1001 Albums Summary

I will probably never play it again, but it's beautiful. Great voice.

I'm glad I heard this. It's not like anything in the book. Would have been a good addition. It was fascinating at first, but even though it's only 30 minutes, it's still too long for me.

Sounds like an American take on brit pop. They do it well. Some of the songs are entrancing. Those are the best. Weird. I usually don't like that at all. Favorite song: the past is a grotesque animal.

They sound like a more energetic version of the Kaiser Chiefs, who are named after a sports team. The irony. The album is alright, but not essential. It falls in between a lot of stuff that's already in the book.

One of my issues with the original list was that there wasn’t enough fun or party music. This album belongs in that category. It made me chuckle a couple of times, but there’s too much room for improvement to give it a high rating.

This album sounds very mid sixties. It is. And it sounds like it. This great at times, cheesy at others. I recognize a few of these tunes from background music on TV. Never knew who it was. Herb Albert apparently. Turns out I do like trumpets. I thought I didn't because I didn't like Miles Davis very much. Turns out I just don't like the way he plays it.

I don't blame people for liking this album. There's not much to hate. It all sounds very safe and unsurprising. It's not for me.

In the early days of mp3 you could only select predefined genres. Primus were the only band who had their own genre named after them. That's how iconic they are. This should have been in the book. One of the biggest mistakes.

First impression: different enough, easy on the ear. But it's about twice as long as it should have been.

Pretty good pop punk. Good singer. The arrangements are not entirely a dime a dozen. The mix is fatiguing. Especially the drums sound too processed, but that was the sound of the 00s.

If entrancing music doesn’t click, it’s just boring. I’m not very susceptible to entrancing music. It's not that I don't like noise. I have a background in death metal and punk. My favorite album is by Sonic Youth. To me this sounds uninteresting and low-effort. A wall of noise with very little going on behind it.

To the people who don't understand the lyrics: they are poetic, but they seem very random to me. He sets the scene for a story by describing lots of unrelated details, but there is no actually story. I'm from the same area as this guy. Nieuwegein is 20 minutes by bike. If I recall correctly, this album is in the Dutch edition of the book. It should be. He was one of the main Dutch indie artists of the 00s. Music wise it sounds somewhat like Eels and Beck, but different enough. I think I understand what people like about it, but I don't like it very much myself. It sounds as if he didn't want to wake up the baby sleeping in the next room or he didn't want the neighbors to find out what he was doing.

It's not bad, but I wonder how much staying power this has. I think it's too new for lists like this.

It sounds very cinematic. Perfect for the movie soundtrack that it is, but not as interesting as stand-alone music to me.

Pop punk. Slightly better than the band Simple Plan.

Great. Maybe even better than the blue album. More variety.

Is post-pop-punk a thing? This is like My Chemical Romance's depressed brother. The first half is underwhelming and doesn't sound entirely sincere, but it improves around the midpoint. Moody like The Cure, noisy like Girls vs Boys, you can still hear traces of their pop-punk background (I heard Deja Entendu before). Does it belong in the book? It would make more sense than some albums that made it in, but it doesn't quite feel essential to me.

Some songs are pretty good, some are just OK. It's not really my style, but I know plenty of people who would love this.

It's not bad, but it didn't grab me.

I don't remember this band at all. Nerdy britpop. I like it.

This is classic late-80s teen-pop: catchy and polished. Some songs stick, but a lot are forgettable. Foolish Beat was her only big hit here, and honestly, it’s one of the more forgettable tracks. In Europe, Stock, Aitken & Waterman artists like Kylie Minogue dominated this segment of the market. And of course Madonna, but Madonna was a rebel and Debbie is anything but. She didn't stand a chance.

It would have been better if it was a lot shorter. Some of the songs are pretty good, some aren't, none of them are groundbreaking. His voice is not that special. The album sounds very 80s.

I'm not a dancer. This almost made want to dance.

It sounds like it came from a book and not from the heart. Not terrible, but I will probably never play this again. Kind of reminds me of what Madonna sounded like 5-10 years earlier.

I remember them as a Nirvana type band. This is more Panic At The Disco or My Chemical Romance. These guys did it first, though. It's not bad, but it doesn't really speak to me. I like the album with the frog better.

Not really my style, but I can't think of anything about this record that I dislike.

Some songs sound very traditional and some sound very modern. Somehow it makes sense to put them on an album together. It works. I don't like the singing very much. The baby voice.

I only new them by name. I'm not sure what I expected, but not this. Apparently post-rock, but that's a big umbrella. It's quite intense. I like it.

It's made well, but I can't stand the singing.

I like them. One of their riffs was my ringtone for a while. I went to see them a couple of times. Always great. I like their older records better. This has a more indie rock feel to it. The older records sound more hardcore. This is probably easier to get into for casual listeners, both the sound and the lyrics.

It sounds pro and different enough to be on lists like this. It's probably exactly how they wanted to sound, but I don't have the patience. I liked the first song and then I got bored.

He's from my small country. Never heard of him. This is very niche music. To be fair, it doesn't sound good. Sounds like a muffled mixtape of songs he didn't play himself. Not songs I would pick. Cat System Corp's contribution to the sound is not very clear to me, besides making it sound bad.

Not nearly as annoying as their album from the book, but it doesn't sound as special. I don't hate it.

Based on the description I expected something heavier, but it's great as it is. I don't hear much of the black metal influence. They sound more like the '90s doom/goth of Anathema, My Dying Bride, Tiamat, etc. to me.

I heard it once or twice before, a long time ago. I remembered quite a few songs, even some that were not singles. If the Smiths had allowed themselves to have some fun once in a while, they could have made a record like this. Some songs also reminded me of the Jam. It's good, but is it essential?

Quality music, just not something I would ever put on. I can't remember the last time I was in the mood for music like this.

It took me a couple of songs to get into it, but it's good. Not that good for a night drive if you want to stay focused.

It's alright, but not very memorable.

I had this on tape. I didn't remember all the songs, but quite a few.

Reminds me of Bob Dylan. I hate Bob Dylan.

Great. I only knew they by name.

It's not bad, just not very exciting to me. Sounds very of its time.

Well made, but they don't bring anything new to the table. They're cosplaying as a seventies band. To be fair, they do it better than a lot of actual seventies bands.

This album has none of the sparkle that made their older albums good.

They were the leaders of the '00s post-punk revival, so it should have been in the book. It has some great songs, but overall it's too samey for an entire album.

I can imagine people like this album. I have mixed feelings.

Should have been in the book. Better than their other album that they did include.

Pleasant surprise. I would have never heard this if it wasn't for this project. Not my genre, but it's pretty good.

It's good, but some songs are too long. There is some reggae in the book, but this is different and good enough. It could have been included.

Not as bad as I expected, but if you released an album like this today, people would laugh in your face.

The man is a very competent musician. The album has great parts, but also parts that sound different for the sake of being different. For example, he has the urge to add unnecessary extra beats to a bar when it would have sounded better without the extra beat. Overall the music sounds constructed rather than composed. The style reminds me most of old Genesis, but with more modern production. The album is too good to be anything below 3, but I didn't enjoy it very much.

Not my style. Not terrible, but it should have been a lot shorter. It reminds me of late '80s / early '90s synth pop from continental Europe, a style that didn't catch on in the US until 20 years later with Katy Perry and this album. I don't think the music was all that influential, but Lady Gaga had a huge impact on pop culture in general. If Christina Aguilera has 2 albums on the list (she does), this should have been there as well.

Nothing wrong with it. It's good, but not something I will play regularly.

I never heard of them before. Eclectic and upbeat. Like an updated version of Mano Negra. I like it.

I was reading the reviews and it made me wonder if I was listening to the same album. Turns out the Youtube Music link is to the rewired version, which is a tame acoustic re-recording. So I dug a little deeper and found the normal version. It's a less annoying version of the Arctic Monkeys. It also reminds me of the Killers. It's alright, but it's not one of the classics. They were followers, not leaders. I gave the Arctic Monkeys 3 stars. I like this better, but I can't justify a higher rating.

It's not bad enough to hate it, but I find this album almost completely uninteresting.

Of course their albums Suffer and No Control were more influential, but this album is more diverse. And it has Eddie Vedder on a couple of songs. I think more people will like this one.

It's good, but I don't think I'll play it very often.

Great. Not much more to say about it.

I only knew them by name. The people I know who were into them were also into Weezer and the Get Up Kids, so I expected something more in that direction. But they're wilder. More like Pavement with some Fugazi influence or something. I like it, but it's too long.

It has some great parts, but overall it's too repetitive for me.

Starts absolutely great, but towards the end I lost interest.

It's very Oasis-like. Very. And just as good. I think I even like them slightly better. This album could have been in the book, but it doesn't need to be. While it's good, it's not unique enough and not very influential.

On the first note I knew it was from Brazil. It's good. I wouldn't have heard this album without this list.

I can totally understand what people love about this album. It wouldn't be out of place in the book at all. I generally prefer more upbeat music, though.

I hate the singing, but this album should have been in the book.

It's not bad, I just don't like it very much.

Third indie-synth album I got in a row. It's not bad, but I don't feel any emotional connection with this.

The songs are OK, but I don't like the voice.

This was released a couple of weeks before the Sex Pistols. I knew more songs than I expected. Sonic Reducer is obviously a classic of the genre, but I heard cover versions of a lot of these songs. I just didn't know they were covers.

Weird how this was not in the book. It's one of their best albums and their big break through.

They started out as a pop-punk band. On this album they ditched the punk completely. I wouldn't even call it rock and roll. It's synth-pop in the style of the Backstreet Boys, but with just one singer. I don't like his voice, but the music is too well-crafted to give it only one star.

There's nothing to dislike. The album is moody, but not too moody. It's well-played. It has some interesting chord progressions at times. The voice is a lot more pleasant than similar artists like Elliott Smith. The lyrics are good. The album doesn't have any filler. So basically everything about this album is good. But that's it. I can't pinpoint what it is. It's almost great, but not quite.

There were a lot of bands doing this style a couple of years before. The Posies, Archers of Loaf, you could even say Green Day and one of the book’s favorite artists, Elvis Costello. Weezer just had better songs. I hadn’t played this in over a decade and still remembered every single one. Classic. Still didn’t make the book or any of the updates. An obvious mistake they refuse to fix.

Nice one. The '60s revival scene was not really my thing, so I only knew them by name. The worst songs are better than the worst Rolling Stones songs, but the best songs are not as good.

I can tell it's good, but it's not an album I will revisit much.

The album has plenty of variation, but it all blends together. The songs just meander and never really grab me. I don't hate Midwest emo per se, but I prefer the more dynamic side of the genre.

0 points for originality, but it's pleasant to listen to.

It's alright. Better than average elevator music.

Gary Clark Jr. is very versatile, blending multiple genres, sometimes even within the same track. The overall vibe reminds me of Prince's Purple Rain, even though it sounds quite different. He's proficient in every style he explores, but the mishmash of sounds doesn't quite come together for me.

The 1987 Australian album in the book is by the Triffids. Not this one, the one everyone remembers. The author works in mysterious ways.

Some of the songs are great, but it has quite some filler. Exactly as I remembered.

I'm not a big fan of hip-hop. I generally prefer Brit-hop to US hip-hop. I don't hate this, but it doesn't sound essential to me.

Perfect background music, but not dynamic enough for active listening. I can totally understand that people like this.

People mention Bob Dylan and Donovan in the reviews. I would like to add Neil Diamond, who somehow didn't make the list either. This album is alright, but it doesn't sound essential to me.

It's beautiful, but it already sounded old when it was new.

I literally feel asleep listening to this. Only the second in the entire challenge this happened. That means it's not exciting, but it sounds comfortable if that's a thing.

There were plenty of bands like this around 2000, sitting somewhere between nu-metal, post-hardcore, grunge, and pop. It's in a similar vein to what Bush and Powderfinger were doing in the late '90s and Alien Ant Farm and Hoobastank did a couple of years later. The album itself isn't particularly good or bad, but it's a good addition from a different part of the world.

Very relaxed. I can see why people like this. It's not for me, but that's a matter of taste, not quality.

Based on the description, I would have never played this. But it's great.

Sounds to me like they tried to make a 70s album in 80s style in the 2020s. They did it well, but it's not my taste.

A lot of EDM is boring. This definitely isn't. It's all over the place. It sounds older than it is (early 2010s), but it works.

I'm not the biggest fan of either folk or triphop, but that doesn't automatically mean that the combination doesn't work. In this case it doesn't. At least not for me.

I remember Astounded. Minor hit here, pretty catchy dance music. The first couple of songs are solid, but then it veers into funny voices and what almost seem like parodies of some very different artists like Pet Shop Boys, Busta Rhymes and even the Pixies. That didn't work for me. It was cringe. They should have made a great EP instead of 18 tracks with so much filler. It sounds too random the way it is.

You still hear Mr. Jones a couple of times every year, even if you don't put it on yourself. I like the faster, catchier songs, but the slow songs go in one ear and out the other. The singer has a pleasant voice.

I can understand why people like it, but I don't have the patience.

This is their pop album. Each song blurs the line between parody and tribute of a different style, from Steely Dan to Prince. Fortunately not as over the top as Weird Al or some of Zappa's work. It's probably my least favorite album of theirs. It's made well, but it doesn't resonate with me the same way as some of their other music.

I have some of their records but not this one. It's great. It sits in between Fugazi and turn of the century screamo like City of Caterpillar.

Rachel was from S club7, a band with a sitcom. I liked the show. This is her second solo album after that. It's inoffensive synth pop in the style Lady Gaga did a couple of years later, but it lacks personality. The songs are just fine, production is good, but she doesn't have a remarkable voice and the album doesn't really have any stand-out tracks. It's not terrible, though.

The music is great, the lyrics are very childish.

This is one of my favorite albums ever. It's high energy and catchy and influenced bands from Green Day to PUP. They still sell out the biggest clubs today. This should have been on the original list.

It's well-crafted. Not generic, not too weird. Big orchestral sound. There's really nothing wrong with it, but somehow I can't connect with this album at all.

Great indie rock record. Kind of in between some familiar styles (Neil Young, Weezer) but it works.

The opening track sets the bar very high. Fast and furious. I don't like the rest as much. They're obviously good at what they do, I just don't like midtempo heavy rock. The best feature is the singer. He has a very powerful voice and he actually has it under control, unlike some of his colleagues.

This album sounds dark and dangerous. I like it.

I don't hate it, but I won't play this often.

There's nothing wrong with this album, but nothing is particularly memorable either. The songs with more folk elements are best. The more general rock songs go in one ear and out the other.

Great album. Sounds like jangle pop with grunge production. The vocal melodies and harmonies are very Beatles-like at times. This is widely considered their best album, but for me everything came together on their next album. It has tighter production and sounds more confident.

Some of the songs are great. Most are just OK. I can understand that people like this album.

I hate the toddler style singing. The minimalist music is not my taste either, but I know some people who would love this.

I was expecting something wilder. It's labeled post-punk, but this is almost first Duran Duran album territory. I like it though.

All the way on the pop end of the pop-punk range. Especially the lyrics are as far from the punk spirit as you can imagine: they want to be like their father, everything will be alright, etc. But punk has no rules, so whatever. The music was obviously inspired by older pop-punk bands like New Found Glory and No Use for a Name, but it's more pop. The violin sets them apart from their genre mates, but it's mostly buried in the wall of sound from the guitars. Songs are very catchy. I like the music, but an entire album is too much.

This is noisy, yet melodic. It reminds me of bands like Victims Family, but also King's X. I'm sure the Deftones must have heard this and some of the 00s emo bands like Taking Back Sunday and Motion City Soundtrack. This band had some great ideas, but they should have spent some more time on the parts in between. It sounds too random. Especially the singing is very annoying at times. I like the spirit of the album, but the music is very hit or miss.

This is the 2nd album I got by them. I didn't like Modern Vampires of the City, because it doesn't have the sparkle of their older albums. This one doesn't have that sparkle either, but it's good without it.

It's good, but it's not that different from Dummy, which is on the original list. I don't think this needs to be included.

The songs are good, but the performance is too restrained for me. Almost afraid to be heard. I prefer full band Sufjan.

Fascinating album. It's all over the place with both great and messy moments. I don't think this is essential, but I enjoyed it.

Folk punk with better than average guitar and punker than average voice. I don't hate it, but it doesn't feel essential at all. It's somewhere in the middle between Ren, who does guitar better, and Chuck Ragan, who has a more punk sound.

There is nothing particularly bad about it, but it sounds very generic to me. Stomp-clap-hey country without the stomp-clap-hey.

If only they had a different singer

some parts where she doesn't sing (or whatever it is she does) are endurable

They're obviously good at what they're doing. It's just not something I enjoy very much and there's a lot of it. It's not them, it's me.

Not essential at all, but very nice

This album doesn't have any of those operatic songs they are best known for, but it has some well-known songs. And unlike their albums on the original list, this one doesn't have any stinkers. Classic.

I was into death metal in the early 90s. The appeal was that it wasn’t epic like Iron Maiden or Metallica. It was brutal. This album is also brutal at times, but mainly very epic, which isn’t really what I look for in death metal. Still, it’s good. They sound confident in what they’re doing and add enough of their own ideas. It's just not one of the first death metal albums I would consider for a list like this.

I wouldn't say it's bad, but this kind of mumble folk doesn't appeal to me at all.

I like hardcore punk and catchy hooks. This has both. This is very close to the sweet spot for me. They experiment with synths and extra percussion to make things more interesting, but the core sound still reminds me of classic hardcore bands like Shelter and late-career Bad Brains. On their next album they became too experimental for me.

I understand what people like about it, but it's not my taste

When it was new, I played this album a lot. I grew tired of it and still am. It was not their scene at all, but it reminds me of Dave Matthews band and Hootie & the Blowfish. Like their alcoholic and depressed brother.

Sounds alright, but not very special. Reminds me of a folkier version of Keane and Elbow. Well-made, but it doesn't seem essential to me.

I can hear what makes it good, but I don't hear what makes it great. It's somewhere between 3 and 4 stars for me. I think it's overrated, so I rounded it down.

Never heard of them. They're good at what they do, but it's not an album I'll play often.

Most of them are good, but it doesn't feel like all these songs belong on the same album.

I only knew them by name. I like this album. Of the old post-punk albums I got so far, this sounds the most like the current revival.

I never listened to his solo work before, but I knew his reputation. Usually, "greatest ever" talk is mostly hype, but after hearing this album, I must say he earned it.

I saw them on tour before this album came out, and it was a mess. They were too busy striking poses and jumping around and sacrificed tightness live. Then the album dropped and it was way too pretentious for me. Like Swing Kids with some influences from outside the scene, or Victims Family with the precision of Prong, or a more metallic version of Fugazi. They were obsessed with their visual image too. I still don't like the album very much, but it was undeniably influential. Bands like the Used, Enter Shikari, Bring Me the Horizon and even System of a Down probably wouldn’t have sounded the same without it. This should have been in the book.

The irony. Yesterday I got The Shape Of Punk To Come, today this. They both belong in the book.

Smooth mix of '90s R&B, trip hop, drum & bass, and atmospheric electronic music. It sounds more European than American, and while there are a few standout moments, most of the album drifts by without making much of an impression. Nice background music for today's sunny summer weather.

They have 2 albums on the original list. Both were 4 star albums for me. This album is quite similar. Maybe the vocals are slightly less convincing, but it's still a 4 star album.

I saw them at a festival once. They were arrogant and rude to the crew. The album is pretty good though. More creative than a lot of albums that actually made it into the book.

Very minimalist soul. I understand what the appeal is, but I had the constant feeling that the same songs and the same singer could have sounded much better with different arrangement and production.

They were a household name in the 90s. I'm surprised they weren't in the book. I would have picked No Need To Argue over this album, but this one is pretty good as well.

This is fun, but is this really someone's favorite album?

I only knew Oh Yeah and The Race (not on this album), so I thought they were a joke. Turns out they're just weird. The album is much darker than I expected. I kept trying to figure out what mood it was going for and never really could. It sounds very European. And very 80s. I can't say I like it very much, but I respect it.

I liked this when it was new, but in retrospect it's too samy. Every song is good, but the album doesn't have enough variation. Pretty much the same funky disco groove all the time.

Very eclectic and very long. Too long. Not particularly bad, but not very memorable. It seems more like a playlist than an album.

There's not enough party music in the book. This album definitely belongs in that category. It was one of the main pop albums of 2024. It has a couple of songs I like and also quite a few that sound as if even more people should have worked on them - either too monotonous or unfinished with very abrupt endings.

I usually don't like live albums very much, but this one is good. It would have been even better if it was half an hour shorter.

Sounds like a rushed Elvis Costello, but the best songs aren't as good and the worst songs aren't as bad. 3.5 stars rounded up.

First Baby Metal album I got, so I'll just rate it for what it is. I don't understand the hate this album gets. It's like Slipknot (and all of the featured artists) with seamlessly integrated Disney pop parts. And somehow it makes sense. The second half is not as good as the first half.

I don't hate this album, but it already sounded old when it was new. It reminds me of Guns 'n Roses' Use Your Illusion albums in many ways, but while it's newer, it sounds more 80s. And for a band whose image once was that they were the heaviest band in the world, it's underwhelming.

Out of tune slacker rock. I can understand why people enjoy this vibe. It's different enough from the original list and not bad enough for 1 star. 2 stars seems appropriate.

They probably sound the way they want to sound. I respect that. I don't like the music very much, though.

This is the kind of hidden gem I was hoping to discover with this challenge. It's weird, it's dark, it swings. It reminds me of Tom Waits and Billie Holiday. Great.

This album was on the longlist for my submission, but it didn't make the shortlist. It sounds a bit like Built to Spill and the Flaming Lips to me, though dEUS were better known in mainland Europe. You can hear American indie-rock influences, but the band gives the music a darker, more atmospheric, more European feel. I like it.

They combine styles that I don't like very much, hip hop and minimalist ambient noise, into something fascinating.

It's more arty than I expected. It has a wide range of styles, obviously R&B, but also reggae and country. I like it better than her album in the book.

I'm not a plant, but this is enjoyable background music.

It's not bad, but it doesn't click with me at all. Some of my friends love this.

I like the idea behind this album, but I don't enjoy the music very much. It's at that awkward intersection of not heavy enough for heavy and too heavy for not-heavy. That usually doesn't appeal to me at all. The band are clearly competent musicians, I just don't like their style.

Far from essential, but it's alright. The album has Tom Petty-style heartland rock, garage rock, and '90s alt.rock. It's not especially remarkable, but pleasant enough to listen to.

I think they are well represented in the book by Dookie and American Idiot. This album is OK. It has a wider range of influences than their older albums, but at the expense of their characteristic sound, or so it seemed at the time. In retrospect it's not really that different. I like it, but it doesn't need to be in the book.

This is the 3rd Daft Punk album I got, after Homework (OG 1001) and Random Access Memories. There's more on the list. This is my favorite out of the 3 I got.

It sounds more 80s than any 80s artist ever did. I haven't heard Nik Kershaw in ages, but it reminds me of him. And of old computer games. It's fun synth pop. The lyrics don't match the vibe of the music at all, but that's cool.

Mumbling over mediocre rock music. I hate Lou Reed. Transformer was one of the few albums from the book that I rated 1 star. This is slightly better.

This was unavoidable in Europe in 2013. For the most part it's more traditional songs set to a house beat. The vocals set it apart from other house music. His melodies are often longer and his range is wider. It has some African influences in some songs. Not bad at all.

I like this better than Wilco, but it should have been half as long max.

It doesn't really grab me, but it's not bad at all. It's quite long (around maximum CD length split across two discs) and I didn't even mind, so that's good. It definitely sounds of its time, but it's different enough from the albums already in the book to justify inclusion. And it has some minor hit songs. The album bridges the gap between EDM and psychedelic indie. I'm absolutely sure some people will love this.

Redbone was the big hit over here. I hated that song. Especially the singing. The other songs are much better. Retro 70s style soul with a big modern production.

When I was in school, I was in a band. We rehearsed in the drummer's basement. His dad was in a band and we could use their equipment. One day, they opened for the Tragically Hip. They were really excited. That was the highlight of their "career". So to me the Tragically Hip have always been the band that mediocre musicians looked up to. Apparently for good reason, because this album sounds pretty good. Nothing shocking, but it sounds sincere.

This is blues rock in the style somewhere between Jimi Hendrix and Led Zeppelin. It sounds alright. A bit too messy for my taste. It doesn't seem essential to me.

Sounds like hair metal bands did 5 years later. It's not terrible, but I don't like it very much.

I don't hate it, but I don't like it very much. It has some good parts.

He doesn't really do anything wrong. Solid musicianship. But I don't like his voice and the overly dramatic style very much. It reminds me of Meatloaf and Queen at times, but it's not as exciting.

I like the music. Klezmer with some Irish folk influences. The lyrics are awkward: very anti-Nazi, yet radically nationalist. Strange combination.

Pleasant enough, but it's been done better before.

It's a type of modern classical music, but it also reminds me of techno/EDM in some ways. Artists like Underworld and the Orb. I think this should have been in the book, but it's too long for me.

I like the lyrics. The music not so much. Nothing obviously wrong with it, it just doesn't seem very special to me.

It's metalcore with EDM. Not the best of both worlds and I don't hear much synergy. "Not terrible" was my reaction when I saw them live. This album didn't change my mind.

Unusual combination of genres. Samples of very famous songs. Maybe too famous. Too recognizable. Too gimmicky. There's not enough of themselves on the album.

I got Nonagon Infinity before. That was great. This album is more prog. Prog is always very hit-or-miss for me, but this is spot on. I don't think I'll play it often, but it's good.

I enjoyed it more than I expected, but it should have been a lot shorter. There's a lot of noodling that may work very well live, but not on an album.

A lot of heavy music is predictable. I always thought there was only so much you could change and still be heavy. This album proves me wrong. It's all over the place - sludge, blast beats, glitches, klezmer, classical - without sounding like a novelty. I knew the artist by name. They were mainly popular with people whose tastes are very different from mine, so I never checked them out. I'm glad I did now.

I can understand why people like this album. It has the same kind of melancholy that some of Bach's music has, but not the complexity to keep my attention.

80s pop punk. Reminds me most of Billy Idol. The slow songs are boring. The faster songs are not that great either, but I don't hate them.

They've got more than their fair share of great songs, and this is probably their best album. It has some of my all-time favorites, but there's also plenty of filler. Like the Rolling Stones and Queen, I think a greatest hits album would be much better than any of their studio records.

Good rock album. The right length, enough variation, good voice, but it doesn't sound essential to me.

Sounds pretty good, but not essential.

I have a pretty high tolerance for weird and noisy, but this is boring. I'm sure it works well live, but not as an album.

Avicii is essential, but his albums aren't. Electronic dance music has been the dominant style of pop music in northwestern Europe for over 30 years. There's a distinct northern European sound that's almost unavoidable here, but it's not represented in the book, probably because it's not really an album genre. Avicii was one of the main artists. This album builds on that sound, but it also moves away from it. The constant pulse is broken up by folk, rock and other pop influences. That's probably what made it so successful, but I don't think it's his best work. His more trance-influenced pre-album music is a better example of the sound.

They sound like a mixture of REM and Pearl Jam. I already got their album Phantom Power before. I liked that one better. The singing on this one is too monotonous. I remember At The Hundredth Meridian got some airplay here.

It's not all bad, but you should have picked one of their regular albums. This is way too much of not even that good a thing.

What's My Age Again? Same as theirs. I grew up on probably the same bands they did: Descendents, Bad Religion, NOFX, etc. At the time, this felt like an immature version of that sound. An immature version of NOFX, for God's sake. I hated them when they were new, and they were awful live. I first saw them when they opened for Lagwagon and Pulley. Still they were unavoidable for a couple of years. Then the 2000s happened. Bands like Good Charlotte and Fall Out Boy gave me a new baseline for disposable pop-punk, and suddenly this didn't seem like the bottom of the barrel anymore. Looking back now, the album is actually pretty good and it should have been in the book as a key album of the late 90s and early 00s.

I can imagine this sounds great if you're drunk and tired. I'm neither. Sober and wide awake, it sounds like a modern, dumbed-down version of Jean-Michel Jarre. It just drifts along aimlessly, and it's way too long.

They have often been recommended to me by people with overlapping tastes. After finally hearing them now, I understand what they like about them, but I don't understand why they recommended them to me. I like short songs. I like music with lots of variation. This is the opposite. It's drone music. It's repetitive. I like 20 seconds of each song and then I get bored.

It's well-made, but I don't like it very much. It's like the Butthole Surfers on valium.

The first couple of songs are very Ramones-like with more reverb and too obvious autotune. They switch to arctic monkeys style garage rock later on the album. It's all been done better before, but it's easy to listen to and over before it gets boring.

They combine some styles that I'm not a big fan of into something good. Would have been better if it was shorter though.

I don't like the voice. There's a Lou Reed quality to it that just isn't for me. Surprisingly, almost everything else works well. The music good, even if there could have been less of it. I hear echoes of The Cure and Interpol and sometimes it's more psychedelic. 40+ years into their career, they still sound sincere.

Post-rock classic. I expected this to be in the book, but it wasn't. Good to see it here.

I can hear that it's good, it doesn't quite click with me. I like short songs with lots of dynamics. This is the opposite.

I'm not a big fan of the blues. It could have been a lot worse though.

Not bad, but they have a much better album in the book and their other album I got from the user submissions was also better. This one is not essential at all.

The top reviews are all very negative. It's not that bad. Nothing groundbreaking, but good background music.

Better than I expected. alright, but not great.

The genre label is jazz/rock. It also reminds me of early 20th century composers like Stravinsky, Orff and Bartok. I can understand the appeal. It sounds very dramatic. I don't like it very much myself.

I loved Illinois from the original list. I wouldn't say this is bad, but it sounds as if he's tired. And it's contagious.

The music is like a poor man's Led Zeppelin, the lyrics could have used some more work. I like it.

It sounds modern and classic at the same time. I can’t think of anything similar. Deserves to be on the list.

I’ve heard this many times before. The style is somewhere in the middle between Fugazi, the Birthday Party and late career Black Flag. Should be something I like, but it isn’t. Every now and then I give them another try and they always disappoint me.

I read the description and thought I'd hate it. I don't. It's too long though.

It sounds like a blend of They Might Be Giants with a pinch of Ween, but nerdier. It's well-made, but I don't see myself returning to it often.

This is a bland version of their album on the original list, which wasn't even that great (3 stars from me).

I saw the singer with his previous band Propagandhi. A couple of years later, on the tour for this album, I saw this band. He seemed much more comfortable playing this style. They played well. It sounded very pro. But it was a complete mismatch with the audience, who were hoping for something more Propagandhi-like. I don't think they ever broke out of that scene, only soundwise. The Weakerthans are not really my style. In one ear and out the other. I don't like the singing very much. Not a single trace of the punk past. This reminds me more of the Tragically Hip, but more tragical and hip.

It sounds like it could have been made in the 2010s with the minimal arrangements, the mumble singing and all the reverb and delay. So respect for the forward thinking. I don't like the music very much though.

Nothing wrong with it, but not an album I will return to often.

Masterpiece.

Melodic jazz rock, a style that often sounds constructed rather than heartfelt. This band makes it sound natural though, even the occasional odd quirks. The songs are long, but the album was over before I knew it.

Starts very good and then slowly becomes boring.

Mike Patton is very creative and has very flexible voice. Some of his work is great. Mr. Bungle has a very different sound on each album, so a new album is always a surprise. Not always a pleasant one. This album is overly unconventional. It does sound intentional, but it also feels like it's different for the sake of being different. It has a weird combination of styles that doesn't work for me.