits. And, in both cases one or two songs makes it just shy of a five star album to me. In this case I would hardly call "FX" a song, and other than that "Changes" was easily my least favorite. So, if it weren't for that one to punch of WTF, this would easily be a five-star album. These guys absolutely kick ass, and I'm guessing there's more of their stuff to come on this site. 4.5

I didn't "get" Bowie for a long time. Sure, I knew the radio hits ("Changes" obviously included in that) but I never really got into his albums until the indie aughts movement where I learned just how big of an influence he is. I was on some message board and someone brought up this album as one of the greatest of all time. It has since become a personal favorite, and although it might not be Bowie's best (I'd probably give that to Ziggy Stardust), Hunky Dory is probably the best to me. I always chuckle when I get an album that's on my personal list of greatest of all time. It's an easy 5-star for me. But will I listen to it again? Of course, why wouldn't I?

There are plenty of good albums that don't deserve the title "album you must hear before you die." I have my own personal list of 100 favorite albums, and while most of it is filled with classics, modern classics, and revolutionary albums, there is a good 1/5 or so that are just great albums I happen to love. Occasionally on this list, I come across an album that feels like the creators of the list just really like it and wanted to include it. This album feels like one of those. The only thing noteworthy I can think about this one is that it features the theme song for That 70s Show. That being said, I mostly enjoyed listening to this. It's a pretty average 70s rock album. And even though it might not be critically acclaimed, or winning an awards, or going platinum, or getting them into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, it's a good record that I'm happy I listened to. My only real complain is that the second half got a little sappy and a lot the songs sounded the same. This ultimately kept it out of 4-star territory for me.

My anticipation for this one was mixed. I've been loving almost everything from the late 70s, but my last "kraut rock" albums was horrible. Still, Kraftwerk is a household name, so I was excited to finally give them a lesson. A few songs in and this is definitely weird, not in a bad way, but weirder than I expected. There are some interesting and cool grooves going and they're definitely a vibe. The lyrics are about as basic as they come and that was probably my biggest turn-off about this album. I get it, German dudes singing in English with a limited vocabulary but it made for a lot of repetition. Speaking of being repetitive, pretty much all the songs went on with the same rhythm or melody for too long and I'd lose interest and be ready for the next song. The whole thing went by in a breeze, though, and I didn't really tire of the whole kraut rock vibe. By the way, I never expected kraut rock to basically be early electronic music, but after two "quintessential" albums in the genre, it's clear that's what it is. I don't know why but I always assumed it was actual rock music, you know, with guitars and drums. Maybe it's just the name.

I was actually dreading this album a little bit. Madonna is fine and a worthy pop entry here, but her late work? Seems like a waste of space on the list. So how did I actually end up feeling about this after listening to it? Well, I have a lot of thoughts but let me get this out of the way: it's a solid album. It's not going to blow you away, but it's not trash either. I scratch my head at the very polarized reviews on this site because this album seems perfectly...fine. What I will say is that I think this album succeeds in spite of Madonna or rather this album could exist as a pretty good electronica album without Madonna's vocals. Her vocals are fine, there's nothing wrong with them but she doesn't let loose and give us true the Madonna vocal prowess we're used to. This album feels like it could have had any generic singer with decent talent and it would sound roughly the same. And, Im not sure if Madonna wrote the lyrics or not, but that's probably my biggest complaint here. The pseudo spirituality punctuated by cheese (like what even is a candy perfume girl?) just doesn't work for me. And the electronic vibe is very chill and cool (possibly understated), but it follows a trend I've noticed a lot in pop music. They take what's popular in EDM a few years prior, recycle it by making it fit a pop mold with verses and catchy choruses, and attach it to a big name (Bieber's stuff in the 2000s nearly perfected this model). It's fine but, to me, it's not the most impressive stuff happening in music and not really something I'd say is worthy of making a list of the top 1001 albums of all time. So all in all, I was probably right in my original assessment that this is a bit of wasted space, but my dread was mostly unfounded as this was a perfectly fine mid-tier album to listen to. I definitely recognized a few of the singles from back in the MTV days, and they were mostly the best songs on the album but "Ray of Light" definitely stands above the rest. That song is a straight bop.

I don't love '80s music, and feeling pretty okay about one of the greatest albums from that era pretty much confirms that. This one definitely had some bangers, but the rest of it just felt pretty homogeneous. It's a good album and I totally get why it's on this list but it's not really for me.

I feel pretty the same way about this album as I did Music from Big Pink. There are songs I genuinely loved, and one can't deny the significance of The Band, but most of the album was just kind of boring...and I'm sorry, but the vocals aren't good. I guess The Band is just one of those bands that I'd prefer a greatest hits album to whole LPs.

The audacity of this app giving me a Kraftwerk album and then three albums later giving me another. I didn't have the first one, but it was bizarre and I wasn't eager to listen to it again, or listen to another album by them, or even another kraut rock album in general. My biggest complaint of the previous album i reviewed of theirs was that the songs had nice grooves but they went on for too long and got repetitive. So, you can imagine my expectations when I see a 42-minute, 5-track album. And a 22-minute opening song? Maybe it won't be completely boring throughout. 17 minutes in..."I am NOT having fun on the Autobahn" The outro was kind of interesting, but again, what could have been a minute or less, was over three minutes of the same chord progression. Whatever, I'm just glad I'm over halfway through this thing. Unfortunately the second "half" of the album was worse than the opening song. So much boring ambient noise. The only song that was slightly memorable was the last one but I think that was because it reminded me of the theme of Animal Crossing: New Horizons, and even then I got sick of it when it repeated for the 20th time.

I don't know if it was because I immediately started this after an album I hated, but I like the vibe of this one right from the start. It's not an incredible album, and it's not one I really see myself returning to, but I was pleasantly surprised that I enjoyed this one from start to finish.

Damnit why am I listening to a Bee Gee's album that's over an hour long? What did I do to deserve this, and more importantly, why is it a "must-listen" album? Even though I didn't like the last Bee Gee's album, that was also "not" a Bee Gee's album in the sense that it wasn't disco (which this also appears to be...at least from the Wikipedia article and from what I can tell based on the first song), I still try to give everything on this website a fair shake regardless of what my expectations are. Like, I get it, the Bee Gees before disco are really going for their best folk meets Beatles-esque "exploratory" era impression. But, who is the target audience for this? I feel like the curator of this is like, "Trust me bro, the Bee Gees were legit good before Saturday Night Fever!" But the Bee Gees, at least from my understanding, are only musically and culturally significant BECAUSE of their movie soundtrack disco era. Look at the top songs of theirs on Spotify..they're almost all from the same album and they're definitely all from the same two albums! No one cares about this other crap. Trafalgar was terrible. Why was that on the list? This one is probably worse because it's terrible AND long! Did I hate every track? No, there were some decent songs and some moments of songs I actually enjoyed, but the whole time I'm still thinking "what the hell is this? Why should I care?" Just put Saturday Night Fever on the list and call it a day. One can probably make the case we don't need any Bee Gees albums on this list, but if we're going to include one, it should be the one with all the hits. Also what's up with singing about Christmas trees in May? Oh well, at least it's the second-to-last song. God this sucked.

I don't even like Metallica that much but after some crappy Bee Gees album, I am so ready to rock. Turns out, one's opinion of Metallica shouldn't matter much...this is a 5-star album by all metrics. First of all, similar to an album like Fleetwood Mac's Rumours, the sheer amount of songs on this that saw significant radio play is insane. Secondly, the guitar work, drums, and vocals are all top notch and work incredibly well together. There is a cohesive sound throughout but unlike many bands with a signature sound, the songs don't get too repetitive. The last couple of songs weren't as strong as the rest, but I don't think there was a bad song on the album. Metallica, I take back most of the bad things I've said about you--you have not only at least one great album in you, you have a masterpiece.

A third Morrissey album? I feel like that Michael Scott meme where he's screaming, "No! God, no! Why?!" To be fair, it wasn't as bad as I expected it to be. I find Morrissey's whiny crooning a bit unbearable at times but I love the guitar sound and can hear how The Smiths have been influential. And I even really like, not just tolerated some songs like "Well I Wonder" And I'm sure there will be people who read this review and just think I'm not giving The Smiths a chance because Morrissey is insufferable...I actually know little to nothing about his character, although I am aware people don't like him as a person. No prior knowledge made me dislike The Smiths; I was actually looking forward to the first album by them that I was assigned, but it turns out, after two Smiths albums and one Morrissey solo album, I do not like this music very much at all.

This is certainly interesting, but that doesn't make it good. I dunno man, some songs work, others don't. I guess I'm glad I can say I've listened to a Tom Waits album, but I'd rather not listen to any another.

This is my third PJ Harvey album, and they're fine but like, maybe just pick one? I don't mean these aren't good. I've enjoyed each of them for the most part. But I've enjoyed them for all pretty much the same reasons. I dig her vibe but some of the tracks, especially vocals, just kind of annoy me. I appreciate when she's being dark and moody but not eccentric and a bit kooky for some reason. I had to go back and read my review of her 2001 album Stories from the City, Stories from the Sea to make sure I wasn't crazy thinking that my review for this album would be almost identical. Nope. The only difference is really that I started that review explaining I had preconceived ideas about what PJ Harvey would sound like, but I actually hadn't ever listened to any of her albums. Other than that, all I would have to do is swap out song titles from that album for songs on Let England Shake and they'd basically be the same review. PJ Harvey is a bit of hit or miss for me with her 2001 more "hitting" than missing, but this one was a bit more of a miss for me. Her vocals got a bit too Bjork-y for my taste. I don't exactly get the critical acclaim, and I definitely don't get the warrant for including three (or more) albums of hers on this list, especially if they all sound so much alike despite spanning 30+ years.

I like Broadway musicals. If I wanted to listen to one, I'd find a cast recording, not some guy recording himself in a studio. This blows.

Did this site assign me Thriller on Halloween on purpose? How exciting! I am well familiar with this album as I grew up with MJ but you know I'm going to give it another listen, especially today. If you've read any of my reviews, you know that I do not do any merit-based grading. If the artist has a history, it won't play a factor in how their reviewed (though it may mean I listen somewhere other than Spotify so they don't get money). For Thriller, look at any review less than 4 stars, it almost always mentions something about him being a pedo (which I'm not totally sure but isn't that something that hasn't been confirmed?). If you take a purely music-focused objective approach to this, it's hard to argue it being anything less than 4 stars. As for the "must listen" value, which DOES factor into my reviews, this one is off the charts. Most successful pop artist of all time's signature album, full of top hits, culturally and historically relevant (even in film when you take the Thriller video into account), and the best selling album of all time. Musically, it's top tier as well. For me, it ticks all the boxes of a perfect album. Starts off with a banger, doesn't have skippable songs, has variety, and features MJ at his vocal peak. It's funky, it's catchy. Hot damn this just goes so hard. It's no wonder it has sold more than any other album. The only reason I can even fathom someone might give this 4 instead of 5 is not liking the two ballads that weren't massive hits like the rest...or maybe I could see the cringey Paul McCartney cameo taking this down a notch. Go figure the worst thing about this album is a guest appearance. Anyway I'd say this one is required, whether you like it or not. Absolute classic.

I'm actually not quite sure how to rate this one. It was quite good but also a little weird! I'm vaguely familiar with Harry Nilsson, knowing the two hits from this album and a favorite song of mine "Everybody's Talking at Me," but this is my first time listening to a whole album of his. I love how eclectic this album is. It actually reminded me of one of my favorite David Bowie albums, Hunky Dory. But the downside is I just don't vibe with some of the songs. It's probably a solid 4 to me but leaning more toward the lower end than high because although I enjoyed it, I don't see myself really returning to it like so many other 4 and 5 star albums I've reviewed.

There were some songs I loved ("Ferris Wheel" and "Bert's Blues") and some songs I couldn't stand ("Legend of a Girl Called Linda" and "Guinevere"), but most I felt pretty mid about.

Sigur Ros is one of those bands I'd always heard of but never listened to. I can't even recall if I've heard a single Sigur Ros song, let alone an entire album. I didn't even know it was a band; I always thought it was the name of a solo artist. And for whatever reason, I have negative connotations with Sigur Ros because I groaned a little when I saw the album and said to myself, "I'll probably hate this." Turns out my fears weren't unfounded. There was like one song I didn't find impossibly boring. I get that it's moody and atmospheric and the fact that I can't understand the lyrics doesn't help but my God what a slog this one was.

Is this the greatest double album ever made? I'm normally not a fan of double albums. They're usually filled with a bunch of b-sides that would actually make for a solid album if they were just cut. I'm not saying White Album isn't an exception. I think there are plenty of examples, like "Glass Onion" which feels ripped straight off of Magical Mystery Tour, and lots of little diddies like "Bungalow Bill" and "Why Don't We Do It In the Road?" But, most of these songs are good enough that any band not called The Beatles probably wouldn't consider them filler. Can I do without "Piggies"? Sure, and even though it might feel like a throwaway song but it's still a baroque bop. At the same time if including some tripped out nonsense of "Revolution 9" means getting "Blackbird" and "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", I'll take it. At the end of the day, if you took all the truly great songs from this album and cut the fluff, you'd still be left with too many for a regular length album. Classic Beatles.

I am utterly embarrassed that the only Jeff Buckley song I knew before this album is his cover of Leonard Coen's "Hallelujah", and if I'm being honest, I don't even like it that much. It's fine, but I never understand the obsession with it. I knew he died and only ever published one album, but I kind of presumed that his stardom was catapulted by his untimely death and that he didn't have much else to bring to the table but a cover of someone else's beautiful song. Why did I hold this view of Jeff Buckley? I don't know. Ignorance can lead to drawing some pretty wacky conclusions. I knew about two minutes into the first song that I had royally fucked up my opinion of Buckley. These songs are so rich, so layered. His vocals, so much range...gritty and soulful one moment, high and soaring the next, always somehow fitting flawlessly with the instrumentals. The guitar work elegant yet still distinctly 90s with some grunge-esque influences. Unbelievably creative arrangements. I now get why people were so plussed by his death. Was he a genius taken too early? I don't know, but his music is damn good. This one is an instant keeper in my favorites.

I can definitely see the appeal of this album. She's got a great voice, and the instrumentals nice jazz arrangements. I really liked it but didn't love it enough to give it 5.

I had no idea Clapton was controversial until I started reading reviews, wondering why this album didn't have a higher overall rating. Another typical instance of 1001 albums reviewers evaluating the artist, not the art. Like, who cares if Eric Clapton is an antivaxxer? It might mean he's an idiot, but it doesn't make him a bad guitar player. Not to mention, this album was released probably decades before he came out as crazy. In any case, expectations are a bitch because I think I expected a lot more out of Disraeli Gears after being told for song long that it's one of the greatest classic rock albums of all time. I definitely enjoyed it, but it didn't blow me away. It's still right around 4 stars but I'd take the Beatles, Hendrix, Velvet Underground, Doors, and Janis albums all released the same year over this.

I'm not a big country fan, which if I'm being honest about my criticism is probably the main thing keeping this from 5 stars. Because if I do choose to listen to country, this is the type of stuff I want to hear. Prine's lyrics are especially interesting and at times quite quirky and funny. This really wasn't what I expected, and even though I don't see myself returning to it often (or even at all), I'm glad I listened to it.

The crazy thing about getting assigned this album is that before a few weeks ago I had never heard Husker Du. But then I attended a Q&A of the author of "Such Great Heights: the Complete Guide to Indie Rock" and this band came up multiple times in the talks about the Genesis of the indie rock era of the aughts (perhaps my favorite and most personally impactful period of music). Not only was intrigued by the inclusion of mid to late 80s artists in the talk of the rise of this eventual mainstream movement, my curiosity was piqued about this band in particular, so I headed to their Spotify page and listened to a couple songs. Now here I am listening with a critical ear to their final album in its entirety, and guess what? It's freaking great. Had I not sat through a presentation defending why this band influenced some of my favorites of all time, I'd be a lot more surprised but it's funny how things work out that way. I don't even like most 80s music, so I thought this would be another "well I get why it's considered 'good' but it's not good to me" bands...like Faith No More or R.E.M. But nope, these guys are just legitimately great. So the better question is why are they not more popular? And while I've yet to read Chris Deville's book, which surely goes more into depth on this, the presentation covered enough to explain how indie rock stemmed from underground rock (you know, it was initially actually bands on independent labels and not just a genre....one that eventually became an ironic version of itself when it went mainstream). But maybe...just maybe part of the reason this album didn't reach critical mass is its length. To me, although I loved so many of the tracks, the album itself is just too long and too repetitive. Take the best 10-15 tracks and make this a single LP, and you've got a 5-star album. But as it is, the same with many double albums, it's just too bloated. By the time it's over, no matter how much I enjoyed listening to it, I'm just ready for it to be over. It's not as eclectic or creative enough to keep me engaged from start to finish. Double albums are so often full of b-sides, and this one seems to be no exception....heck reading the Wikipedia it seems even some band members agree with me and feel the album would have been more commercially successful if it were a tight, focused record of their best offerings from the studio sessions rather than a diffuse collection of recordings, many of which sound similar. Another reason this album isn't a 5-star for me (and also likely contributes to its lack of commercial success) is that there aren't any true standout songs. Even though I enjoyed nearly all of them, none really wowed me in the way that most "perfect" albums have several tracks that soar above the rest. Again, I liked the album a lot, and I'll be listening to more Husker Du in the future, but after listening to this, it makes a lot more sense why they are influential but never really took off themselves...why they are a precursor to a movement 20 years later rather than a movement starter themselves.

Sometimes if I'm already familiar with an album I'll read reviews while I listen. I don't want others' opinions to impact my own, but if I already know the album there isn't much harm in that. One reviewer pondered, "How many of us first heard this album in our formative years?" Well, despite my formative years being about 25 years after this album's release, I can count myself among that group. There must be something about the lyrics of "Baba O'Reilly" seeking out and finding us when we are in the midst of that teenage wasteland. Even though it wasn't until the late 90s, this was still our anthem for driving around, smoking, looking for girls, and getting into trouble. Talk about timeless. But, many albums start off with a bang and then quickly fizzle out. Not this one. While it's true it's debatably bookended by the best two tracks, the album is great from start to finish. There isn't a dud...the definition of a perfect album.

I already knew how I would review this album before re-listening (spoiler: 4.5). Upon reading the reviews, it feels like listeners fall into one of three camps: 1) those who weren't exposed to the indie rock zeitgeist of the 2000s 2) those who were 3) those who were and hated it This album is so deeply ingrained in that indie rock fervor of the aughts. And, in a way, it helped kick start the movement. At least in the sense of transitioning truly indie music into the mainstream. Listening to Funeral restrospectively, it's hard to believe it wasn't released on a major label. Yes, it's the very definition of indie rock from that era, but so much of what happened after bands like Arcade Fire blew up was that indie rock became more associated with a distinct sound than with the record labels releasing the music. Hell, I remember Arcade Fire playing at some awards show (Grammy's maybe?) with David f'ing Bowie. Anyway all this to say, Funeral is definitely getting points in my book for being culturally and historically relevant, like it or not. But, is it a good album? Truth be told, it's not a perfect album by my definition but it's damn close. And the three songs that don't exactly do it for me are probably someone else's favorite. Each track is a work of art: the lyrics, the composition, the way they tie thematically into the album's overall concept. Arcade Fire won't blow you away with their instrumentals, but neither did Bowie. It is more how those instrumentals are arranged to create a portrait of something greater than itself; a prominent showpiece on the mural of 21st century music if you will. And in some ways that's a good metaphor for Arcade Fire themselves. They kind of became the poster child for indie rock, something far bigger than this album or even any of theirs, could claim. Funeral, upon reflection, is a masterpiece...a personal 4.5 star rating easily becomes a 5 when I account for all this album represents. And sorry to the haters but you don't have to like the music to recognize its brilliance and ultimate worthiness for being on this list.

I am always skeptical of getting assigned an album on here from 1999-2014 that I've never heard of. That 15 year period probably marks the time I most had my finger on the pulse of music coming out. And, really, I listened to it all. Sure, I probably focused on the various genres within indie (rock, folk, electronic) than other genres like rap or country, but if it was critically acclaimed, I was at least giving it a shot. So far, this website has only surprised me with one album from that time period that flew below my radar and still ended up impressing me. The question for Bill Callahan is will he be a hidden gem that somehow snuck past me in my musical critic prime or is there some obscure reason he's on this list that I can't justify. To be fair, if anything from 2009 is going to go unnoticed by me it would probably be country. The problem with Bill, at least on my initial listen, is that he can't carry a tune. He's got these beautiful instrumentations that just get wrecked by tone deaf vocals. As the album wanes on, so does my tolerance for crappy vocals. This wasn't a horrid listen, there were some good, some bad, some great, some horrible songs. Pretty typical for an average album. But for a classic? A hidden gem? An album you must hear before you die? Not even close.

I went into this album knowing very little about Iron Butterfly. I knew even less about this album other than it's title track, and even that I could recognize the famous riff but not much beyond that. I didn't even know it was a 17-minute epic, I just thought it went hard and sounded great as a rap sample a la Nas's "Hip Hop Is Dead." At the conclusion of side A, I was ready to slap down a 4 star rating on this bad boy, but then came the reason everyone bought this album. And man, does it pay off. Does a track need to take up an entire side of a record? Of course not! It's excessive. It's indulgent. But I'm not pressed by it. I'm a Phish head and one of my favorite albums is Miles Davis's A Tribute to Jack Johnson, which consists of a single 25 minute+ track on each side. On the contrary, I thoroughly enjoyed this and it easily took my review up another notch. I really do wish this website had half stars because I feel like this falls just short of a five-star album. My official rating would be 4.5, but in this case I'm going to go ahead and bump it up.

I'm not a Taylor Swift hater, but I do think she's extremely overrated. Her ravenous fans can be insufferable, especially how they make her out to be some lyrical and musical genius. To me, what she is is a marketing genius. Buying back the rights to your songs and redoing them and selling them a second time? Brilliant. But regardless of my personal opinions of the artist, her skill and reach is undeniable. The question then is whether or not 1984 is a worthy entry to a list of albums we all should hear at one point. I've only listened to a few of her albums start to finish, and I'm pretty 'meh' on most of them. But the only album of hers I can say I just straight up think is good is 1984. This is absolutely a pop masterpiece. There is a handful of hits that charted, it starts with a bang and really doesn't let up, there's a nice mix of bops and ballads, and it's just fun. Plus you don't have to like Taylor Swift to acknowledge her cultural significance and massive influence on the music industry. This album fires on all cylinders to prove her title of the pop queen and cements 1984, if not also other albums of hers, as essentials on the list of 1001 albums you must hear. Now I'm fine with this one and would be fine if it were the only inclusion, I'm just saying there's a case for more. Real talk: if you don't believe this album belongs on the list then you don't know ball.

Part rock, part jazz, part salsa. Groovy, smooth, funky, rocking. Is there anything this album doesn't do? I guess the vocals are nothing to write home about? But don't mind that, let Santana sing to you with his guitar. It's a pity Santana's most popular tracks are from when he did the pop crossover album in the 90s. I mean good for him to keep himself relevant and to create something a little more geared toward the masses, but that stuff is nothing compared to this.

I can't say this is an album or artist I'll ever seek out again, but I get the appeal. I imagine Walt Disney bumping this as he planned out Frontierland.

80s synth pop is one of my most hated genres of music so kudos to this album for not making me hate every single moment of it. Absolutely zero reason Lexicon of Love should be on this list though.

Anything f*cking Morrissey album?!

Funnily enough I just listened to this a couple weeks ago to cleanse my ears from the slew of crappy albums this website had assigned me, so you can probably already tell where this review is headed. Is it a good record? Yes. Is it a perfect record? You know...if it had to stand alone apart from the rest of Zeppelin's discography, probably yes. But comparatively, I think they just get better and better as the years go on. This one suffers from a fairly standard side B. Yeah it's all blues rock, sure, but there's something a little more unique and definitively Zeppelin about the first half. Even though when I compare it to the likes of II, III, IV, Houses of the Holy, and Physical Graffiti it falls a little flat, it's still easily a 5-star album.

Outkast is simply one of the greatest hip hop groups of all time. This album is no exception as it shows off their full range. My only complaint is that it's entirely too long. I know I'm not a fan of skits, but that's true of any rap album. Even without the skits, I think there are a few songs that make this a bit long in the tooth. But, the songs that are good are just absolute bangers, I mean some of the best rap that you'll ever hear. There's the obvious radio hits like Miss Jackson and So Fresh So Clean but others like B.o.B and Xplosion and Gasoline Dreams go so hard. Cut the fluff and you've got a perfect album, as it is easily a four-star.

Listening to this album really only served to reinforce two things I already knew: 1) I'm not really into the 80s synth wave stuff 2) It doesn't matter how cool your music sounds, if I can't stand the singer These guys really reminded me of an Australian band I like (who were no doubt heavily influenced by Pet Shop Boys) called Cut Copy. They suffer from a similar issue: some really cool and danceable synth beats backed by a vocalist who sounds like maybe the whitest white boy alive. Actually actually had some bangers but overall, it wasn't really for me.

This album came out at the height of the indie movement of the aughts, so of course I'm familiar with it. It didn't grab me then, and it doesn't really grab me now. I recognize that it's good at what it does. I think the dreamy synth pop sound is cool, and they were certainly kings of it in the day. But, it's a little slow and a little bit monotonous for me. It's still an enjoyable album, but I wouldn't say that it's anything exceptional and certainly not an album that everyone needs to hear. However, if this sound is your thing, it's a must listen.

On Christmas Day, as I was lamenting the end of the season, especially Christmas music, I said to my wife, "Of all the things I've been listening to, I've really come to realize just how good Ray Charles was. I should listen to more of him." Well, I log into this site after about a month hiatus and what is sitting at the top of my list? You got it. While I thoroughly enjoyed this album, I have a hard time justifying jazz standards as "must hear" music. Plus, this album seems to have an identity crisis between the big band numbers and the piano ballads. For these reasons, it's going to stay highly rated but fall short of a perfect album for me.