Mr. Wendell and Tennessee are great. And there are other good songs. But not enough to get this past the 3.5 star hump that is dividing line between good and great. I hate to round down, but I don't feel like this quite belongs with the 4 stars on here. (If I could, I'd give it a 3.75, lol).

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).

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.

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.

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.)

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

Classic cowpunk.

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've heard people say this is the greatest album of all time. It's not even the best album in the year it came out (Time Out of Mind or "Daft Punk" are both better). And it's not Radiohead's best album either (I prefer several, including Kid A). It's not bad album though. I'd give it 7 or 8 on a scale of 1 to 10. Normally that means I would round up to 4 stars, but given the slobber fest this album garners, I'm rounding down to 3. The album has a couple of very good songs, but a lot of boring songs as well (almost all of the second half of the album.)

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'm not sure there's anyone else I would rate so much on their vocals. After all, if you have a great song, you only need adequate vocals. And if you don't have a good song, great vocals can only save it so much -- it's still not an enjoyable tune. But wow, what a voice. And the songs are good. Combine that with the voice and the production, and this is damn good. (One thing that I particularly appreciate is that Adele doesn't feel the need to warble, like Whitney Houston, for example. I once heard some one criticize a lot of female R&B singers for choosing to turn cart wheels to get from point A to B when walking would have been just fine.)

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.

I was ready to give this 1 star, but it's not truly terrible. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd probably give it a 5. The big hit, "Back to Life" is not as bad as I recall. Converting to a 5-star scale gives me 2.5, and I'm rounding down.

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.

I enjoyed listening to this. But it's another "7 out of 10 album", of which there are very many. As is so often the case, the 1001 project has a British bias. This was big there. But popularity in one small country doesn't say a lot about how good an album is. I enjoyed this, but it's simply good, not great.

When I first heard this album, I didn't like it as much as Simon and Garfunkel's other albums. I was into Dylan and liked S&G's folky tunes more. Something like "Cecilia" did not appeal to me. I wanted more "Sounds of Silence". I have come around and accepted that Paul Simon is more of a pop musician than folk rock. And that's okay. In fact, he's very good at it (ref: Graceland). And you begin to see that more on this album. Listening to this album without my previous bias: 5 stars.

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.

This is quality. It's a shame it was not more successful. Nonetheless, while it's very good, I wouldn't call it great. 3.5 stars, and while it's almost good enough to round up, I just don't feel like it belongs with most (all) of the other 4 star albums. Sorry, Scott. This is a very good album. Sorry it didn't garner more success.

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.

This one was tough to rate. It's a good album. For country, it's at least 4 stars, maybe 4.5. But, it's country. I like some country music, including this. But it's still country. On the other hand, Waylon, and this album, very much deserve credit for helping create a genre, and it's a good genre. So the album deserves a slightly higher rating for that alone. Looking at some lists of the top country albums of all time, this one is highly ranked. But being one of the best country albums of all time doesn't make it one of the best overall albums of all time. I'm rounding down to three stars (it's better than that!) because of two things: one, I just don't feel that it's quite as good as a lot of other 4 star albums, and two, I doubt I'll ever listen to this again, which makes me reluctant to give it 4 stars -- if it were that great, I should want to revisit it.

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 just not that special. It had two hits. And they're fairly average hits. I suspect some of the hype for the record is that it is a little different. I appreciate that Missy isn't into the East/West thing or gangsta rap and the like. But that, in and of itself, does not make this amazing music. I understand that the production was also innovative, but it's not enough to take a song or album from good to great, and it certainly doesn't take a 3 star album to 4 or 5. It was a little different for its time, so props for that, but being different doesn't make it great. The hits are fairly average, and the rest of the album is actually kind of boring.

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.

Musically, this is good, but not great. However, that's true of a lot of rap really. But The lyrics are good enough to get it over the 3 1/2 star hump and make it 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.

Another one that had to grow on me, but it's still not going to get over the "7 out of 10" hump, and I'm rounding down. I might revisit one or two songs on occasion. Maybe.

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.

This one was sort of tough -- it's so different and hard to classify. It's not a genre your brain can easily latch on to. You can't quickly compare it to, say, other blues albums, because it's not a blues album. Nor a rock album. Nor jazz. Nor pop. And so on. But it's good. Very. I think that's a little hard to get at first because it's quite different, but if you sit back, relax, and let it pull you in to a warm groove, it will. I like this a lot.

Quirky, but excellent. If I could, I would give this 4.5 stars.

The Talking Heads are great. At least a four star band. But I'm not sure any of their albums, individually, are four stars. I'd put this at 7 out of 10, and I'm rounding down (and converting to a 5 point scale).

As is common, more British bias. This album was big in England. No where else. But it's not bad. Pretty good even. If I had not heard any Brit Pop before, I might like it even more, but it's hard to know, and as is, I'd give this 3.5 stars, and I'm rounding down.

I listened to Bruce a fair bit back in the day but have never gotten to around to anything he released in the 2000s. I see that I have missed out. This is a very solid Bruce album, so that automatically makes it 4 stars. But it's not quite 5. I'm very glad to have been introduced to it, however.

It's just Metallica songs that we already know with a symphony behind it. Yes, back in 1983, when Kill 'Em All was released, no one would have imagine Metallica playing with the San Francisco Symphony, but the novelty doesn't really add anything. The sum is less than the parts. I would consider giving it 3 stars, but it doesn't belong on this list, so I'm going with 2. It's not bad, but it's far from great and is not an album I needed to listen to before I die.

I like this. It's very enjoyable. But it doesn't stand out as an album I need to hear before I die. 3.25 stars.

This a great drum and bass album. But being a drum and bass album limits it a little. It could be the greatest drum and bass album ever (and it's probably at least top 10), and it would still struggle to get 5 stars. 4 stars. Also, as good as the title track is, 21 minutes is too long. I'm not looking for a short track, but it would be better at 12-15 minutes. It drags a little 2/3rds of the way in.

I struggled with what to rate this. Until recently, I didn't care a lot for the Stones. But of late, they've grown on me. But this album... as I saw in a review on rateyourmsuic.com, "This is not a record of classic single songs, this is not like the previous two [albums] in that regard. Most of these songs are strictly just good, nothing more. But together? They meld into the flow of things and form a sort of monolithic beast." I would say something similar for Physical Graffiti and a few other classic albums. The whole is more than the sum of the parts. I struggle whether to give this 4 or 5 stars. I'd like to give it 4.5. I'm going to round up.

I've never listened to much Motorhead outside of "The Ace of Spades", and yes it all sounds similar, but it never occurred to me that Motorhead was making this music in the mid-70s. This is arguably the birth of thrash metal, almost a decade before Metallica's first album. Good live version of Motorhead's material.

Too much of this sounds like someone in the '80s wanted to modernize Russian military music and make it appeal to the masses, so they threw in a synthesizer and a drum machine.

Soul/funk doesn't get much better, but I think I'm going to give this 4 stars. I might could go as high as 4.5, and I admit I might have some bias since this isn't in my top five genres. It might be the best soul/funk record ever, and I still might struggle to give it more than 4.5. (So rounding down to 4.)

When this was new, I preferred Pearl Jam and Soundgarden and Nirvana. I wouldn't say Alice in Chains was an after thought, but I didn't find their songs quite as "catchy". Thirty years later, "catchy" is overrated. Of the big four grunge bands, I would now list Alice in Chains first, and this, in my opinion, is their best album other than "Jar of Flies". Also, great opening. If I could rate this on a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it a 9 (so 4.5 stars). I'm rounding up. 5 stars.

Mr. Wendell and Tennessee are great. And there are other good songs. But not enough to get this past the 3.5 star hump that is dividing line between good and great. I hate to round down, but I don't feel like this quite belongs with the 4 stars on here. (If I could, I'd give it a 3.75, lol).

This is not my genre, but I can recognize the quality. I like some neosoul to listen to it repeatedly. This isn't quite there -- it's got a little too much melisma for me, but it's still good. (Why turn cartwheels to get from point A to B, when walking would have been just fine?) 4 stars.

I am tired of the British bias of this project. Wow, this album was a big hit in England. And Scotland. And no where else. If it's so great, why didn't it catch on else where? In the future, it's tempting to check the charts before listening, and if I see that the album was only big in England, I should just go ahead and give an automatic 3 stars. Max! This one gets 2 for being so mediocre. In the real world, on a scale of 1-10, I might give this 6. Maybe. But I also might just do 5. It's fine, but it's just nothing special, and it irks me that it's on this list, so I'm going with 5 (out of 10), converting to a 5 star scale, and rounding down.

I'm on the fence. It's a very good industrial metal album. But then again, it's industrial. That's not as bad as saying "This is the best polka album ever made", but it's a knock. The genre doesn't lend itself to making truly classic albums. There's a lot of quality here, and I briefly considered 4 stars, but... it's industrial. (I try to judge albums based on their quality and historical context, not just whether *I* liked it, but I stand by my comment that "industrial" is a knock on the album.) 3 stars.

It's nice music. I'd be happy if I could make music like this. But it doesn't belong on the 1001 list. 2 stars. (Really more like 2.5 -- very average, but it doesn't belong on this list...or maybe the list needs to be shorter.)

I'm not sure why U2 hasn't aged quite as well as some other bands (not that they have aged poorly, just not as well -- the mandatory, free album on Apple devices probably didn't help), but for a long time after this album came out, I considered it the greatest album released since 1987. Too much time has passed, and U2's music has aged a little, but this is still one of the greatest albums ever released, and the opening three songs are as strong as any "three song run" on any album. (If there's any knock on the album, it's that those three songs are hands down the best, and the rest of the album is only decent, though the next three songs are still pretty good, so there's that.) I also love Daniel Lanois's production. He does a top notch job for several other artists as well (Dylan's Oh Mercy & Out of Time, Peter Gabriel's So, and others). Easy 5 stars.

Actually not my favorite Fleetwood Mac album (that goes to the previous, self-titled album), but still an easy 5 stars.

I like it, but I'm not sure why it gets so much love. I believe the emperor has new clothes.

One classic song, two that are very good, and overall very solid. 4 stars.

It's a good rap album. I'd give it a 7 out of 10 (so 3.5), and I'm rounding down. (I get that this was very popular, but so was Ace of Bass. Plus, it's in a genre where the typical listener isn't going to be listening to much from other genres, so you get a lot of "clustering" when an album that's above average comes out.)

I suppose it's worth listening to the debut album by someone as influential as Brian Eno, though it's not like he hadn't released music before (as part of Roxy Music.) As an album, independent of any historical value, it's good but not great. I would give it 5 out of 10, so 2.5 stars, and I'm going to round down. Sorry, Brian. 2 stars

Oh, it was popular on a small island state. Great! Once again, there is much British bias in this project. It's an average dance record. Dance records tend to be subpar to begin with, so 2 stars.

I read album reviews and see people talk about being "blown away", and I tend to dismiss it as exaggeration, but I recall putting this album on in my room, as a teenager, and being blown away. Wow.

Excellent. Classic blues.

There are some bands that don't appeal to a lot of people because they are ahead of their time (The Velvet Underground), and there are some that probably just didn't manage to get enough exposure (maybe Echo and the Bunnymen) and others that just aren't polished enough to appeal to the masses (Wire). And then there are those that just address a niche and that's that. This band strikes me as the latter. Talented group, and what they're trying to do is interesting, but ultimately I don't think it's good enough. 2 stars.

It's a bit cutesy, but I really dig it. I heard it referred to as baroque pop, and I can definitely see that (the use of a harpsichord just reinforces that.) On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd probably give it 7 1/2. I'll round up and convert to 4 stars. That's a little generous -- I don't think it's quite as good as most 4 star albums, but it's definitely better than most of the 3 star albums on here. Fun album.

I love some prog rock (Pink Floyd and Porcupine Tree are top 10 bands for me), but there's a lot I don't love either (Rush, King Crimson, Yes, and many more). I don't get the love for Steely Dan. Their music isn't bad, but it reminds me a little too much of a cross between prog rock and lounge music if it were done by a rock band. It's got a vibe I can enjoy, but there's no song that I'm going to listen to and say "This is great!" Too "lounge music" for me.

Not bad. When I saw that it was industrial rock, I wasn't expecting a lot, and the first song didn't grab me. But the second song is very likeable and got me primed for the rest of the album. I enjoyed it. I don't expect to ever listen again though. Not that it's bad; just not great. 3 stars.

Decent for a "big hair" band. But that entire genre is mediocre at best. While bands like Bon Jovi and Whitesnake were on the radio, you had bands like R.E.M., U2 (for a while), and The Cure relegated to college radio stations. This genre is lame. It produced a few fun songs, but a lot of the time that was when it strayed from the genre (for example, Motley Crue's first album is much more just pure hard rock, and it's their best). 2 stars.

Some times a band can jam on a groove that isn't all that catchy, yet it works. Other times, it's just a "not catchy" groove, and it very much doesn't pull you in. It's a thin line between the two, and The Black Keys walk on that line very well, rarely straying to either side. And while that's not bad, it's not all that good either. I reminds me of the letter to the seventh church in the Book of Revelation. God wound up spitting the church out because it was lukewarm, neither hot nor cold. This album is like that. It's not bad, but it's just not great either. I like the sound fine, but there are so, so many better albums.

Anita is talented, but the production of this album doesn't help. For example, "Caught Up in the Rapture" has too much cheesy synth and drum machine. I understand that Anita's voice is the main instrument, but her supporting cast sounds like the weak part of '80s pop/R&B. Plus, this is just too much modern R&B, where the desire to wow with loud vocals and melisma (which I like to call warbling). The reviews at the time were so-so, and I think some of the retrospective reviews rely too much on the popularity of the album vs. it's actual merit. I think this probably deserves 2 stars but given it's history in R&B and Anita's talent, I'll bump it up to a 3.

Not only is this very good, it came out in 1988? I'm impressed. I had heard of Mudhoney but never listened to them or looked at their timeline and history. Very cutting edge for the time.

Upon hearing Sgt. Pepper's for the first time, Bob Dylan is reported to have said, "Oh, I get it. You don’t want to be cute anymore." That transition started with Sgt. Pepper's (and maybe even a little before that), but it really takes force on this album.

Upon hearing Sgt. Pepper's for the first time, Bob Dylan is reported to have said, "Oh, I get it. You don’t want to be cute anymore." That transition started with Sgt. Pepper's (and maybe even a little before that), but it really takes force on this album.

I like the Spotify description of Todd. It says something to the effect that he straddles the line between pop sensibility and introspective rock (probably not really close to what Spotify said, but I think it's accurate). This is enjoyable, yet not mainstream, yet not that far from mainstream pop/rock of the time. It's different, but enjoyable. Slightly above a 7 out of 10, so I'm rounding up.

It's not my favorite Pearl Jam album, but it's their most consistent and the one with the broadest appeal. A classic.

It's one of the many "7 out of 10" albums on here. Good. Better than average, but not great. So it winds up at 3 stars.

I like it, but it doesn't grab me. At best it's a 7 out of 10, maybe even just a 6, so 3 stars.

This band should have been much bigger. The year this came out, "Footloose" was the #4 song on the Billboard Year-End top 100 list. "Let's Hear It for the Boy" wasn't too far behind, along with "Self Control" (Laura Branigan) and "I Just Called to Say I Love You" (Stevie Wonder is awesome, but that song is not). Alternative rock was still very alternative and not easy to find. R.E.M. was still on IRS records, U2 was just beginning to get attention, and The Cure had yet to release Head on the Door. Juxtaposed against additional albums that followed in its footsteps, this may not stand out, but at the time, Echo and the Bunnymen were one of the best alternative bands in existence, and this album should be listened to in the context of its time. This is an excellent, overlooked (at the time) album and band. 4 stars

I went in really only knowing "Get It On", which strikes me as a classic "white guy" rock song. Not bad, but I wasn't expecting much. This was better than I expected... yet it's still just one of those "7 out of 10" albums, of which there are many, so I'm rounding down to 3 stars. I liked it more than expected though, so at least there's that. But I will never go out of my way to listen to it again.

I'm a little fence on this one. I don't think it quite ranks with some of the other 4 stars, but it's a better than most of the 3 stars. Given the genre that it's in and that it's far more genuine than most of the country music of the time, I'll round up.

I have little idea how to rate this. It's not bad, so I'll give it 3 stars, but I have no idea how it compared to the music of the time that was available to the target audience. I enjoy the sound, but the songs largely sound the same, and I suspect I could find a number of other songs like them. Good, but unless it was far ahead of its time, not great. 3 stars.

Good but not great. The hits are great, but there's really only two. There's too much filler to be grouped with a lot of the 4 star albums. (Though to be fair, it's better than a lot of the 3 star albums.) Some of The Police's later material would be 4 stars, but not this particular album.

I would probably give this 4 1/2 if I could. Rounding up.

No, Tom's voice isn't pretty, but it works okay, and he's a good singer. If his voice was what people considered traditionally pretty, some (most? all?) of these songs wouldn't work as well. I feel like this is one of many 3.5 star albums, but Tom is a 4 star artist, and this is one of his best albums, so I'll round up.

It's better than a lot of hip-hop out there. But I still can't put it at a 4. I see that as is often the case, this project has a British bias -- not that it includes a lot of British artists (that's deserved), but that artists that were big in Britain and nowhere else show up on this list a lot. This is one of those. Skepta had some success outside of Britain, but it was mostly there. Good, but not great.

I like Beach House, but I don't get how they have put out anything I need to hear before I die.

Possibly the best post-rock album ever made. (Don't knock the album just because you don't care for the genre.) 5 stars. [Note: if you haven't seen the video for Svefn-g-englar, check it out. One of my favorite videos.]

Like many albums here, this doesn't get across the "7 out of 10" hump. It's got fun, catchy songs, and once upon a time, I actually sat down and listened to this album from beginning to end just because I enjoyed it, but even so, it's just good, not great. (This album also suffers some from "first half syndrome" -- the first three songs are the best. I wouldn't quite call the rest of the album filler, but it's weaker.)

My rating depends on why I "must" hear an album before I die. If it's based, at least in part, on understanding the history and influences in rock, I'd give this a 3, possibly even 4. But just based on the sound... it's a 2. I see how it influenced punk rock, and I appreciate the raw power (no pun intended!), but if I want to listen to something with similar energy, I'm going to put on Wire or New York Dolls. Since music is mostly meant to be a visceral experience, I'm going with the "sound rating": 2

I find Bruce very hit and miss. I love some of his stuff, but I find a lot of it good but not great. This album falls into the good but not great category.

Damn good album, arguably deserving 5 stars, but I'm going to give it 4.5 and round down to 4. Here's why. Call it petty and lame if you will :) This is the pinnacle of redneck rock. The people that loved this album the most are the same ones that thought Poison was great hard rock (it was not). These people drove big trucks, thought wrestling was the pinnacle of sport, that camouflage print was the pinnacle of fashion, and that mullets were the pinnacle of hair styles. All while ignoring that a band like The Cult had already put out multiple albums far better than what any big hair band had done. (Side note: when Nirvana came along and shut the door on big hair music, Nirvana was offered the chance to tour with GnR and said, "No, thanks; not interested.") This album, out of context, is very good and arguably deserves 5 stars, but given some of the baggage, I'm giving it 4.5 stars and rounding down.

This is an album that's on the border between 3 and 4 stars, like so many other "7 out of 10" albums. I usually round those down -- 4 star albums should not be common -- but there's something about this one. Some of the non-hits ("Black Boys on Mopeds", "Three Babies") are just a little better than what's on some of the other "7 out of 10" albums. And the voice certainly helps. Powerful. 4 stars.

QotSA are good, guitar oriented hard rock, and I feel like the music landscape is missing that. But this isn't going to be in my top 25 albums in that genre. When I've looking for good hard rock, QotSA aren't going to come to mind first, second, third, etc. Another "7 out of 10" album, and I'm rounding down. It's quite enjoyable, but it doesn't belong with the typical 4 star album.

Meh. It's got two good songs, and they're not even all that.

I like Coldplay. I think they get some grief because they are popular, and it's not hip to like the same music as the masses. So what? Elvis, The Beatles, Michael Jackson, and Prince were popular too. Even though I like Coldplay, I had never listened to this album and went in expecting it to be yet another "7 out of 10" album, of which there are so many. In particular, I was expecting to be slightly annoyed at how whiny "Yellow" is. But I enjoyed "Yellow" and the entire album more than I expected. 4 stars.

This is very good for quasi-death metal. But the key part of that sentence is "death metal". I have gone to see Opeth live, so I can appreciate the quality and talent regardless of the genre, but at the same time, genre does matter. Comparing the best kids album of all time to the best rock album of all time is not a fair contest. One genre is simply better than the other. So yes, this is good, and it expands on the genre by using Latin influences and such. But that's sort of like saying, "Look, I painted this Ford Pinto with a gorgeous cherry metallic paint, added pin stripes, and a spoiler!" Sure, but it's still a Pinto. This is still death metal.

I've been listening to The Rolling Stones for 40 years. I liked them, but never loved them... until this year. Go figure. Somehow, this is the album that did it for me. I recall reading a review written by a Vietnam MD, and then I listened, and it clicked. good album. But not epic.

Meh. So what if this influenced a lot of mediocre synth pop bands?

I was going to give this three stars -- it's nothing special, but it has some hits. But this is just so mostly boring. Elvis has some great slow songs, but if that's all he had, he wouldn't be even a quarter as popular or influential. And that's mostly what this album is. 2 stars.

Once upon a time I would have said this is one of the greatest live album ever. But I haven't listened in a few years. Listening again, I'm giving this four stars. It's still very good, but ultimately, The Who are a very good, but not truly great band. I've bought some of their albums. I've even been to a concert. Who's Next is amazing, but this is before that, and the rest of their albums are simply good, not great. The energy and raw power of this performance is very good, however, and the songs are still good, so 4 stars.

It's very good for it's genre. I debated giving this 4 stars, but ultimately, too many of the songs have the same sound. This is very close to 4 stars though.

Musically, I would give this three stars. But then I ask myself, why is this album on a list of albums I should listen to? I think part of that is the history and the influence. On first, listen, I was not impressed, but then I read about how it influenced punk blues, and it clicked a little. This is like Jon Spencer, but a decade earlier. So... I'll bump it up a little to 3 1/2 stars. But then I have to round, and I'm going to round down, so ultimately I'm back where I started. But this is "better" than a lot of the other 3 stars on here given its influence.

More British bias. This album was #1 in Britain but barely cracked the top 40 in the US. I recall when this came out, it was "alternative" (in that it didn't really get airplay in the US because it wasn't the current sound). I didn't really like much of what was on the radio, and I knew a friend who was listening to this, so I was interested. After listening, I thought, "It's good, but not great", and that's still what I think. 3 stars.

Looking at some of the other reviews, I see one talking about how dumb the album cover is and others talking about how the songs are dumb. That's the point! As another reviewer said, it's just good dumb fun. Don't take it so serious. When the Ramones sing "Beat on the brat with a baseball bat", do you take that literally? Lighten up and just enjoy the stupidity. You don't actually think the guy on the cover is trying to be taken seriously, do you?! It's the same with the songs -- they're just fun. Relax and enjoy. (Another reviewer said this was a poor version of Kiss. I actually think it's the other way around.) Musically, I would probably just give this 3 stars, but given its influence and how many people seem to misunderstand the music, I'm actually rounding up to 4.

I recall the first time I heard about this album and being excited to listen, and when I did... eh, I would have given it 3 stars maybe. As time has passed though, the album grew on me. Prior to this appearing on the 1001 Album list, I would have given this 4 stars, which is what I expected when I pulled it up for a listen. But wow, this is 5 star material. As Brad Pitt said about the album, "It just... it's under my skin." Interesting side note for those who didn't read the full Wikipedia article. Bob Dylan named Buckley "one of the great songwriters of the decade", and David Bowie considered Grace to be the best album ever made. Those two guys know a thing or two about music :) 5 stars.

I like The Blue Nile. Enjoyable and distinctive album -- I can't name a lot of other bands that do this sound this well, especially not as early as 1984. But it's not their best, and it's still a "7 out of 10" album (of which there are soooo many), so rounding down. Good album, sorry to rate a 3 since it's better than most others in this category.

I left this unrated for a long time, trying to decide whether the 4.5 should be rounded up or down. The main knock I can find with the album is that it is a tad long with some "filler" (not bad songs per se, but not as good as the classics). If that's the worst you can say about a great album, I reckon I will round up. This is about as good as hard rock grunge gets. (Though I do prefer Alice in Chains, but that's sort of like picking Dylan or the Beatles as your favorite artists -- it doesn't mean the other isn't great too.) Note: the song "Superunknown" is underrated. But then again, I think "Spoonman" is a little overrated, so I guess it evens out :)

Very enjoyable. I love "Clocks". I find "Scientist" a little dull though, and it's the "big song" on the album. 3 and a half stars, rounding down.

It's good, but it's not great. I can't put this in the same category of most 4 star albums. 3 stars

I'm on the fence with this one. It's very much "white boy rock", but it's very good "white boy rock". Aerosmith has put out some garbage, but this is good stuff. I'd give this about 7 1/2 on a scale of 1 to 10, just barely about the bottleneck of so many "7 out of 10" albums that are good but not great. So, converting to a 1 to 5 scale, it gets 3.75 stars, and I round up.

This album has a lot going for it. It's a little ahead of its time and as such I'll round up from 3.5 to 4. Musically, though I would only give it 3 stars, but given that it's musically ahead of its time and that it was one of (if not *the*) first rock opera, I would give this 3.5 stars. Since I can't give 1/2 stars, I have to choose how to round. I feel like part of the 1001 project is to not only present great albums but also to present influential albums or albums that have some historical interest. This fits that, so I'm rounding up from 3.5 to 4 stars, even though in a vacuum, I would give this 3 stars.

This is the epitome of white boy rock. It's not bad, and for the record, I'm a "white boy", but it's not great. 3 stars

On first listen, I didn't think much. 6 out of 10 tops. Maybe 4 or 5. But on second listen, well, it's still not going to make it past the "7 out of 10" hump where so many good, but not great albums wind up, but "The Ballad of El Goodo" and "Thirteen", in particular, are quite good. It's good, not great, and given the awful initial sales (10,000 copies), it clearly wasn't terribly influential (though I suppose there are some exceptions to cases like that, e.g., the infamous Velvet Underground -- not popular, but very influential. Big Star is no VU.) I know it's random, but I got this recommendation right after a Thin Lizzy recommendation. These both have too much "white boy rock" (e.g., "Dont Lie to Me") for my tastes (and I'm a "white boy".) 3 stars

Classic indie rock. I like what NME's reviewer Emily Mackay said, comparing The Suburbs to R.E.M.'s Automatic for the People in the sense of it being "an album that combines mass accessibility with much greater ambition. Pretty much perfect, in other words – and despite their best efforts, listening to it feels just like coming home." Feels like coming home. I like it. It works. Classic.

I expected more. They've got some good stuff, but most of it isn't here. And to be fair, most of their good stuff is just covers of Bob Dylan. Without the Bob Dylan covers, I doubt many people (in 2024) would have heard much of this band. This is so average, I'm giving it 2 stars. On a scale of 1 to 10, it might warrant a 5, but after conversion to a 5 point scale, I'm rounding down because this is just not remotely significant.

I don't get it. I like Ziggy a lot, but in general, I just don't get Bowie. Obviously, much of music is subjective, so all I can say is that I find this album boring. I wish I could see the genius that others do, but I don't. I'm not saying it's not there, but I just don't hear it.

I had heard "Love the One You're With" and Stephen's work with CSN(Y). I thought this will be a singer-songwriter album. I was pleasantly surprised. Enough so that I considered rounding this up from a 3.5 to 4 stars. But on second listen, with some of the surprise gone, I'm giving it 3 stars. Definitely better than I expected, but it doesn't belong with the 4 star albums on here. I'm glad I listened to it though. Twice even.

It's good. I like Baaba Maal, and with this being his first solo work, it's more significant in his discography. But even so, it's still just 3 stars. I won't feel the need to revisit this. It was good to hear once, but I'm content with once.

Wow. I knew the Bee Gees had "another side", but this was even more different than I expected. And there's some quality stuff on here. Especially the stuff that isn't trying too hard to be artsy, rock opera / ballads. I'm glad I listened to this. But even so, it's not an "8 out of 10", which is largely would it would take to give this 4 stars. But it's good enough for 3.

From Wikipedia: "Among the most acclaimed records in history, Moondance frequently ranks in professional listings of the greatest albums [of all time]." Yes. Very much yes. This is one of the greatest albums ever made. If I were to limit myself to just 10 albums to take to a desert island where I could never listen to anything else, this would probably make the list.

Excellent move by Michael, switching from Motown to Epic and working with Quincy Jones. This is a fun album to listen to. But outside of the hits, while the songs are still good, and better than a lot of "filler songs" on other albums, I still can't put this at 5 stars. But great album, even so.

Very enjoyable. Just judging by my ears and musical experience, I am giving this 3 stars. But for all I know, it might be ground breaking. And, I can at least recognize that it was probably significant in the history of African music in the Western world.

While this album drops off a lot after the top two songs, "Back in Black" might just be the greatest rock song of all time. It's got 1.5 billion streams on Spotify. And the rest of the album is still good. 5 stars.

Amazing live album, amazing soul. But this music has aged a little. So how do I judge this? Based on music today or music at the time? Comparing this to music 50 years later is like looking at Newton's accomplishments and saying, "Meh, that's old school." Newton was one of the most revolutionary figures ever. So I will judge this by the standard of the time. 5 stars.

I briefly considered giving this four stars. It's quite enjoyable. But I was dreading listening to it -- I thought it was going to be some overhyped neo-soul / rap, but it easily exceed my expectations. But it faded a little towards the end, and on a re-listen, with adjusted expectations, while this is good, I just can't see putting it in the same company as the typical 4 star album. Still, it's a fun listen.

Good but not great. Nothing about it stands out to me. She's got better.

Sooooo sultry. Sade's voice is so warm and enticing. This is great. But not perfect. After the first two songs, the rest mostly blur together. But there's not much out there like this. It's sultry without being cheesy lite jazz (fine line). 4 stars. (And Sade has better albums. Great debut though.)

I wouldn't put this in my top three Black Sabbath albums, and on it's own, I'd give it 3 and 1/2 stars and round down. But given it's historical significance and place in time, I'll round up.

I don't get it. It's good, but I don't consider it great. Not sure why it would be an album I must listen to.

Two of my favorite bands of all time are prog rock bands (Pink Floyd and Porcupine Tree). There is almost no one I have listened to more than those two, but if I never heard Rush again, I wouldn't be disappointed. Most prog rock is meh. I don't know how to express it, but it feels too white -- and I'm a white guy. Most prog rock is lacking something, and Rush is no different. It's like if you gave Barry Manilow a hard edge and then told him to write ten minute songs with great drumming and bass. Too white. Another good example would be Steve Vai or Yngwie Malmsteen. Both have amazing technical skills, on par with Kirk Hammett and James Hetfield, but Steve and Yngwie are lacking something. Rush is like that too. It doesn't matter that Geddy Lee and Neil Peart are great musicians if the music is lacking. One of my friends who is a big Rush fan also thinks Creed is great rock. That proves my point. White boy music that is ultimately lacking. 3 stars.

The best album by the best artist in the last 60 years. I especially like "Shelter from the Storm". Dylan was feeling very overwhelmed around the time he met Sara, his first wife, and she was not part of the hectic music world. She was his refuge. "Try imagining a place where it's always safe and warm / 'Come in', she said, 'I'll give you shelter from the storm.'" That was part of what Sara provided to Bob. My favorite line from that song is: "Well, the deputy rides on hard nails / And the preacher rides a mount / Nothing really matters much / It's doom alone that counts / And the one-eyed undertaker, he blows a futile horn / 'Come in', she said, 'I'll give you shelter from the storm.'" It's not the meaning of the line so much as the imagery. I picture a bleak landscape with an overcast sky and a storm on the way with worn out men riding gray mounts. And then, there's a one-eyed undertaker. It paints a picture. And Sara was there to give shelter. Awesome lyrics. But of course, you would expect no less from Mr. Dylan.

The British bias of the book continues. This was popular in the UK. Not much elsewhere. The music isn't bad, but I wouldn't give it about 3.5, and as is often the case, I don't believe it belongs with the typical 4 star album, so I'm rounding down.

Wow. I had never heard of The Avalanches, but this is really good. Of course, you have to appreciate EDM, and I used to look down on "dance music", but just because it's got a good beat and is fun to dance to doesn't mean it can't be good music (the problem is that most dance music is pretty lame, so it's easy to stereotype it all.) I expect to revisit some of these songs. 4 stars.

When I saw this recommended, I thought, "Yeah, okay, sure, classic album with historical significance, I guess I'll re-listen." But wow! I haven't listened to this album in probably a decade or more, but wow! When I first listened (late '80s), I thought, yeah, it's pretty good, and I understood the historical significance. And I would listen to it from time to time over the years. But wow... this is better than I recalled. The energy is awesome. But... energy isn't enough -- a lot of bands can do that. These are just great tunes as well! And *then*, after all that, you throw in the historical significance, and this is an easy 5 star album.

Although I have bought multiple albums by The Who and used to have a giant poster for "My Generation" in my dorm room, I'm really not a huge fan of The Who. (I mostly just thought the poster was cool.) But wow this is a great album. Absolute magnum opus. This is maybe the only album where I find myself listening to a song and find myself thinking, "Damn, that's some great drumming!" And then, I say the same for the bass! How often do you really notice either of those? Keith Moon and John Entwistle were elite. Epic album from a band that's "merely very good". Hands down their best.

After the first two songs, there's a big drop off. But: the first two songs are 5 star material, and the rest is still 3-4 star material. I like the general vibe, sort of an ethereal rock and roll.

I had listened to a little Black Sabbath other than their Paranoid album, so I knew they weren't a one-trick pony (like Guns 'n' Roses). Yet, this still surprised me -- I don't think anyone would put this in their top three Sabbath albums. Nonetheless, it's very good. It doesn't have a hard rock anthem on par with some of their best, but "Supernaut" and "Cornucopia" are very good. And it's the slower songs that actually make the album. 4 stars.

Very good Southern rock. But they have better.

It's the "easy listening" version of hard rock (yes, that sounds like an oxymoron). It rocks fine, but it's also the type of thing that appeals to the least common denominator, thus the large sales. It appeals to a wide range of people. But it's not great. Not awful, but not great.

Good album, but not great. Lenny reminds me a little of Earth, Wind, and Fire (but better) in that he's the type of artist that you might see in concert and have an awesome time, but then you put on an individual album and realize that most of the music is just good, not great. I can see the inclusion in 1001 albums though -- Lenny has an enjoyable, distinct sound, fusing soul and rock. He's a nice addition to the landscape. But the particular album is simply good, not great. There are a couple of very good songs, but the album as a whole is just "7 out of 10", so rounding down to 3 stars.

I'm not sure a single song has represented a decade more than "Smells Like Teen Spirit" does for the '90s. (For the '80s, I think you'd have to split between "Beat It", "Like a Virgin" and either "Purple Rain" or "1999").

I don't get it. I like plenty of stuff that the Talking Heads perform, but after 30 years of listening to this album, I don't get it. The style is a bit unique, and the songs aren't bad, yet I don't consider it anything special. In fact, I find it so middle of the road, I'd give it 5 out of 10, and I'm going to round down to 2 stars.

I grew up in the south and my dad played in a local bluegrass band, but nonetheless, I'm never going to love old timey country music. I try to keep my musical tastes out of my ratings, but I just don't like this enough to give it 5 stars. Good songs, great musicians, and musical influence, but I can't do it. 4 stars.

Fun album.

I think Paul Simon is a treasure, and this is a very good album, but I'm not sure how to rate it. As much as I love Paul, I want to give it 4 stars, but it's really only got a couple of great songs. I wouldn't call the rest filler -- it's still solid, but is it enough? Since I love Paul, I'll give it 4 stars, but I think it's borderline.

I'm not sure how this album made it on the list. I'm guessing the author of 1001 is a big fan. Plus it looks like yet another album showing the author's British bias -- even in England, this didn't make much of a splash, and outside of England, it made even less. The album isn't bad, but it doesn't belong here.

I appreciate that Radiohead is different and pushes boundaries. And I like this. But I don't love it. Good, but not great. 7 out of 10, rounding down to 3. I love "House of Cards" though.

1. Glad I heard this. It's good. 2. But I wouldn't call it great. 3. I see that most of the hype was in the UK... typical of the 1001 project. This is definitely different. And good. So I may return to it from time to time.

Another instance of British bias (they were far more popular in the UK than anywhere else), but for once, I don't mind. I think this is an overlooked band. It happens. Fun album that fits with a lot of the "fun '80s pop" that was soon to follow. Not sure it's quite 4 stars, but given how it would have sounded in 1980, when it came out, I'll round up.

So many albums in this project group around the "7 out of 10" hump. I expected the same here, and I typically round down, but to be honest, I think this is just plain ole 6 out of 10. No rounding needed. This album is an example that the list is too long -- we don't need a list of 1001. (For that matter, 500 would probably be pushing it a little.)

A little cheesy, and I dislike the singer's falsetto, but it's still a fun album if you don't take it too seriously.

I wish I got Bowie. I know he is adored by many, and I like his hits. And all of Ziggy Stardust. But in general, I find him mediocre. Here were are with his 12th studio album, and he hasn't had a lot of hits by this point. This album has one. That's all. I get that it's not all about popularity, but typically high quality work (of the type that Bowie fans think he produces) receives more commercial acclaim than what Bowie has gotten. For the record, I think I actually like the second, more experimental, half. If I were rating this solely on my opinion, it would probably get 2 stars, but people whose music taste I like adore Bowie, so I reckon I'm missing something, and I'll rate it based partially on how much I think it needs to be on the 1001 list. Given that, it moves up to 3 stars.

Mostly lukewarm.

I like this album a good bit more than their next album, Fear of Music. I've listened to Fear of Music on and off for 30 years now, and I don't get it. But even though this is better, it's not going to get over the "7 out of 10" hump, and as usual, I'm rounding down. Talking Heads are an artist (like many others) who have a lot of great songs, but I don't know that they have a truly great album.(Maybe I'm overlooking one.)

Excellent music. I recall my introduction to Tori: I was still a teenager, and I had a local music station on, very, very faint, and Tori's version of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was playing, and it was so strange -- I kept thinking "Wait, what? Am I imagining things? Sounds like Nirvana", but the volume was so faint it was almost like I was being haunted. I finally figured it out, turned up the volume, and enjoyed the song very much. A very similar, but actually more intense experience happened with Tori's cover of Led Zeppelin's "Thank You", but that's more personal and another story. Anyway, Tori is very good, and I like her, but... (I'm going to give this album 4 stars, easy) but her music tends to be emotionally intense. This is not pop music. This isn't something you put on to relax or feel peppy. I like her, and appreciate her, but it's also a bit of a knock. It's like saying "No one captures my mood better when I'm down." That's impressive, yet I am hoping to not be down a lot.

Pretty average EDM, in my opinion. It's got an international flavor, but so what?

Excellent album. I'm not sure it's aged well though. The cheesy keyboards were probably amazing in 1974, but not so much now. If I were reviewing this in the '70s or even '80s, I might give it 5 stars, but... I hate to hold a trend or "fashion" against an album, but if yodeling was really popular for a few years, it's simply not going to age well, and I can't ignore it. A decent example is the last song, "Please Don't Go". It's a good song, but the "bass keyboard" hasn't aged well. Ever since the '70s, that line would have just been played on a bass guitar. It doesn't change that it's a good song, but production and implementation does matter. Still, 4 stars.

Good album. Not just the two big hits. And it was a bit ahead of its time.

Another good, but not great album. Mostly forgettable.

One great song, one very good song, and the rest... simply good with a lot of covers. 7 out of 10, rounding down.

Not bad, but not great. Decent pop rock. NOT an album I needed to hear before I die. 3 stars.

It's good, but no, it's not Forever Changes (the band's classic album). And it's not just the lack of a Side 2 with multiple songs. Side 1 just isn't as good as Forever Changes. I enjoyed this, yet I don't know that I'll ever listen to it again, so hard to give it above a 3.

Wow. 5 stars. I heard the singles on the radio back in the '80s, and while I liked the songs, I also thought of them as "just more hits" and lumped them in with the likes of Janet Jackson and The Human League. Listening to this more closely 40 years later: Wow! This is an excellent album.

If you're going to make a list of 1001 albums, I think it's okay to put this on the list. The problem is that 1001 is too much. This is a good but not great album. It, like so many other "good but not great" albums, can't get over the 7 out of 10 hump. The main reason this would make the list of 1001 and not some of the oh-so-many other "7 out of 10s" is that 1) it's a debut album from 2) a band that had decent success in its time. Still, 7 out of 10, rounding down.

Not their best or even 2nd best. It's decent. Interesting to look at the number of plays on Spotify -- almost every song has fewer plays than the previous. It's a decent album, but not good enough to stop people from starting it and then slowly dropping out while listening.

First, this isn't as good as his debut or Electric Ladyland. You can disagree, but most don't. (Of course, it's ultimately subjective, but the ratings put this as 3rd or 4th of his albums). As for the debut and Electric Ladyland, I would give them 8 or 9 out of 10. So a solid 4 stars, maybe 5. This isn't as good. One a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it a 7, so 3.5 stars. I sort of hate to round down because there's some very mediocre 3 star albums on here, but there's also some pretty good ones that just quite get rounded up to 4. This is one of those.

For some reason, I never liked the vocal on this. Listening to it again, I have no idea why. This is very good hard rock.

Sonic Youth make some great music... and then, they get too noisy in some of their songs. The song will be going great, and then (I exaggerate a little, but not tons), there will be one minute of reverb. So as good as the music is, I found myself on the fence between 3 and 4 stars. At their best, they're really good though, so I'll round up. 4 stars.

A non-trivial number of people think David Bowie is a genius. I do not. But this album is. 5 stars.

I like Arcade Fire a lot. Might be in my top 10 bands of the 2000s, but while this album is very good (4 stars), it's not great. Two very good songs, and the rest are simply good, but "the rest are simply good" doesn't typically make a 5 star album (though there are exceptions, e.g., Back in Black).

What to say other than "Meh".

Epic album. I had never actually listened, but very glad I did. Note: "Layla" is not Eric Clapton's greatest accomplishment. Not really his accomplishment at all. Duane Allman wrote the riff, and the riff makes the song. Duane >> Eric, but still, this album is 5 stars... maybe because Duane played on all but two tracks??

It's okay. But mostly just two good (not great) songs. I suspect that this being a debut album has impacted it's rating on "Best of" lists. It's not bad, but it's not great either. 3 stars.

I'm impressed. I don't like a lot of modern R&B (too much melisma -- singers turn cart wheels to get from point A to B, when walking would have worked just as well if not better.) But this is very good.

A very overrated album. I like some of Joni's work, and yes, this is an intimate album, but that doesn't make the music inherently good. As another reviewer said, this album shows too much of the side of Joni where she's not worrying about song structure or whether the lyrics fit the music. Sometimes the rhythm and flow feel disjointed, like she’s prioritizing raw emotion over cohesion. Joni often forces syllables into rhythms that feel unnatural and forced. Tracks like "This Flight Tonight" or "California" are examples where the flow seems uneven, as if the lyrics and melody are at odds with one another, creating a jarring experience instead of something organically emotive. Sure, Joni's great, and her lyrics are undeniably deep and personal, but the unconventional phrasing and odd choices in melody can come off as awkward rather than artful. For me, Blue lacks the atmospheric cohesion and the finely tuned arrangements of The Hissing of Summer Lawns or the flowing narratives of Hejira. Those albums show Joni’s artistry at its most balanced—complex yet accessible, innovative without sacrificing listenability. On Blue, the oddities are more of a distraction than a triumph.

I remember when Jurassic 5's previous album, Quality Control, came out. I was very impressed. And pleased -- this is more like the rap I like. More like old school (Run DMC, LL Cool J) and not so much like the stuff Jay Z and most modern rappers do. I would give that album 4 stars. This one isn't as good, in my opinion. Still good, but not as good. But still, 3.5 stars, though I'm rounding down since 4 stars should be uncommon.

Not sure what to say other than 1) I like it, 2) I like that it's more like '80s rap than '20s rap. But still, 7 out of 10, and I'm rounding down. 3 stars

Name a better pop artist in the last 15-20 years. You can't. Yes, her fans can be annoying. And the instrumentation on this album could be better (less drum machines and synths please), but the tunes themselves are great. They're catchy, and they're fun -- just what great pop music should be! On a scale of 1-10, I would give this a 9, so converting to a 5-star scale, I have to choose to round up or down. I don't think this belongs with the likes of Thriller (though both albums are very good pop), so I'm rounding down. (For the record, some of my favorite artists are Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd, and The Cure, so I'm no Swiftie.)

There's a fine line when you stray from what's come before. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Same with music that is a little "quirky". Bjork pulls it off (whereas, in my opinion, Joni Mitchell does not.) The quirkiness works. The distinctive voice works, along with the growls. Yet, I can also see how this wouldn't click with a lot of people. Yet it clicks with me, and I appreciate the quirks and the novelty.

Jane's Addiction isn't bad, and they were better than most of what was in the radio in the '80s, but that's not necessarily saying a lot.

This one's hard. Not being around in 1957, it's hard to judge how significant this was. The music is very, but it's aged (not a knock). And I know it was better than most rock and roll at the time, but it's not like there wasn't Elvis, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Bill Haley, etc. I would give this 9 out of 10. Converting to a 5-star scale, I'm rounding down.

It's as good as hardcore punk gets. 4 stars.

It's a good soundtrack, but as far as soundtracks go, it doesn't stand out to me. I'd like to give it 5 out of 10, but I have to round up or down for a 5-star scale. I'm rounding down.

I'm of the opinion that people listened to Yes and King Crimson because there wasn't a lot of better prog rock at the time. Give me Pink Floyd or Porcupine Tree or Explosions in the Sky any day. (And yes, Floyd was around when this came out, but it wasn't really until '73 that they hit their full stride.) 2 stars

Great album. And not just disco. For example, I love the vibe and the guitar on "Savoir Fare". Some solid R&B grooves on various tracks. But yes, the only epic song is "Le Freak", so I'm giving it 4 stars, not 5, but still a great album. Not just the disco.

Good but not great. One of many "7 out of 10" albums that are very much worth listening to, but there's so many of those, so as usual rounding down.

It's a fun album. I listened to it several times when it came out and enjoyed it, but it's not something I have come back to. So that says something. I'd probably give it a 6 or 7 out of 10 (thus 3 stars), but imagining how good this would have been if it had come out in 1968, when it was originally planned (albeit, with some debate about how authentic this is to the original recordings), I'm going to give it an extra star.

"Dylan was a revolutionary – the way that Elvis freed your body, Bob freed your mind." -- Bruce Springsteen And this is really where it began. In 2002, Freewheelin' was one of the first 50 recordings chosen by the Library of Congress to be added to the National Recording Registry...so of course, there will be plenty of 1 star reviews on here telling us how bad Bob sings (which isn't even close to true -- his voice may not be pretty, but that's not the same things as being a bad singer; the fact that some people don't realize that tells you a lot about their opinion.)

The Pixies made some very good music. This isn't it. It's not bad, but it's not great either.

I like Prodigy. It's fun music, though of course, it helps if you like the genre -- I understand it's not for everyone. I like this album, but it's not quite 4 star material -- there's only a couple of songs I really, really like, and the others are good, but not great. At times I found myself getting tired or a song (most are 6 to 7 minutes long) and skipping to the next song, so definitely not 4 stars, but good enough for 3.

The Cure are better. Just sayin' since some people consider The Smiths to be the ultimate British indie band. Not true. But still, this deserves 4 stars. One complaint I have is actually the music -- so many reviews mention Morrisey's witty humor, and that's nice and all, but these are songs, not a collection of poems. The music is good, but I don't care if the lyrics are witty -- they could be Shakespeare-level, but if the music was mediocre, the album would be mediocre too: again, it's music, not poems. (And this is coming from someone who is a huge Bob Dylan fan.)

Meh. It's not bad, but it's nothing special either. I'd give this a 5 or 6 out of 10. Since I don't think it belongs here, I'm giving it 5 out 10 and rounding down. Maybe a tad harsh, but oh well -- this album mostly bored me. At best, it has two very minor hits, and the rest is pretty dull.

I was a teenager when this came out. I like it. A lot. Although the Police were popular, I don't ever recall them being "the biggest band in the world". I wonder if maybe "band" is a key word, since other big(ger) artists were solo acts (Madonna, Michael, Prince, Bruce). Very good, maybe even a 4.5, but I'm rounding down.

"It took Basie's core audience and a lot of other people by surprise, as a bold, forward-looking statement within the context of a big-band recording." I guess. It's still big-band though. Not that that's bad, but there's only so much you can do while staying within the bounds of the genre. I'm not convinced that bounds are very big. It's good, but not great.

"The album was met with critical acclaim upon its release, being viewed by some as an innovative recording for its time." I guess. It doesn't strike me as an album I need to hear before I die. It's not bad; it's not great. It doesn't belong on this list, so I'm marking it as average and rounding down.

I'm not sure Bob has any studio album that stands alone as a four star album, but his work as a whole is worthy of four, if not five stars. Since this is his best studio album, I'll give it four stars, though that's as much a representation of his whole body of work as it is the album.

I liked this, but it is not an album I *must* hear before I die. I don't even think it's an album I *should* hear. It's good, but there's thousands of good albums out there. This is pretty average. Doesn't belong on the list, so rounding down to 2.

I feel like if I had listened to this in the years shortly after it came out, I would have given it 4 or 5 stars, but it hasn't aged well. I'm sure there are people that don't want to admit that. They may have ranted and raved about this album, and now... Well, it's not bad, but music didn't keep going down this path. For that matter, Stevie didn't either. And some of it's the production. As I've said on another of Stevie's album reviews, there are places where there's a synthesizer where nowadays, a guitar would have probably been used. To some extent, if the tune is good and played well, you might think that's all that matters, but if you use a kazoo or pan flute where a piano would work, I'm probably going to pick the piano every time, and the song will be better for it.

Easy 5 stars. Though when I was a wee little lad (teenager), I would have listed this as a distant third in their discography. Now, I would say it's definitely top two, with only Bridge over Troubled Water in competition (not sure which I would put first -- they're fairly different, so it probably depends on my mood, but most days this would get the nod). Excellent album with a lot of understated classics, like "America".

Very fun album. I may prefer it to Bjork's solo stuff -- this is more structured (which can be good and bad, but mostly good.)

I'm glad I listened. The comparisons to Captain Beefheart are fair warning: this album is not for everyone. Then again, most people don’t curl up with Moby Dick for a cozy night in — doesn’t mean it’s not a classic. So ignore the 1 and 2 star ratings. That said, I’m giving this a 3. Some parts feel like a 3.5, maybe even a 4, but just like Moby Dick isn’t exactly a page-turner, this album isn’t what you’d call ‘catchy.’ And when I put on music, I mostly want to just enjoy myself, not decode an abstract painting composed with sound. This is more ‘I appreciate what you’re doing here’ than ‘heck yeah, turn it up.’ (I do love the bass playing. I'm a sucker for that, and the sparseness of the music helps the bass stand out.)

This one’s tough—not because of the music itself, but because of what it represents. The songs are good, not great, which might sound like blasphemy to some. After all, this was Elvis’s debut album, the first rock and roll album to hit No. 1, and the first rock album to sell a million copies. But… In the mid-'50s, albums weren’t the priority for artists like Elvis. If a song was too good, the record company would hold it back for a single release instead. That’s because rock and roll was a singles-driven market, especially among teenagers, who were more likely to buy 45s than full LPs. (By contrast, crooners and folk singers—Frank Sinatra, Harry Belafonte, Nat King Cole—had older audiences who bought albums for home listening.) So, while this album is historically significant, it’s not a must-listen for its musical content. (That would change by 1957, when Elvis’s albums had more substantial material—especially since one of them was a greatest hits collection.) Musically, this is three stars. Historically, five. So I'll meet in the middle. Four stars.

Based on sound alone, I'd give this 3 1/2, maybe a low end 4. But then there was the influence. And it was refreshing to hear rappers just having fun without the need to be tough, so I'm going to round up. I came across this comment on RateYourMusic, and it's so accurate, I will quote it: "This album is like Jordan's rookie year. You already know they're gonna be legends, but there was still room for improvement; their pinnacle was yet to come and there were aspects that they fine-tuned later on."

It's good. Fun ole guitar oriented rock, alt style. I could see myself listening to this again. It's easy on the ears. Yet... not a classic. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it a 7 (good, but not great). Rounding down to 3.

Reminds me of "singer-song writer" meets Bernie Taupin (who produced). Yes, it's a little maudlin at parts, but so is Bat out of Hell, and that's one of the best selling albums of all time. This album gives me a feel. Like I've gone into a bar, and there's a guy on the piano, and he's good, and it's heartfelt, and it's a cozy bar, and you have a few drinks, sit back, relax, and take the experience in. Good times.

I love this album. It was my introduction to The National, and it's still my favorite album by them (though I think a lot of people think their previous album is even better). But as much as I love the album (and Matt's tenor voice), I wouldn't consider this an album you *must* listen to before you die. I would give this 4.5 stars, but I can't bring myself to put it with the likes of some of the 5 stars, so I'm rounding down.

This is Yacht Rock at its peak. And that's both good and bad. Yes, it can be fun for a day at the beach, but it can also be too cheesy. If you're in the mood, it's great, but if not, it's pretty bad. 3 stars

"I don't believe in an interventionist god". First lyrics on the album. Has anyone ever used "interventionist" in a song? But Nick somehow pulls it off so that it sounds smooth. I had never listened to Nick Cave, but right from the beginning, I loved "Into My Arms". The rest of the album is good too, but... still not enough to get over the 3.5 star hump. Sorry, Nick. I'm very glad I listened though. I feel that Nick is well known and respected enough that he arguably deserves at least one album on the list, so I'm glad this is here.

Ahead of its time for sure. In terms of how much I would want to listen again, it definitely gets a 3 (maybe even 2). But interesting to hear some faint sounds of the punk movement 10 years ahead of time.

It's good, but not great. The band has better. Plus... someone (Spin Magazine) thought this was better than Nirvana's Nevermind? Fail. 3 stars.

The Cars had a number of hits on pop radio back in the late 70s and 80s, and I've heard them all, mostly on the radio at the time. I enjoyed the songs, but I have mostly just thought of The Cars as an 80s pop band. And I suppose they sort of are, but Prince was also on 80s pop radio. Sitting down and actually listening to this album consciously, as opposed to stumbling across one song at a time, often in the background, I see that this is a lot better than typical 80s pop. This is really good. If I had a 10 point rating, I might only give this 7, but a very strong seven. And I would even consider 7 1/2, so I'll be rounding up when converting to a 5 star scale. Having heard all of these, I am pleasantly surprised to be giving The Cars 4 stars.

It's quite enjoyable. I'm glad I listened to it. But I don't feel the need to go out and buy it (I can't stream on Spotify, though I did find it on YouTube -- I see that this album was never released in the United States.) It's another "7 out of 10" that's good but that will get rounded down to 3 stars out of 5.

I liked this. As rock seems to be fading, it's nice to come across bands that rock hard. But... "7 out of 10 and rounding down".

Steely Dan are sometimes described as jazz rock. That's reasonable, but I prefer jazz disco. That's the vibe this record gives off. And that's not a great thing. Disco is a bit cheesy, but it's fun. This also has that cheesy disco sound, but with the more mellow jazz vibe, there's less fun.

Harry's collective works deserve four stars. But I'm not sure any individual album warrants more than 3 1/2 (which is good -- it's 7 out of 10). Rounding down to 3, but Harry is better than that.

I enjoyed this and am glad I listened. I had heard of Gil's song "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised", but I had not listened. This is very good. But... it's not my thing. I like some R&B and some jazz, and this is a good combination, but I'm not the typical listener. From my viewpoint, I'd give it somewhere from a 6 to an 8 out of 10, depending on my mood. Converting to stars, and rounding down... 3 stars.

What I can really add to what's been said about this band and this album? Led Zeppelin is the best hard rock band of all time. Not sure anyone comes close. They have multiple 5 star albums. This one is excellent as well, but musically, I would only give it 4.5 stars -- as good as it is, I am knocking it a little because of the lack of "singles" (and I'm a prog rock guy who doesn't need singles, but a few of these songs ramble too much for me).

It took me a long time to decide, but I'm giving this 7 out of 10 and rounding down. I like it a lot, but it's a little slow in the middle. I believe Quadrophenia is better, and Who's Next is an easy 5 star. This is quality Who, but they've got better.

Not bad. I'd rather listen to The Smiths, but that doesn't mean this isn't good. There's a couple of songs I might give 4 stars ("Now My Heart..." and "The More You..."), but as a whole, the album is going to be a 3.5, and I'm rounding down.

Not what I expected. Fun music, but it also strikes me as frat boy music. Not that that's awful, but... 3 stars.

These ladies are great, all have great voices, and they harmonize well. The songs are lovely. But mostly just standard. Good album (and I personally like the follow more -- it's less standard country), but I'm rounding down to 3. But it's better than a lot of 3s.

I had never heard of this, and I thought I knew Bowie reasonably well. It's good. I'd listen again. But not great, so 3.5, rounding down.

I like the Chemical Brothers. Quality EDM. This is a 7 out of 10, but I'm rounding down -- I find the middle weak. If you like this, their album, Surrender is their best, in my opinion.

3 stars. I've never been a huge Cohen fan, and this doesn't change my mind. He's got better albums. This shouldn't be on the list -- though it's not bad. It's just not a "must listen". Exposure to Leonard is worthwhile, but this isn't the best example (or even 2nd or 3rd best). The 80s synth-based production doesn't help.

Fun music for when you're full of energy and want something with an edge. But they have better. 7 out of 10, rounding down.

Good, but far from great. The fact that the album's Wikipedia article is only two sentences says a lot about its "greatness".

It sounds nice. But average. I read a review where someone said "Wedding" was so beautiful they used it at their own wedding. It's a nice song that would indeed sound pretty at a wedding. I am confident I could also find some Kenny G that sounds equally nice.

I'd definitely give it 7 out of 10. As far as "Eno-related" instrumental music goes, I like this a lot. If I were better versed in the genre or could see that this influenced others, I might round up, but I don't believe it made much impact, and while I like it, I don't think it belongs with other 4 star albums, so I'm rounding down.

Good. Far from great. I might consider giving their albums Yankee Hotel Foxtrot or Summerteeth four stars, but not this one.

I love their album Loveless. This is not that. I suppose this was sort of "historical" since it's their debut album, but they had EPs before this, so it's not like they exploded onto the scene with this.

I enjoyed this. Good trumpet / big band / fusion / jazz. And from a historical standpoint, any album that is critical of an authoritarian government and also popular is a "big deal". But to most of the world, the album was mostly unknown. (Yes, I know it was released in the UK also, but I'm pretty confident this wasn't playing on most home stereos around the world.) Musically I would give it 3.5, and while politically significant in one country (Nigeria), that's not enough to get me to round up.

One of Neil's best. Many will hold the electric part up as pre-cursor to grunge, and while true, they're off by a decade: Neil was using double drop D tuning and fuzzy guitars with a simply heavy riff back in the '60s! See "Cinnamon Girl". Proto-grunge from 1969. And a lot of the entire album Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere. But this is great. The two sides of Neil. Both sides are very enjoyable. Very few artists can pull this off... while also creating early grunge to top it off :)

Rod has a lot of soul. It's good. But it's not great. Not his best (or 2nd or 3rd). 3 stars.

Wow. I listen to some jazz now and then and have a couple of Miles's albums (Kind of Blue and Sketches of Spain), but I had not heard this album. I have missed out! I would probably rather listen to this than Kind of Blue, and given the accolades that album gets, that's saying a lot. I listened to it three times today. The playing is tight but not showy, and everything fits together really well. This album might not get the same mainstream attention, but it’s easily one of his most compelling.

Even though I'm a huge Bob Dylan fan, I don’t usually give much credit to lyrics, at least not in rock and roll. Music is, first and foremost, about sound. Lyrics are often just the icing on top. If the words are brilliant but the music is dull, I’m not interested. If I wanted poetry, I’d read a book. Joni Mitchell comes to mind: Blue is often praised for being intimate and confessional, but honestly, the music is bland and forgettable. Her melodies don’t hold up, and no amount of lyrical depth can save the listening experience. That said, I’m giving this album four stars because of the lyrics. Musically, I’d probably rate it three and a half and round down, but the raw, soul-baring writing leads me to round up. I’ve seen critics rave about this record, and while I like John a lot, these just aren’t songs I’m likely to return to often. The tunes themselves aren’t that compelling, at least not to the level critics suggest. Rolling Stone ranked this among the top 25 albums of all time. It’s good, but it’s not that good.

What can I say? One of the all time great jazz albums.