Nothing takes you back in time like music. I recall sitting in a down stairs hall at my high school listening to this on my Walkman, thinking, "Wow, this is really good!" It's interesting how this album has grown in popularity over the years. It didn't chart until eight years after its release, but it was already certified platinum. This was classic alt back when alternative really was alternative and very much underground (especially in a rural area like where I lived -- I bet no more than 20 kids in my graduating class knew of the band.) Classic album. 5 stars.

Wow, I had not heard of Bill Callahan (or Smog). I really like his sound. And the first song is excellent. But the rest of the album... again, I like his sound, but aside from Faith, none of the other songs much caught my attention. Still, this is better than a lot of what's on the "1001 List", so I'll give it four stars. (It's better than the two Bowie albums I've been recommended so far, and I like Bowie.) I will be listening to more of Bill and Smog in the future.

Obviously there's two big songs on here. Some of the others have decent tunes as well, and I appreciate the attempt to do something different on the last song ("Another Song"). And of course, Karen's voice is beautiful. This album makes it clear how much production and genre matter. The easy-listening and harmony style has not aged well. Give these songs to a different producer, and you might wind up with a very different album, one that aged better and that would warrant more repeat listens. I would love to see what Rick Rubin could do with this material.

This is one of the greatest live albums ever. And I like it a lot. But I discovered that you need to be in the mood for this.

Yes, Blur was big in BritPop, and yes, this album helped paved the way for that. But outside of the UK, no one really cared about this album or its singles. This album had one single in the top 100, and that was *only* in Britain. The album was certified Gold... again, only in Britain. The album reviews at the time of release thought it was a good album, not great. Retrospective reviews have been better... but only some. Some reviews still think it's a good, not great, album. It's not a bad album though. And for historical reasons I can see it being on the list of 1001 Albums You Must Hear before You Die, but their self-titled album would be a better choice in my opinion. The songs on here are good but not great, and I found myself wanting the album to be over so that I could listen to something better.

Good stuff. Lesser known than some of his peers, but I liked him as much as I like Wilson Pickett and Otis Redding. Very nice voice.

I wanted to like this. I like the genre and had heard about this album over the years. But I put it on while working, and when it was over, nothing had grabbed my attention. Nothing stood out. I listened to it two more times, with some focus on the "hits", and it still didn't click. It's not bad, but I don't see what's special about it either. If I could, I would give it 3 1/2 stars.

Nothing takes you back in time like music. I recall sitting in a down stairs hall at my high school listening to this on my Walkman, thinking, "Wow, this is really good!" It's interesting how this album has grown in popularity over the years. It didn't chart until eight years after its release, but it was already certified platinum. This was classic alt back when alternative really was alternative and very much underground (especially in a rural area like where I lived -- I bet no more than 20 kids in my graduating class knew of the band.) Classic album. 5 stars.

I had heard his hits, but listening to this closer, and thinking about when it came out, wow. Impressive. Although not on this album, I also checked out "The Fat Man". Hard to argue that's not a rock song, and it came out in 1949. In general, I would call this more of a hybrid between big band and rock. Interesting to see the transition. And great music. I'm giving this a four, however, because it's a compilation. Those are, by definition, going to be better than a typical album, so I'm offsetting that. That's not 100% fair, since when this came out, albums weren't really much of a thing, but I'm approaching this project as a review of albums, not singles, and not artists.

This album and this band are good but not great.

Wow. I had never heard of Wire, but this is one of the best punk albums I've ever heard. This is on par with The Clash and The Sex Pistols. I might even like it more.

Outside of the two hits, it's decent but not great. I understand that it was an early take on R&B by a white rock and roll singer, but that doesn't make it great R&B. Early attempts at R&B by a left-handed surfer wouldn't make the music better just because no other left-handed surfers had done anything similar.

I enjoyed this, but I have no good reference point. How does this compare to other tango? I wouldn't know. How is this "neuvo"? I wouldn't know. But I need to give it a rating as part of the project, so I'm going to just give it a three. (That's not completely fair to the record, but it's not like I have zero reference points. I can't see this being a two star or five star, so that leaves me with three or four. Since I didn't love it, I'm giving it a three.)

This is a good album. I liked Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars a lot. This is good, but not as good. This is a solid album, but there's little that stands out. There's nothing that grabs you and makes you say, "This is a great song!" I'm on the fence, and if I could give it 3 1/2 stars, I would. It has its moments, but there's not a single great song on here. I'm going to round down and give it a 3. It's better than that, but it's not a 4. [Trivial note, but I was just recommended an album by David Bowie two days ago. It would be nice if the recommendation algorithm spaced things out better.]

It's a good album, but let's be honest, it's only got one great song. But wow, what a song. On that alone, it gets four stars. If it had another great song, it could be a five. Like "Back in Black".

Wow, I had not heard of Bill Callahan (or Smog). I really like his sound. And the first song is excellent. But the rest of the album... again, I like his sound, but aside from Faith, none of the other songs much caught my attention. Still, this is better than a lot of what's on the "1001 List", so I'll give it four stars. (It's better than the two Bowie albums I've been recommended so far, and I like Bowie.) I will be listening to more of Bill and Smog in the future.

It's good. Not great. Maybe it was a big deal in the punk world; I'm not sure. I like a lot of punk rock, but this wasn't anything special.

This is the greatest live album of all time. And Spotify ruined it :( And YouTube doesn't seem to be any better. First, a review of the album, then a review of the streaming versions. Not only are the performances great, the history, and Dylan's "fight" with the audience are also huge. We hear closed-minded people who can't acknowledge that their "poet" is making music twice as good as before. A significant part of the audience can't handle change. This is music history, and we get to hear it taking place. I love, how, before the last song, Dylan turns to The Band and says, "Play it fucking loud!" He's mad at the audience, and you can hear it in the music. And then, when the song is over, Dylan says "Thank you" and leaves the stage, and you can hear some patriotic anthem coming faintly through the speakers, letting the audience know that there will *not* be an encore. Absolute classic. ------------------ So all that stuff I wrote above, about listening to Dylan argue with the audience and telling The Band to "play it fucking loud!" ... a very significant part of what makes this a classic, is not on the Spotify or YouTube version! I noticed, especially in the electric part, that there were gaps of silence after each song, and then it hit me: they cut out all but the music and very minimal clapping. This is a travesty. It's still a great performance, and on that alone, it warrants five stars, but they key part of the album is missing from Spotify and YouTube. (Relative to the 1001 Albums project, anyone that rated an album above this needs to rethink. This concert happened almost 60 years ago, and in the meantime, it was discussed as a legend and passed around on bootleg cassettes until finally officially released 30 years after the fact. Sixty years from now, no one is going to care much about 99% of the albums from 60 years prior...and that includes Muse :) If you don't love Bob's music, okay, but if you can't recognize its greatness, you're missing something.)

This is music that only white people without much rhythm would like. So, like Judas Priest. And the music is juvenile. AC/DC's music is pretty simplistic too, but AC/DC is the best there is at such music. Slade is not. This is music that would mostly appeal to middle school children... from the 70s, no less. Note: I am not at all surprised that the general editor of the 1001 Albums book is British. Once again, we have an album that hit #1 in the UK, but was largely ignored anywhere else except Australia. More British bias, IMO. Just because you (and your friends) grew up really digging a band doesn't mean they're good.

Wow, I'm impressed. I didn't realize this kind of music was being made as early as 1966. NOTE: there are several versions of this album. I generally prefer to listen to the original release, which had 12 tracks, not the 14 on the re-release linked to on Spotify. In this case, however, I actually wound up listening to the 2nd half of the mono/stereo release. It's the same 12 songs on each half, but the 2nd half is a stereo mix released in 1968. The original was mono, and sometimes that's better because some of the stereo mixes from around that time were a little odd, but in this case, I believe the stereo mix is the better version.

It's amazing how music takes you back. I recall where I was when I first heard "Police and Thieves", about a decade after it's release. I was sitting on the edge of a motel bed, on a trip with the high school debate team, listening to a borrowed copy of this album on a Walkman. I bet I listened to that song about half a dozen times in a row. And though to myself, "I need to give this band a closer listen. They sound pretty good!" Ha! This is as good as punk gets. I own a copy of the album now.

If this album came out today, I don't think anyone would notice. While you should consider when an album came out, that still doesn't help this album. It's not groundbreaking even for its time. Half the songs are covers, and it's rare for a cover to exceed the original. Yes, the Isley Brothers took non-R&B songs and played them as R&B, but there are hundreds of bands who could do the same. I imagine you could walk in to a random African-American church and ask the choir to come up with an R&B version of a random song, and within a week, you would have something at least close to the covers on this album. The big hit, "Who's That Lady?" sounds like cheesy, black disco, like much of the rest of the album.

It's very good ... but not quite great. There are better reggae albums, including some by this band (if you consider Bob Marley and The Wailers a continuation of the Wailers, which, I think, is a stretch, since you have only one of the three core, founding members.)

I had not heard this band before. I see that they were never big in the US (which doesn't mean necessarily mean anything). But this is good pop/rock. Especially given the state of pop and rock in the mid-'80s. It was pretty abysmal, with the music either being too poppy (Paula Abdul??) or the rock was mostly big hair bands. This is good stuff. Based 100% on sound, I'd only give it 3.5, but that's just because there's now a lot more music like this, but given when it came out, it's four stars.

Another great album. I had never heard of Neu! The Wikipedia helps explain the bi-polar quality of this album. The two sides are very different, but I like both a lot. I may actually enjoy side one more, but that's from a perspective that's almost 50 years after the album was released. Given when it came out, side two is the more amazing side. It's punk rock a couple of years before punk rock! (For anyone that listened to this on Spotify, track down the last track, "After Eight". It's good.)

It's good. Not great, but still solid.

Two of my three favorite artists are prog rock musicians. But I don't much care for King Crimson. I don't get it. I enjoy some of Pink Floyd's more experimental stuff. And some of Captain Beefheart's stuff. But not this. I don't get it. I strongly believe that if an artist is respected by a lot of people (esp. ones that aren't middle school children), they are probably talented. This is how I feel about King Crimson. And they (he) have stood the test of time. But I don't get it. And I do believe there are cases where reviews suffer from the issue of "The Emperor's New Clothes". "This album is challenging to listen to, so it must be deep." And then someone says that, and others feel like, "Well, I don't want to be seen as shallow, so yeah, though I don't really enjoy sitting down and listening to this, it must be deep, and the musicians are really talented, so yeah, it is good after all!" No one wants to be the one to say that, sure, it's innovative, and the music is well played, but no one actually wants to listen to the damn thing. I don't expect all of my music to be "easy" to listen to, but I don't see when I would want to sit down and listen to this. Maybe this is "groundbreaking" or highly innovative or some such, yet, I don't think it's enjoyable for many, and that's more important, so it gets two stars. I appreciate Fripp's talent, but the songs just aren't very enjoyable. Even the critics that praise the album admit that it's not easy to listen to. But that's mostly the point of music, so this is mostly a fail. I think all the praise is mostly people not wanting to point out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

Listening to this again, I realized that a lot of the lyrics really aren't that cryptic. The marching band is pretty clearly the Beatles (esp. given the reference to the sergeant). And the jester is Dylan, given the reference to his coat (and the album cover to his second album) and being on the sideline in a cast. I suppose the King is Elvis. Not sure about the Queen, but that may have just been a songwriter's embellishment. Very good album Four stars.

I like this. It's an enjoyable album. But I'm not sure why it would be in the "1001 Albums" book. It's good, but not great. I like the sound., but it's fairly average really. I doubt that I will remember this artist.

I understand it was their first album (so an "exciting debut by a new artist!"), but they've done better. To be frank, I find a lot of the songs on here kind of boring -- they just go on and on. I happen to like trance, so I don't have a problem with a song that's just "four on the floor" and repetitive (e.g., "Alive" is very repetitive, yet good). But some of these songs just aren't that catchy. Some are really good, but a lot are not. Spotify's streaming stats back that up. Looking at Spotify streaming stats, there's only two songs off of here that make Daft Punk's top 10... and the rest of the songs aren't even really that close. (Admittedly, Spotify stats are skewed for songs that came out after Spotify became mainstream, but a Daft Punk album that came out four years after this one, still well before Spotify, has many more streams.) Daft Punk has better albums.

I used to love rap, but really old school. Grandmaster Flash, Run DMC, LL Cool J. This rap is more mellow and more sing-song. Of course, a lot of rap is like that nowadays. It's not really my thing. (Maybe I should smoke more weed and mellow out?? :) Just because it doesn't click with me doesn't mean it's not good. Like red wine. I don't care for it. But it's subjective. (Yes, to some degree, all music is, but it's not 100% subjective.) I don't feel capable of really rating this since it's not my style. I also can't rate red wine. Since I have to give it some rating, I'll just give it a 3, middle of the road. I understand that it was influential, but that doesn't necessarily make it good or bad musically. To me, it's kind of boring. Like, the riff on "NY State of Mind": boring.

It's decent but far from great. I have bought multiple Elvis Costello albums, but once again, this album shows the British bias of the "1001 Project". This album reached #2 in the UK, #34 in the US, and elsewhere... crickets. I like Elvis (again, I've paid money for his albums), but this doesn't deserve to be in the "1001 Albums" list. If I never heard this album before I died, I would not have missed out. On RateYourMusic.com, out of Elvis' studio albums, this is ranked by listeners as his *13th* best. It's very average. I did not enjoy having to finish the album. Nothing stands out. It's meh. I admit to being in a bad mood while listening, but this didn't help -- instead I found myself thinking "How average! And it goes on for four more minutes!" 2 1/2 stars. I'll be generous and round up simply because it was not bad, but it was mostly boring, which is almost as bad.

Wow. Hard to believe this was recorded in '68. If it came out today, I'd only give it 3 stars. But this was clearly ahead of its time, so I'll give it 4.

I have listened to Nick Drake many times, but I'm not sure I've ever heard much with a backing band. This is very good. I will be listening more.

This was the album that turned me on to Bruce. His rock and roll stuff is good, but I prefer this. Great album. (Although like many an album, it suffers a little from first half syndrome.)

Maybe it was a little innovative, but it seemed very average to me. So much so that I'm going to give it 2 stars.

Growing up, I would hear my dad play "El Paso". I like it. My dad loves old westerns, so I can sort of relate to the songs. And given when this album came out, old westerns were at least somewhat still in vogue. I don't love the album, and I don't plan on listening again, but a lot of that is simply that it's aged and music has moved on. (Whereas I still love Lead Belly, so it's not all about age, but this album has not aged as well.) 3 stars because, for it's time, it was pretty good.

It has one very good song, one good song, and the rest is decent. If this weren'r put out by an ex-Beatle, it wouldn't get much attention.

This was fine, but nothing really grabbed me much, even their hit single. For being fairly average I'm going to give it 2.5. And round down. And as I was writing this, a Jack White song just came on my Discover Weekly on Spotify. "A Madman from Manhattan". Good song. At least 3.5, and I might round up. But this album... nothing much stood out.

It was enjoyable enough. Hard for me to rate because I don't listen to that genre a lot, but I enjoyed it, so three starts.

It's smooth. It flows. It's got a good vibe. But it's not as fun as stuff like Run DMC or Public Enemy. This is more mellow. Not as fun.

Not bad, but nothing special. I suppose the addition of fiddles and the like to a punk sound is slightly innovative, but that doesn't really make it more enjoyable to listen to. I wound up stopping half way through the next to last song -- I got the drift by then, and there's better things I'd like to listen to. 2.5 stars, and I'm rounding down.

After about 20 minutes, I considered skipping the rest of the album simply because I had gotten the feel of the album and because such lengthy improvisation isn't my thing. But I not only wound up listening to the whole thing, I went back and played it again! Wow.

enjoyed it. It's not her best album, in my opinion, but I understand that it was her debut. I would give it 3.5 stars, maybe pushing 4, but I don't see that this needs to be on the 1001 list, so I'm going to round down. (Part of the issue may be that 1001 is too big of a number to use for an "essentials" list.)

Very much on the fence here. I'm going to give it 3.5 and round down, but... I get that the average song length is something like 6+ minutes, and that this isn't radio friendly pop. This could grow on me with multiple listens, and I may well revisit. But for now, I'm going to round down.

3 1/2, and I'm rounding down.

4 stars. One GREAT song, plus a couple of other solid songs. But you need more than one great song to get to 5 stars.

It's not bad, but the songs on this album all sound mostly the same and they have a bit of an easy-listening / adult contemporary sound. You may love Leonard, but what I just said isn't wrong.

I like some modern R&B, but I think a lot of it is weak. I had heard of Frank Ocean but never gotten around to listening to him. The start of my listening did not go well. The first half of the album is the weaker half, and in particular, I was not impressed with "Thinkin Bout You", the big hit from the first half. I thought, this is typical, overrated R&B. But then the second half rolled around. This is good. Quite. (I revisited "Thinkin Bout You", thinking I might have missed something. I don't think so. It seems like a standard modern R&B song that might be a hit on pop radio but that isn't anything special, but the second half of this album saves the album.)

I recall a friend of mine listening to this a lot back in the '90s. I didn't get it. I didn't dislike it, but I didn't think it was great either. Reading about how hard it was to get anyone willing to produce it and the initial lackluster reaction in America, and after a re-listen, I still feel that my 1990s opinion is correct. It is better than I recalled (esp. "Bat out of Hell"), but it's still just "good but not great". I would attribute its album sales to falling in the "least common denominator" category -- it appeals to a lot of people, yet few of them would actually give it five stars. Some will, but most won't. I'm giving it 3.5 and rounding down for all the (over)hype.

Wow. "Punk" back in '71-'72. Impressive. And fun. 4 1/2 stars. Rounding down to 4 because it hasn't aged quite as well as some other albums from that time.

As one music critic wrote, within a second or two of the album starting, you're grabbed by Antony's voice. Strong and emotive. This is very good.

Pretty good. I'd give it 3 1/2. Rounding down because it doesn't belong in quite the same company as most 4 star albums. But still pretty good.

It's good. Better than most thrash metal. But even the hits don't grab me. I can list 20 Metallica songs I would rather hear and at least a few Megadeth songs as well, but that's the thing with Megadeth: a lot of their stuff is good but not great. A lot of their stuff doesn't grab you. It just sounds good, not great. 4 stars.

Pop punk. Neither pop nor punk is a new genre, so I can't give a lot of credit there. As for combining the two, I'd say that The Ramones did that way back in the mid-70s. But this is still pretty good. Offspring does pop punk well. But they're not Green Day. For me, this would be like comparing Megadeth to Metallica, but in this case it's Offspring vs. Green Day. Metallica and Green Day get five stars; Megadeth and Offspring get four.

I'm a little torn. I liked it, but at times it sounds a little too much like easy-listening lounge music. But not always. And she does have a very nice voice. 3 1/2 stars, and I'm rounding up.

I recall when "Buffalo Stance" came out, and I liked it, but I never heard anything else from Neneh Cherry. So when this album came up on my listening list, I was curious. And then, reading the intro on Wikipedia, I saw comparisons to Prince and Madonna. Coupled with the fact that this is in the 1001 album list, I went into this interested. After the first few songs, I realized that this is very average '80s pop. I think '80s pop is the best decade for pop music, but this is average at best. Maybe even less than average. This is the first album I'm giving a 1. It might deserve a 2, but since it has no business being on a "1001" list, it gets a 1. (It's interesting to read the 5 star reviews. Of the almost 60 albums I've reviewed, looking at other the average rating for each, this is actually the lowest of the 58 I've reviewed. Sooo average pop. But yet, there are a lot of 5 star ratings talking about how Neneh should have been huge. Interesting. Are people serious or trolling?)

I liked this more than I expected. Some amazing stuff was being done in the early '60s, but I tend to prefer music from the latter half of the decade. And then on top of that, this is mostly just covers. But I enjoyed this a lot. But it IS mostly covers, so I can't rank it too high. I could go find a local cover band that could do about as well. That's no knock on the Stones in general, but they didn't become famous by doing covers. 3 1/2 stars. Rounding down because I know there are people that are giving this slightly higher ratings because of the name of the band, not the sound of the album.

I've always thought Dolly was a little over-rated (and I still do), but I liked this more than expected. She's got a nice enough voice, but, for example, when she sings on Trio with Linda Ronstadt and Emmylou Harris, it's the least pretty of the three. I feel that half of Dolly's fame is her personality and her time in front of the camera, rather than her actual music. Her music is good, but generally not great. But I liked this more than expected. I'll give it 3 1/2 stars. Rounding down because it doesn't belong with a lot of 4 star albums.

One could argue that Madonna was The Artist of the '80s. But this particular album is average at best. 2 1/2 stars, and I'm rounding down. If this had the name of another artist on it, it would get little attention.

There is music I like better by Chvrches, but this is still good. Just not their best. I was debating between 3 1/2 stars or 4, so I'll average and round :) 4 stars.

I liked this more than expected, but I'm not sure how to rate it. It's not an album you're going to put on in the car with your buddies (and that's okay). I wouldn't quite call it experimental rock, but it's getting there. As such, I find it hard to rate. I probably need to listen to this album more to get a good feeling for it, but for now, I'm giving it 3 1/2 stars and rounding down. I feel like if this album had been put out by an unknown band called Stinky Farts it wouldn't get as much hype. Not that it's not good.

Good, not great. 3 1/2, rounding down to 3. I'd be very curious to hear this without the strings and flute.

At first, I thought this was pretty mediocre. Nothing grabbed me. (But sometimes that's okay.) I listened to this in two parts. The first sitting, I was ready to give it a 2 or 3. The second sitting, I guess I was in a different mood, or maybe I had been acclimated; either way, I'd give it a 3.5 or 4. Pretty good, but not great. 3 1/2 stars, rounding down.

"Smoke on the Water" is one of the peaks of white-boy rock. It's very good, but it strikes me as music for people that don't know how to dance. (To be fair, this could be said of a fair bit of hard rock). This is basically the hard rock version of yacht rock. I can see some boomers listening to this, sipping their gin and tonic, and saying "This rocks!" 3 1/2 stars, rounding down.

If this album were just big band or just ballad, I might give it 3 stars, but I enjoy having both options. Sort of trivial, but enough to make me give me 4 stars. I believe this is as good as Ray's studio albums get.

Interesting. I'm glad I heard it. It's not an incredibly appealing genre, IMO, unless maybe you're very autistic -- it's a little too mechanical, though I didn't hate it; I'd rather listen to it that most modern pop, modern "country" or modern R&B. For novelty and historic purposes, I'll give it 3 stars.

3 1/2, maybe even 3 3/4 stars, so rounding up.

Back when this came out, if a song was "on the radio", I tended to dismiss it. Especially if it came from a member of a super-poppy group like Wham! Listening to this again, however (and with some hindsight due to George's other solo albums), this is better than I originally gave it credit. 4 stars.

I've always liked this album and appreciated it. When I put it on, I always think "Yeah, this is good!" But by the end I'm ready for something else. There's a lot to like here, yet there's something about it that keeps me from really loving it. I think it's just a little too "noisy" at times. I like the songs, but sometimes they stray too far into cacophony. But I still like it and appreciate it. So much so, that I will give it 4 1/2 stars. (But I'm rounding down.)

There's a reason this is one of the best selling albums of all time. But it's also the case, as one reviewer wrote, "the mood of this record stagnates after a few songs". 4 stars

I'm impressed. I only knew of The Kinks big hits. This is very good. It reminds me some of Pink Floyd's Piper at the Gates of Dawn. But this is better, in my opinion (and I'm a big Pink Floyd fan).

I recall when NPR deemed this the best album of the year. I had not listened to it yet, but I was surprised by the pick given NPR's music desk at the time. So I gave it a listen. Wow. This is one of the greatest hip hop albums of all time (though yes, it's also more soul and R&B). Although it suffers from 2nd-half syndrome, it's still a 5 star album.

I enjoyed it. I don't listen to this genre a lot, so it's hard to rate, but I will anyway :)

Nothing special. On its own, this would be a two star album at most, but since it has no business being on a list of essential albums, I'm giving it one star.

While I love a lot of old, old school rap (Grandmaster Flash, Run DMC, etc), I don't like modern hip-hop as much. But this is really good. So much so that, along with the previous album recommended to me, I've paused my recommendations so that I can give these two albums more time. - How did the 1001 project find this? At least on Spotify is has very few listens, and it's Wikipedia article is very sparse (implying it didn't make much of a splash). I'm glad they found it though. Very good. - Interesting looking at the reviews and ratings on here. Those who write anything seem to mostly a 4 or 5. But it's overall, it's only rated as 3 stars -- it appears to be the "fly by" voters throwing out 1s and pulling it down.

3.5 stars

I was expecting to give this a 3 (having heard the hits), but after listening, giving it 3.5 and rounding up.

I had heard of Moby Grape but not Skip. Interesting story. A bit like Syd Barret, I suppose. Funny how this was Columbia House's worst selling record ever, yet people are still listening 50 years later. Good stuff. 4 stars (might be more like 3.75, but who's being nitpicky :)

I like this. It's a strong album by a band that was maturing. At that point in time (1986), this was a good step forward for Talk Talk. But in the grand scheme of modern music (c. 1950 - today), this is not a 4 star album. I would give this a 3.5, and I hate to round down -- I don't feel that this belongs with a lot of 3 star albums, but it doesn't belong with the 4 stars either. Sorry, Talk Talk. It's a very solid album, and I suspect I will listen to it again, which I can't say for most of the 3 star albums on here.

If this album had been put out by Michael Johnson, not Michael Jackson, I don't think it would have got nearly as much airplay. That's not to say that it's bad. It's not. But it's not great either. At most it's 4 stars. But I think it's really closer to 3.5, and given the "overhype", I'm rounding down.

I like it. I'd give it 3.5 or 3.75 stars, but I'm rounding down because 1) it doesn't belong with a lot of 4 star albums, and 2) it's not an album I should listen to before I die.

The essence of a list suggesting albums one "should listen to before you die" goes far beyond the mere statement: "This sounds good." The richness of music isn't merely about the melody, rhythm, or lyrics. It's about the history it carries, the influences it exudes, and the legacy it leaves behind. Take "The Velvet Underground & Nico," for instance. On a personal note, I'd rate it 4 stars. Yet, if look at its history, one could reasonably argue it's among the most influential albums ever. To genuinely appreciate music, one must embrace the journey of its creation, the roots of its inspiration, and its impact on subsequent generations. It's not just about the question, "How does this resonate with me?" but also, "How has it shaped the musical landscape?" Even if you don't care about musical history, you can't truly rate how good an album was when it came out if you don't understand what came before it. If, say, a Model T Ford was invented in 1800, that would be amazing! If it was invented in 2000 (long after modern cars were common), it would be a poor "invention". A creation depends on what came before it. But based solely on the sound I'd wouldn't give this more than 3 stars. But I know the role that Syd played in creating one of the greatest bands ever. No, this album didn't do that, but given that David Gilmour and Roger Waters helped complete it, it's certain that Syd continued to influence them after just the one Pink Floyd album that Syd was an active part of. Having said all that, even with the history and influence that this album had, I'd probably only give it 3.5, maybe 3.75 stars, but given that I believe some reviewers are just listening and asking "Do I like it?" w/o asking if there's more to why an album would be on the "1001 list", I'm rounding up. 4 stars.

Jimi made some great songs. And Jimi had a lot of mediocre songs. Of course, his guitar playing is impressive, but you still need to have good tunes. There's some excellent stuff on here, but there's a lot of "only decent" stuff as well. I debated between 4 starts and 4.5. Either way, I'd round to a 4.

Paul is a treasure, as is this album.

Ugh, this one was tough to rate. I'd like to give it a 3.75. But I feel like it doesn't belong with some of the 4 stars. But I hate to round down. Ultimately, most 4 star albums are better, so I'm very reluctantly rounding down. On a different day I might round up.

On it's own, it's a good album. And then it's got its history and influence.

Good, not great. Gorillaz has better work. I guess this is on the list because it was their first album? Also, as is often the case, it looks like there's British bias (it was big in England, so it should be on the list!)

Round up from 4.5 stars to 5. (An album with a song with over 2 billion streams almost has to be at least 4 stars, even if the rest of the album was mediocre.)

It's not bad. I might even call it "solid" in that most of the songs are above average. But just barely. Like 6, on a scale of 1 to 10. Converting the scale from 10 to 5, this gets 3 stars.

Wow, I liked this a lot more than I expected. Traffic was never that popular, this album had one "hit" (that peaked at #76), and even Spotify's writeup says "Traffic was just a holding vehicle for Steve Winwood." But I really like this. I even listened to it twice (which is easier when it's only 34 minutes :). On the other hand, should I hear this before I die? Not sure. But I'd give it at least 3.5 stars. I'll be generous and round up.

I don't get it. Roxy Music did some good stuff, but I don't get why this is hyped. 2 stars.

I'm a little split on the Chili Peppers moving away (a little) from their previous sound, but it works over all. I like the funky stuff better, and there's plenty of it on this album, but the big hit is "Under the Bridge". I like it, but it's not classic Peppers. Of course, many might say to that: "Good!" It's better. Anyway, on it's own, I'd probably give this 3.5 or even 3.75, but given its place in the early alt rock becoming mainstream (and also because of math :) , I'll round up).

I miss rap like this. It's got good flow. I feel like a lot of hip hop nowadays is just "a guy talking" (I'm looking at you Jay Z). On top of that, side two is fresh, what with the jazz / lounge infusion. And on side one we have "The Way You Move", an awesome recreation of something Earth, Wind, and Fire might do (and which they wound up covering). I wish there were more hip hop like this.

It's hard for me to rate this album because jazz/funk is not my main thing. Or even a top five genre for me There's some I like, but this didn't click with me. But maybe it was a big deal 50 years ago. I don't know. Based on how it resonated with me, I can only give it 3 stars.

Possibly my favorite Beatles album. It had to grow on me though. I think some of that was the blending of songs on side two. Side anecdote: growing up, two of my three favorite Beatles songs were "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun", from this album. The other songs was "Norwegian Wood". I had no idea, at the time, that all were written by George, not John or Paul.

This is a lot better than a lot of what was popular "rock" at the time, e.g., Poison, Whitesnake, etc. But U2, R.E.M., The Cure, The Smiths, etc. were all making better music at the same time. Dinosaur Jr. may have been better than what was played on the radio, but in terms of great rock albums there are many others that are far better. It's not bad a bad album, it's just not truly great. Out of its historical context, it's only slightly above average rock. Three stars.

I don't get it. It's not bad, and the lyrics are good, but even Bob Dylan (the master of lyrics) wrote better tunes. I guess there's the historical aspect, which will give it an extra half star, so that would make it a 3.5. A piece of art deserves credit for its influence, but it also matters if it sounds good. It doesn't sound bad, but it doesn't sound great either.

I've heard Buffalo Springfield plenty of times, and I was ready to write this off as "very good at the time, but music has moved on", but no, this is better than I expected. 4.5 stars, on the fence on whether to round up or down. Probably depends on my mood.

What the heck? I guess it shows that I shouldn't assume lame pop artists never grow up. First I discovered that Kesha grew up, and now I see that Christina did as well.

I expected to like this a lot. I like the genre and have heard and liked some of Boards of Canada's songs. And I've heard this is a classic of the genre. I was disappointed. It's not bad, but.

I like Sonic Youth, and this is a good album, but no where close to an album I should listen to before I die.

Al Green at his best is 5 stars. But this album is almost all 3 star songs.

3.5, rounding down because it doesn't belong with most 4s. "Vapour Trail" is great. The other songs are good, but not great.

Bob's best album that's not called Blood on the Tracks.

Yes, The Who played a part in hard rock and punk (see their Live at Leeds performance, for example), but this album is mostly significant for historical purposes. And that matters some, but it doesn't carry this album far enough. 3 stars.

Based only on the sound, I'd give this 4 stars. That it was recorded in 1966 and was well ahead of its time, this becomes 5 stars.

Based on a first, agnostic listen in 2023, this doesn't sound like it belongs on a list of 1001 albums to listen to before you die. But then you realize it came out in the late '70s, and how it differed from standard punk, and how it influenced future grrl bands, and you can see why it's on the list. Even so, it doesn't belong with a lot of 4 star albums. I'd give it 3 1/2 stars if I could, but since I can't I'm rounding down.

Very good first half. Weak second half.

Very boring really. Not bad, just not great. The most popular song on here, "No Other" is no better than a 3.5 star song. Overall the album is probably 2.5 - 3, mainly just because it's boring. It has no place on a "must listen" list, so I'm rounding down. 2 stars.

The best album of 1997. Yes, it's better than OK Computer.

I like the sound (4 stars), and obviously Monk has stood the test of time (70+ years), but I don't really know what the state of jazz was at the time, so it's a little hard for me to truly rate this. I have to go with the sound and then lean on others for the history. To quote from a couple of reviews: In his five-star review of the album, Allmusic's Lindsay Planer wrote that it "may well be considered the alpha and omega of post-World War II American jazz. No serious jazz collection should be without it." Awarding a maximum rating, The Penguin Guide to Jazz Recordings included the album in its suggested “core collection” of essential recordings. 5 stars.

Interesting. This is different enough that it's hard to judge. It's good enough for 3 stars with just one listen. Some music requires a little effort to fully appreciate, and this might be such a case. But I don't enjoy it enough to put in the work (which might just lead me to the conclusion that, yes, this really is just 3 stars).

Once again, we see the Britain-centric nature of this project. Eighty percent of this album's sales were in Britain. The rest of the world did not care. It's not a bad album, but it's not great. I'd probably give it 3.5 stars, but I'll round down.

Their best album. "Been down so Long" >> "Love Her Madly", by the way. I love Jim's opening, growled / shouted lyrics on that song.

I like The VU, and I bought this album plus New York back in the day, but Lou's talking-singing bothers me more than it used to. Without "Walk on the Wild Side", this album would be 3 stars tops, maybe even 2. With that one song, it might could squeak into the 4 star vicinity, but it doesn't belong on par with a lot of other 4 star albums, so I'm keeping it at 3.

A well done example of its genre.

Some of this is good but not great, but the hits are great. You only need a few great songs to make a very good album. 4 stars.

If The Beatles had not written more albums, this would be considered 3 stars, maybe 3.5. If you didn't know the difference, and someone presented this album to you as from an obscure band called the The Crickets, you would not give this 4 or 5 stars. People are basing their ratings on the name and other works by The Beatles, not on the album itself. If this were their first album, I might give it another star based on its historical importance. Or if it showed significant growth. Since neither is the case, it stays 3 stars.

I love Bob Dylan, and The Band have provided great support. I respect The Band, but I just don't think they're all that as a solo act. 3.5 stars, rounding down.

After the first few tracks, I initially brushed this off as "typical Eno", but oh no. Eno's done some very good stuff, but this might be my favorite (and of course, Byrne deserves much credit too). Obviously this isn't your standard modern rock album, so listening might take a little getting used to, but I really like the sounds and the melodies. Not only do I enjoy the music as it is (making it at least a 4 star album), but I appreciate how influential and ahead of its time it was, being released in 1981. As Richard Wright said, "[this album] knocked me sideways when I first heard it – full of drum loops, samples and soundscapes. Stuff that we really take for granted now, but which was unheard of in all but the most progressive musical circles at the time... The way the sounds were mixed in was so fresh, it was amazing."

It's good. On a scale of 1 to 10, it's a 7. So on here, that would be 3.5. I feel like if I'm going based on historical value and influence, I should round up because this was advanced for its time (1971). But I'm having trouble placing this with other 4 star albums. Ultimately, I feel that I need to use both my head and (h)ear(t) and round this up, even though I don't like that sound alone enough for 4 stars. Once you include the historical aspect, this does belong on the 1001 albums list.

It's enjoyable, but it doesn't stand out. No idea why it's on this list.

Very subdued, and as such, it didn't grab me at first. In fact, it's never going to *grab* me -- it's just not catchy like that, but once you accept that it's a very laid back album, it grows on you. I'd like to give this a 3.5, but obviously can't. I've never had such a hard time deciding whether to round up or down (and I see from the global reviews, of 3.5, that everyone else is on the fence as well). Today, I'm going to round up to 4. On another day, I might round down to 3.

Not bad, not great. I've learned from this project that if you want a broad music exposure, you probably don't need 1,001 albums. Half (or less) would suffice. But I do think that being exposed to Kate Bush is worthwhile.

I recall walking into a record store in the late '80s and asking "Who's this?" about the band the clerk was playing throughout the store. The answer was The Replacements, and I wound up buying "Pleased to Meet Me" before leaving. I went on to buy their next two albums as well (not as good). So I like The Replacements. They were one of the better alternative bands back when alternative was actually alternative. But they're second tier. And that's not bad. But it's not 5 star material, like this album. I actually prefer "Pleased to Meet Me", but this came first, establishing The Replacements change from their previous sound, so there's a small historical aspect to the rating, which would be true "Pleased to Meet Me" as well, but even so for this album. By today's standards, when there's 10,000 alt/indie bands on Spotify, The Replacements don't stand out as much, but at the time, there were a very nice alternative. 4 stars. (Probably more like 3.5 really.)

I recall seeing fIREHOSE in the late '80s, not having heard much about the Minutemen. It's a shame I never got around to listening to the Minutemen more before now. This is really good. At first, it just struck me as typical, unpolished, two-minutes (or less) punk, but the more I listened, the more I realized this is much more than "typical". 4 stars.

Yet another "British bias" album. This had practically no success outside of England and does not belong on this list. 10cc had some good songs, but the "hits" (only in England) on this album are nothing special.

John Frusciante's return definitely marked a change in the Chili Peppers' sound. But songs such as "Scar Tissue", "Otherside", "Road Trippin'" and even the big hit, "Californication" all sound very similar. It reminds me of the Aerosmith record that had "Crazy", "Amazing", and "Crying" -- they basically sounded like the same song; SNL even spoofed it. The Peppers aren't quite so bad, but the songs are still slow and too similar (not that there's anything wrong with the slower sound, but when the songs sound a lot a like, the slowness just makes them even more boring). I think it makes sense to have RHCP in the 1001 project, and I realize this was their biggest selling album, but I think Blood Sugar Sex Magick would have sufficed. I might give this 3.5 stars, but definitely no more, and maybe even less, so I'm rounding down. I don't think many people who didn't grow up with this would love it.

This one's a little tricky. It's "just" fun pop, but there's nothing wrong with that. There's a lot of "just fun pop" from the '80s that I would give 4 stars. What makes this a little tricky is that, not being from the UK, I didn't grow up with this, so it's "just" typical 80s pop. But it's really pretty good, and it was a little ahead of its time (being recorded in 1981). I'll round up to 4 stars. Good solid 80s pop.

Good punk + good new wave = very good. 4 stars.

Better than most rap, but still rap. There are some rap albums I would give 5 stars to, but very few. If I were judging this vs. other rap albums, it would get 4 stars. But against all music genres, 3.5 stars, rounding down to 3.