This one just struck me as bland. It's not bad. The musicianship is fine. I don't actively dislike it. I just found it to be relentlessly mediocre, so I gave up after 19/33 songs on Spotify's deluxe edition. To be honest I probably would have given this a "This was fine, I guess" 3 if it was only 10 songs, but the more I listened to it the less I liked it. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood for this. 2.5.

Points for putting a dog on the cover, and this was inoffensive as background music, but it also didn't do anything for me. I just don't enjoy jazz that much. 2.1

Every time Bob Dylan comes up on here I generally like the music and dislike the vocals, and this was no exception. It's an acquired taste that I can't seem to acquire. 2.4

I sure hope I don't lose any friends over this, but The Beatles don't do much for me. I think my dad was probably a Stones-over-Beatles guy, and I don't recall 97.5 or 98.5 playing much of the Beatles when I was a kid, so I never listened to them much despite their popularity. I think I listened to one of their greatest hits albums about a decade ago, and it didn't grab me enough to ever follow up. I feel like "Yellow Submarine" is a terrible song; I just don't get how that became one of their hits. I thought maybe I was missing something, so I listened to the version on the "Yellow Submarine" album, and it still sucks. They named a whole album after this dogshit?? I know people smoked a lot of pot in the '60s and '70s, but I can't imagine being high enough to think this is a good song. Then again, I don't have a great imagination. I guess I just had to be there at the time? Some of the songs on this album are decent, but I can't say I loved any of them. "Got To Get You Into My Life" was pretty good, though. Sorry. I know this is sacrilegious, but I can't honestly give this any better than a 2, and I wouldn't blame anyone who gives it a 1. I will now turn in my Music Fan card, admit to being uncultured swine, and delete the 1,300 or so albums on my laptop/iPod.

There have been plenty of artists over the years where I didn't love them at first, or the vocals annoyed me, but then they became an acquired taste and I learned to love them. I have tried and tried and tried to make that happen with Radiohead since they're so beloved by some...but I just can't get there. I like some of their songs, but intrinsically I just don't care for them on the whole. This album specifically is less palatable than some of their others, so I guess I'm just uncultured swine. I'm OK with that. 2.3

I'm generally not a fan of what gets classified as "80s music" so this one didn't do it for me. However, it was fun to discover that they did the original version of "Love Will Tear Us Apart" I first heard that song as a cover by Nerina Pallot and absolutely loved it; it's worth checking out.

It's...fine.

This works fairly well as background music, but I probably won't come back to this. I appreciate the composition, though; it's like if Rush or some other prog rock band decided to do a super chill album. In Icelandic.

Very chill, very enjoyable.

This is not my jam...but I didn't hate it! They're real musicians making decent music, I just don't like it.

I was hoping to like this one more given the level of respect music people have for Simon & Garfunkel, but it didn't do a whole lot for me. A couple above-average tracks, and I didn't dislike any of them, and I appreciate the harmonies...but the album as a whole didn't stick with me.

This is the closest I've gotten to a 4 so far. Didn't quite get there, largely due to a really good point Kevin made in his ABBA review: I can't help but compare this to more contemporary music that I like and find it lacking. I bet I would have given this a strong 4 if I had been born in 1960.

This was a real mixed bag for me, as most noise-rock albums are. I kinda liked a few tracks at the beginning, but hated the few before "Bubblegum" and I didn't really like the vocals, so I guess this ends up as a 2 even though some of it worked for me.

I guess I need more Neil Young in my life. I'd never really checked him out, largely because I've heard him live (on TV) a few times in the 2000's and didn't care for the vocals. In his prime, though, he sounds pretty damn good. I liked this album quite a bit. This is the only album so far that's going to get another listen from me (along with some other stuff from Neil, with or without his horse).

This one bops! Pretty fun for an album from the '50s.

I sure hope I don't lose any friends over this, but The Beatles don't do much for me. I think my dad was probably a Stones-over-Beatles guy, and I don't recall 97.5 or 98.5 playing much of the Beatles when I was a kid, so I never listened to them much despite their popularity. I think I listened to one of their greatest hits albums about a decade ago, and it didn't grab me enough to ever follow up. I feel like "Yellow Submarine" is a terrible song; I just don't get how that became one of their hits. I thought maybe I was missing something, so I listened to the version on the "Yellow Submarine" album, and it still sucks. They named a whole album after this dogshit?? I know people smoked a lot of pot in the '60s and '70s, but I can't imagine being high enough to think this is a good song. Then again, I don't have a great imagination. I guess I just had to be there at the time? Some of the songs on this album are decent, but I can't say I loved any of them. "Got To Get You Into My Life" was pretty good, though. Sorry. I know this is sacrilegious, but I can't honestly give this any better than a 2, and I wouldn't blame anyone who gives it a 1. I will now turn in my Music Fan card, admit to being uncultured swine, and delete the 1,300 or so albums on my laptop/iPod.

"Sweet Surrender" was a bit extra for my tastes, but largely I enjoyed this album. Solid funky/bluesy stuff.

This is a collection of sound effects, not something a rational person would listen to for pleasure. Let's all agree that even if we tried to listen to this with an open mind, it cannot be classified as "good music" under any rubric. The best thing you can say about this album is that "Throbbing Gristle" is a mildly amusing band name and "Hamburger Lady" is a mildly amusing song title.

Definitely feels like something best appreciated by paying attention to it, rather than having it play in the background while working (which is how I consume most of these). He's got some good lines, and I'm sure I missed a bunch. I wasn't familiar with Tom Waits so the vocals definitely took some getting used to, but they grew on me over the course of the album. I'll be interested to see if I like any of his non-live stuff more.

I liked this one more than the first Sonic Youth album. It still wasn't great, and I'll probably never listen to it again, but I don't remember hating any of these songs, and some of them were...hmm. I think I'm trying to find a way to justify giving this a 3 just because I liked it more than the last one, but it's hard to do that when my overall reaction was "it wasn't bad" vs. "at least some of them were good." It was fine. Let's pretend this is a 2.5.

This very much sounds like an album from 1990. That being said, it holds up pretty well, and I'm glad this was included on the list as I don't think I've heard any of these other than "Can I Kick It?" Solid album. I wish I could give it a 3.5.

I pretty much feel the same about this album as I did about "Daydream Nation." It's fine. It's either a 2 or a 3 for me.

This is like elevator music, but with a beat. It's not bad by any means, but not my jam.

I liked this one more than I thought I would. As someone who owns a shit ton of emo/pop-punk, I was familiar with The Cure as a big influence on a bunch of my favorite bands, but I'd only heard a few of their original songs before (I've heard a bunch of covers). This still sounded very much like an album from the 80s, but it was also pretty good.

If you can separate the art from the artist, some of these songs are pretty good. I mean, I prefer the Weird Al version whenever that's an option, but the originals ain't bad. 3.5. Apparently I hate whole numbers and refuse to acclimate to this 1-5 scale.

Not my jam, but I'm obviously not the targeted audience here. There are unequivocally some good beats on this album, though.

I can't believe this was originally released in 1977; I would have believed it was a punk album from 2005. Maybe the fact that it was remastered in 2006 has something to do with that, but still. Gotta say I liked it. My tastes tend to lean pop-punk and alt-rock, but this was pretty good. I liked it much more than the Sonic Youth stuff we've gotten thus far.

While listening to the first half of this album, I was pretty excited to dole out my first 5 on here; I loved it. Then the second half slowed down into a soul album which, while still good with plenty to recommend it, wasn't nearly as remarkable. Quality sound throughout, and overall still really good.

It's not bad. Decent vocals, and it was pleasantly surprising to hear so much piano from \"the king of rock and roll,\" but this is another one where I had a hard time getting into something made a few decades before I was born. Just not my jam. I was, however, blown away by how many albums are in his discography. I'm familiar with about10 Elvis songs, but the dude apparently cranked out a billion or so.

Fuck yeah! I enjoyed the hell out of this. The guitar started to get a little repetitive by the end of the album, but other than that I thought this was great.

I think this is the only Radiohead album that I would choose to listen to in its entirety. I haven't listened to a ton of their albums, but I like this better than "OK Computer." That being said...it's fine. It's got some good tracks, like 15 Step and All I Need. I think this was the "pay whatever you want for it" album, which was a cool idea in the age of music sharing/piracy.

This was hit-and-miss for me, but not bad.

My main takeaway from this album is that it gives me a better appreciation for the hard rock bands that I enjoy (like Metallica or Disturbed). I didn't enjoy the vocals here, but yelling is not uncommon in hard rock stuff, so I guess this was...too simple? Not musical enough? I know that's a weird thing to say about music, but I'm struggling to articulate the reasons this didn't work for me, which I suppose is why I'm not a music critic.

I'm sad to say this one didn't really work for me. I liked a few of the early tracks that sounded like classic 90s pop-rock, but for whatever reason I didn't dig most of the rest of the album.

Props to Otis for inspiring so many covers, although I generally liked the covers better than the originals. Still solid.

Mm, this was some good shit. I liked it so much I tried a Muddy Waters collection of greatest hits next and didn't like it nearly as much, so glad the 1,001 folks chose this album.

This was solid but unspectacular to me. A few songs made me think "this is what Blink-182 would have been if they'd been born a decade earlier and listened to more hair metal."

This was fine, although I enjoyed their "Younger than Yesterday" album from earlier in the list more.

Certainly much more varied than I was expecting; I was only familiar with a few Alice Cooper songs, but there's some range on this album. Largely decent even if it wasn't the hair metal I was expecting. Also my dog was SUPER interested in some of the weird sound effects he produced, so...props for that?

Led Zeppelin is the first band I can remember thinking of as cool. When I was too young to have any input on what to listen to, some of the classic Zeppelin jams were my favorites when they came on the radio, and either 97.5 or 98.5 had a weekly "Get the Led Out" hour where they would play nothing but. That said, this specific set of songs is probably a 3.5 for me, but I'll round up to a 4 for both nostalgia and what I assume was an original sound in '69. Also rounding up since it was released in '69.

Maybe I'm just in a better headspace to appreciate The Beatles today, but I liked this one WAY more than I liked Revolver. This doesn't even sound like the same band, but in my case that's a very good thing.

This rating is purely based on personal preference. For what it is, it's good, but it's not my jam.

This was perfectly fine background music while I was working, but it didn't grab me in any way. 2.5.

Well, that was quite the mixed bag of stuff. I generally liked it but didn't love it.

Pretty good. Rehab was the only song I was familiar with, and I can see why that one made it on the radio as it's probably the catchiest track. I really hate only having 5 options to choose from, as this is more like a 3.5 and that Giant Sand album was more like a 2.5, but they both end up as 3's for me.

I didn't enjoy this as much as I thought I would. I was a conscious human being in the 90's so I've heard the singles a million times, but I've also had this album and \"Be Here Now\" in my music collection for 20+ years so I've heard the whole album before. Gotta say I didn't love the vocals on most songs, with Champagne Supernova being a notable exception (although I forgot how damn long that one is). Anyway, I thought this album would be buoyed by nostalgia, but it ends up in the \"good not great\" pile for me.

It's hard to beat this in terms of chill background music to bring my stress level down. This wasn't mind-blowing, but it was consistently good and the vibe was enough for me to bookmark Norah Jones for the next time I want music to chill me the F out. I didn't realize until today that she's continued to make music for the past 20 years; hopefully the later stuff is good.

This was stressful and unpleasant to listen to. I nearly turned it off halfway through the second song because it sucked so hard. Just straight up shitty noise rock. I listened to the whole thing, though, and I maybe grew to appreciate some elements of it? I didn't enjoy it, but there's some almost-maybe-kinda-decent, like, tribal progressive rock or something, hiding beneath the offensively awful noise rock veneer. Ultimately this still gets a 1 because I can't pretend this is as good as some of the stuff I've rated as a 2 and Throbbing Gristle can't be the only band to get a 1 from me, but for the record this gets a 1.5. It's definitely bad, but not as bad as TG.

This was good.

It was fine, but it didn't do much for me. If this doesn't qualify as yacht rock, I don't know what does.

I liked it as much as the other Tribe album; good not great.

This is what the term "80s music" makes me think of, and I don't like 80s music. This makes the second album so far (you know the first one) that I didn't finish.

This album makes me think that, had I been an adult in 1980, Judas Priest would have been my favorite band. It sounds a bit dated 40 years later, but it still rocks. 4.5.

It was a little (maybe a lot) heavy-handed, but it wasn't bad.

This is another rating based purely on personal preference; EDM/techno just doesn't do it for me. This would be awesome as background music in a futuristic video game, and I respect the musicianship, but this is not something I would choose to listen to on its own.

I wanted to like this more. Love the harmonica (which I hardly ever hear anymore), love the piano, love the whole folk vibe. The sound of Bob Dylan's voice, though...it's almost a caricature of himself. I made a joke a Christmas or two ago that the guy playing Hans Gruber in Die Hard was trying a little too hard to be like Alan Rickman, and I feel like the vocalist here is trying a little too hard to sound like Bob Dylan--as if it's part of an SNL sketch or something. I fully realize the hypocrisy of criticizing vocals given the vast quantity of emo in my music collection, but I have not acquired a taste for Dylan's voice. Good music otherwise, though.

Turns out there's a limit to the amount of screaming I can take, and this album exceeded that limit. 1.5.

This isn't offensively bad, but I can't really recommend anything about it. 1.5.

Solid if unspectacular. Sounds like what you would hear in a Hollister store 20 years ago, but I don't hold that against it.

Everything kinda boringly blends together after the first track (which remains a really good song). It wasn't bad, but I don't think I'll ever listen to this again.

This didn't do much for me. 2.5.

Well, that was unexpected. I'll never listen to this again, but it was fine for an 80's rock album.

I didn't love it, but I recognize there's some quality stuff here.

Woof. I was not expecting this to sound so dated. To their credit, this sounds like an album from 1992, so I guess they were ahead of their time (hence influential, hence why this album is on the list), but to me this one does not stand the test of time.

That was a fun listen, and it definitely gets points for originality. It didn't quite get there for me upon first listen, but I might come back to this and see if I like it more the second time around. 3.5

Solid U2 album.

Well, now I know why I had never heard of Dr. Octagon before. Even as background music I found this hard to get through.

So I know that "real music fans" like Blur for all their songs other than "Song 2"...but I just can't get into them. I guess I'm basic. 2.5.

For what it is, it's fine, but this sure felt longer than 38 minutes. Kinda liked the first track, kinda bored by the rest.

I don't want to be hyperbolic when we've still got 900+ albums to go, but this might be the easiest 5 I dole out on here. It helps that I'm already familiar with the album and have enjoyed Jimi Hendrix for 30 years, but this album holds up. I can only imagine how mind-blowing this was in 1967.

EDM is still not my jam, but I thought this was more enjoyable than Daft Punk's "Homework" album.

This was solid if unremarkable.

Just because they're popular doesn't mean they're bad. Do I think Coldplay is overrated? Sure. But I also think they've largely made pretty good music. 3.5.

A few thoughts: 1. I was only familiar with "Epic" so I was a little surprised by the range on this album. Overall, it was decent stuff. 2. I'm confused as to why a cover of "War Pigs" was included. It sounds pretty dang close to the original from Black Sabbath; this is what I'd expect to hear by a cover band in a bar. So why the hell is it included here? If you're going to cover a song and release it as part of an album under your band name, you've gotta make the song your own. You can't just do a note-for-note remake. Maybe I'm missing a backstory here, but this track being on the album baffles me. Not sure why anyone would ever choose this version over the Black Sabbath version. I'm tempted to give this a 2 just because of War Pigs, but I'll reluctantly give it a 3 since that's how I feel about the rest of the album.

Dude sounds like a hell of a live performer. I had no idea what to expect from this, but I really enjoyed it. Managing to hit the vocals so well while playing at such a high energy level is pretty impressive.

My only complaint is that this album is too short and there's not more Nick Drake. His previous album was not at all like this, and he doesn't have any later albums (at least on Spotify). Bummer. This was some really good, chill stuff. 4.5.

Given that I couldn't understand any of the lyrics, that was still a fairly enjoyable listen. Some tracks didn't work for me, but overall it was solid. 3.5.

Objectively I feel like this is a pretty good album, but it's a little too '70s for me. I liked a lot of it, but I didn't love the album as a whole.

This one just struck me as bland. It's not bad. The musicianship is fine. I don't actively dislike it. I just found it to be relentlessly mediocre, so I gave up after 19/33 songs on Spotify's deluxe edition. To be honest I probably would have given this a "This was fine, I guess" 3 if it was only 10 songs, but the more I listened to it the less I liked it. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood for this. 2.5.

It's another album that's not my personal cup of tea, but it's fine for what it is. I didn't dislike it as background music, but this didn't make me want to seek out any more Willie Nelson. 2.5.

Solid. I'm glad we're getting a variety of rap in the 1,001 as I liked this more than most of the rap we've heard thus far.

This reminded me of Oasis, which I guess makes sense given the time, location, and genre. It was fine.

I didn't find the vocals as annoying as I did for "Blonde on Blonde"; not sure if I'm just getting used to Dylan or if this album was less whiny. I didn't like the music overall quite as much, though, so both albums get a 3 from me.

I didn't love it, but I liked it well enough for a punk album.

I'm willing to be the basic bitch who likes the Red Hot Chili Peppers (even though that means I'm risking going to hell according to "The Good Place"). This album definitely has some filler, and I'm sure it benefits from the fact that I was immature when it came out, but I still like a bunch of the songs on here.

I'll probably never listen to this again, but it was decent.

Not as good as "Hard Again" but still enjoyable. 3.5.

I'm really only familiar with Bruce's big hits, so I was kinda surprised by the vibe of this album--softer than I was expecting. Who knew early Bruce Springsteen had so much piano? (Fans of Bruce Springsteen, probably.) This reminded me in some ways of the Warren Zevon self-titled album, although I liked Zevon more. 3.5.

This album is really up and down. I think there's 5 great songs on it (with Blank Space and Bad Blood being my personal favorites), but I also think there's a bunch of mediocre songs that prevent the album as a whole from getting a 5. The highs are high, though. I was very late to the Taylor Swift party (Folklore was the first album I heard in its entirety), but she turned out to be exactly like the Harry Potter books: everyone likes them because they're really fucking good. Sometimes popular stuff is legit good, and that definitely applies to Ms. Swift.

Fun jam-band stuff with some good musicianship. 3.5.

I liked a few of the songs in the middle of the album, but I disliked this one on the whole. Not a fan of the vocals, and the music was largely repetitive. Presumably this works for some people since it's on the list, but I am not one of those people. 1.5.

I was pretty disappointed in this one given how much I unexpectedly enjoyed "Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere." This album was...fine. I guess. 2.5.

Not my genre, and the songs were long. Not to take anything away from the talent of the artists here (which I can appreciate), but this one didn't do it for me. 2.5.

Maybe I only like Neil Young when he does group projects. I enjoyed parts of this album, but some of it was too 70's for me. Another 2.5.

This was some perfectly fine jazz that I'll never listen to again. I didn't dislike it, and I'm trying to be open-minded towards genres that I wouldn't seek out on my own, but I can't really say I enjoyed this. 2.5.

I'll tell you what: I think this album has a chance to gain some popularity. This Floyd chap seems to have found something that really works here, and if people give it a try I think they'll like it. ---- Pretty surprising how well this holds up given that it's...holy shit, this album came out 50 years ago! It's hard enough to make an artsy album that works the day it comes out, but the fact that it still works 50 years later is incredible. A million artists have tried to make music that evokes an emotional response like this, but few have succeeded; this one just has that je ne sais quoi.

Solid album. Some of these songs were new to me, and they weren't bad. I don't think this is a great album, but I do think it's better than a bunch of other albums on here. 3.5.

Well, that was different. After the first track I thought I'd end up enjoying this album, but unfortunately it all started to blend together for me. Kudos for coming up with something new and different, but I don't think it ultimately worked all that well even though it wasn't bad. 2.5.

This was decent. I'm never going to love The Beatles, but I'm not immune to some good vocal harmonization and some catchy pop stuff.

This isn't universally true, but I generally prefer studio albums over live albums and that holds here. I enjoyed the rockin' on this album, and in some ways it's fun to hear them jam a bit so this was still plenty enjoyable, I just found myself wishing for a cleaner version. 3.5.

I will basically never choose to listen to techno, but this was pretty good for the genre (as far as my ignorant ears are concerned). Did I think most tracks were too long? Unequivocally yes. Other than that it was fine as background music, and I found myself enjoying the composition from time to time.

Maybe I listened to this while in the wrong headspace, but this did absolutely nothing for me and I couldn't wait for it to be over. I guess I'm just not a minimalist when it comes to music...although, I enjoy plenty of stuff where it's just a dude with an acoustic guitar, so maybe I just don't like Saint Etienne.

They definitely closed the album on a high note. Fun drum solo on Sha-La-La. High energy, decent classic rock stuff in general. It didn't quite get to a 4 for me, but it was solid. 3.5.

I guess we'll have to add \"Layla\" to the list of songs I didn't know were covers. In general I thought this album was pretty solid. I definitely would have liked it more if some of the weaker songs were removed, but overall it was fine.

Pure pop is generally not my jam, and that holds here.

Solid stuff, and good background music while working.

Given that this is from 1992, I thought it was pretty good. Easily my favorite of all the rap/hip-hop albums we've seen so far.

This isn't anywhere close to that shitty band that sounded like discount David Bowie (Zaggy Moondirt or whatever wonderful string of words Jason came up with), but I can't help but feel that this album sounds like discount Rush. I enjoyed the listen overall, but given how similar they sound to Rush I couldn't help but compare them and find Yes a little wanting. 3.5.

They definitely get points for having a unique sound, but this didn't do enough for me to move it beyond a 3.

This is fine for what it is. Not bad, but not my jam. 2.5.

Now this here: this is just good music. I'd never heard of PJ Harvey before, but I will be listening to more PJ Harvey in the future. This isn't groundbreaking or mind-blowing or anything, but it's high quality and enjoyable, and that's ultimately what I want from music. 4.5.

Man, hip-hop has really changed. This is another one where I understand why it's here, and I'm sure it was hip at the time...but it has not aged very well (at least to my ears). It's not really fair to judge this against modern rap, and 80's/90's rap should probably have its own genre altogether, but I can't say I enjoyed much beyond "Humpty."

I'm generally not a fan of 80's music but this was...pretty OK? Also fun since they have a song titled "Skidmarks On My Heart" and I don't think of tires when I hear "skidmarks." Also I'm 12 years old. Anyway, I liked this more than I thought I would, but not enough to ever listen to it again.

Better than "Tonight's the Night" and "After the Gold Rush", not as good as "Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere." 3.5.

As far as 80's pop goes, this was better than some but still not my jam; I didn't like it but it could have been much worse. 2.5.

Usually when I personally don't like something on here, my take is "It's good for what it is, but this is not my jam. 2.5." I can't even get that far with this album. I get that it's punk and it sounds the way the band wants it to sound, but I didn't enjoy this one at all. It's not objectively awful, and I hope others enjoy this more than I did. 1.5.

My initial reaction was "this is pretty good. They remind me of the Arctic Monkeys." Turns out that's because one of these dudes is also an Arctic Monkey.

This was fine, but not my jam.

Given that the title track has 1.5 billion plays on Spotify this record definitely deserves to be on the list, but overall I didn't love it. Good vocal harmonies, and the music is fine, but nothing else really stood out to me.

Easily my favorite of the Bowie albums we've heard so far...but for me it only gets into "good not great" territory. 3.5.

Struggling a bit with this one. I feel like it's objectively good, and I appreciate much of it...but I don't think I would ever choose to listen to this again. It's somehow good without being enjoyable to me. Usually in this case I'll think "yeah, I recognize that people who like this kind of music would like it, but I personally don't like this kind of music." In this case, I think I generally *do* like this kind of music, but I just couldn't get into this album. It definitely gets bonus points for having a komondor on the album cover as those are the most ridiculous-looking-while-still-naturally-occurring dogs on the planet. So there's that.

Mixed bag here. I enjoyed the middle of the album more than expected--I've never really sought out funk music, but this was good. The first track was itself a mixed bag, and the last track decidedly did NOT work for me. Sometimes the experimental track on an album is transcendent, but sometimes it's just noise.

It's been many, many years since I've heard this album in its entirety, but I enjoyed the re-listen more than expected. Looking at the track list made me think this album had a bunch of filler, but I ended up enjoying the whole thing. I'm certainly biased towards R.E.M. since Adolescent Kyle spent a bunch of money on their CDs back in the day of Columbia Records (or whoever ran those CD by mail catalogs in the 90's), but Adult Kyle hardly ever listens to a full R.E.M. album (and then it's usually "Green" or "Monster"). Maybe I need to revisit them more often, beyond the singles.

Sounds like it was probably a fun show to see live...except apparently it wasn't actually a live album, they just added crowd noise. Weird. Pretending like it's a live album is like giving yourself a license to be raw and unpolished in the studio, which I guess is fine if you're going for a raw sound, but I didn't like this one as much as I wanted to. Definitely some good stuff here, though. Can't deny that Joplin is a powerhouse.

Per the Wikipedia blurb on here: "At the time of its release, it was considered the band's most accessible album." I admittedly haven't listened to other albums by The Fall (so maybe their earlier stuff is akin to Throbbing Gristle), but I don't know how a rational person could describe this album as "accessible." There is no universe in which this album appeals to a wide range of people. Enjoyment of art is subjective, and I'm sure some people like this flavor of weird, and that's fine...but I think this is one of those instances where "different" and "good" are conflated. The vocals here are unusual; that does not make them good. The instrumentals, to me, are neither impressive nor aurally pleasant; sometimes they're weird, sometimes they're basic, never are they good (to clarify: I'm not saying anyone in this band is bad at playing their instrument, I'm just saying the composition is bad). So I think these guys made a bad album, but because it sounds different than the vast majority of albums, some people talk themselves into acting like it's good. Different != good. It's unusual, and I guess it's interesting in some ways, but I did not enjoy this at all.

This does not sound at all like an album from 1971, so props to them for being ahead of their time. That said, this is largely not my cup of tea. I kinda liked some stuff at the beginning of the album, but then the back half turned into "let's make weird noises (for a long-ass time) and call it art." 2.5 for the first half of the album, but a 1 overall. Not sure how one could enjoy this album in its entirety while sober.

This wasn't bad; it wasn't hard to listen to like The Fall or CAN. However, this didn't do much for me and I'll never seek this band out again.

Good not great for me. I really liked the overall sound of this album, but it got kinda boring by the end of it.

I was only familiar with the singles before listening to this, and I can't say I'm itching to add the whole album to my collection. I probably would have enjoyed it more closer to when it came out, but for some reason I never sought out any Soundgarden beyond what the radio gave me. Anyway, solid stuff here. 3.5.

I like the Pixies enough to own their greatest hits album, but not enough that I'll ever want to listen to any of their original albums. This was fine.

This was fine. 2.5.

This was OK. I liked some elements of it, but on the whole it felt a bit milquetoast. I couldn't tell you what's missing or why it didn't totally work for me, but I feel like this band has the potential to make much better music that what they put on this album.

Well gosh dang, that was pretty good! I don't know if I'd ever heard any of these songs beyond Tiny Dancer, but that was a largely enjoyable experience. I think this Mr. John guy has some potential.

Another case where I'm sure he was great at the time, but it didn't do much for me listening to it 70 years later.

Perfectly fine R&B, although nothing mind-blowing.

I just don't understand the curators of this project sometimes. They seem to have drawn a hard line in the sand with country music and declared that the only country worth listening to was released before 1990. Just a weird take. The genre is still immensely popular with a big chunk of the country, and personally I think the genre has gotten infinitely better over the past 30 years. I'm obviously influenced by when I was born, but I remember more or less hating country as a youngin' other than a few songs, but I've grown to enjoy some more contemporary artists. Anyway, classic country typically doesn't do it for me, and this album is no exception.

Eh. It's fun in parts, and I always enjoy Psycho Killer, but in general I have a hard time getting on the same wavelength as Talking Heads. 2.5.

As far as 80's pop goes, this was pretty good. It's basically maxed out at a 3 due to the genre, so...great job.

Hard to rate this one appropriately. It starts and ends with all time classics, but the middle of the album doesn't keep pace.

Woof. Maybe if I were in a better mood, or if this was dated 50 years earlier, I'd give it a 2 and say it's simply not my jam. I started skipping on track 2, listened to a few seconds of each, found them to all basically sound the same, and got the fuck out. No thanks. I'm sure this works for some people, but it ain't me.

Yeah, no. At least these people sound like they're having fun, and I can imagine people dancing to this and enjoying it in an 80's movie or something, but this is not my jam.

I'd give the vocals a D, but that's pretty much par for the course for classic punk. Otherwise this was fine.

I'll certainly never listen to this again, but that's the case with pretty much anything released before 1965 or so. I thought this was largely pretty good for what it was. 2.5.

I've had this album for a decade, but it's not one I spin up in its entirety very often since I think it's uneven. The good tracks are really good, and they're all unique, so this is pretty good overall.

Well OK then. The album cover is as weird as the music, so it's nice when those things line up. This didn't totally work for me, but given how old it is that's not terribly surprising. I'm generally a fan of prog rock, so I appreciate the trail these guys blazed.

Pretty good, given this came out almost 60 years ago. I'll never listen to it again, but this was solid. 3.5.

I think this was the first time I'd listened to an entire NIN album. I was obviously familiar with their singles, but I can't say I really enjoyed many of the songs that were new to me. This is one of those bands where I feel like I should like them more because I know some people think they're amazing, but they don't do much for me. I didn't dislike any of these songs, but I also didn't love them.

Sorry, this was just too damn 80's for me. Respect to Prince, but this is not my jam.

I think this album gets so much acclaim since it was at the forefront of this type of rock. At least to me this sounds ahead of its time for being released in 1983. Not my favorite R.E.M. album, but a solid listen and pretty good for a debut. 3.5.

Per the Wikipedia blurb on here: Rolling Stone, Pitchfork and the Times ranked Kid A the greatest album of the 2000s, and in 2020 Rolling Stone ranked it number 20 on its updated list of the "500 Greatest Albums of All Time". As someone who was conscious in the 2000s, I'm a little offended. If I could insert the Mugatu/crazy pills GIF here I would. I just don't get Radiohead's popularity. This album is a big ol' bunch of meh. I didn't hate it, but I can assure you I will never choose to listen to this again.

Solid.

Hard to decide whether this gets a 4 or 5. There are some certified bangers here, but there are a few slower songs that really drag when you listen to the entire album. Ultimately I think I'll round the 4.5 up to a 5 given how high the highs are here. Just an iconic 90's album, despite the shots at my beloved Uncle Joey.

On the whole, this album is too long. There's a whole bunch of stuff that, in 2024, does not hold up well to my ears (and maybe half this album has always been filler). That said, "Saturday Night" still slaps 50 years later.

Uhhhh...yeah, this wasn't for me. I recognize the musical talent here, but I guess I'm just not a jazz guy.

Yep, that was some 80's hair metal. It was fine, although I remember liking Judas Priest much more when their album came up a few months ago. I'll never listen to this again, but I didn't dislike it.

Man, this one was all over the place. Some stuff worked, some stuff didn't. It definitely gets points for being this weird in 1973 and (presumably) helping to kick off prog rock as a genre. Before getting into this project, I had always thought of Rush as being the original prog rock band, so it's been interesting to hear a few other bands from the 70's who were also doing weird rock shit.

This was fine.

Still not the genre for me. 2.5.

During the first half of this album, I was worried that I might have a brain tumor as I found myself really enjoying some 80's pop. The latter half definitely brought things back down, so the limit of 3 for an 80's pop album remains unbreached.

I guess this was largely good, but only a couple tracks stood out on first listen, and the album was similar enough throughout that I was looking forward to it ending. Honestly baffled why this album is on the list given how recent + underwhelming it is. 2.5.

Generally not my speed, but this was pretty good! I did not expect to enjoy a chill album from 1970 this much. 3.5.

For me, the music gets a 2 and the vocals get a 4.

Huh. This was a pleasant surprise. I came into this only knowing that Janelle Monae is a straight up unabashed weirdo. I don't typically go for techno or R&B, so I'd never heard more than a song or two from her. Gotta say: this was pretty good. It started to drag a bit at the end, but other than that it was an enjoyable listen.

I didn't dislike this, but ultimately it didn't do much for me. I'm guessing this is at least partially due to the fact that the lyrics largely don't enter my consciousness while I'm listening to these, so if the rhymes are the selling point of this album they were mostly lost on me.

This strikes me as wholly unremarkable 80's pop rock.

I knew nothing about these folks going in, but this was a largely enjoyable album. Nothing fancy or mind-blowing, just good stuff throughout.

How have I never heard of this band before, why do they only have two albums, and why wasn't their second album as good as this one? Gosh dang.

Disco is still not my jam.

I wanted to like this more than I actually did. It wasn't bad, but it won't stick with me.

Meh. 2.5.

Fine, but not my jam. 2.5.

I guess everything gets a 3 this week.

Hard to rate anything from Eminem. I don't really like the sound of his voice, but the flow is pretty good. I don't typically listen to much rap, but I generally find the beats catchy. The lyrical content is generally abhorrent, but they're also intentionally subversive and offensive. I can (and very often do) enjoy intentionally offensive stuff in the realm of comedy; I love a good irreverent TV show or stand-up comic. Not much of what Eminem does is played for laughs, yet I also don't take most of it seriously. I dunno. I can't help but enjoy much of his stuff even while thinking "man, that guy's fucked up." There are a million songs I enjoy with lyrics that I can't relate to and don't endorse, and this entire album falls into that bucket. That's art. Overall this doesn't quite get a 4 for me, but still pretty good. 3.5.

Not my favorite Offspring album, but I'd agree that this is their most influential album. As a huge fan of pop-punk in the aughts, I am by default a fan of The Offspring and the road they paved. Side story: I will always remember a van ride with the family circa 1994-5 while my dad was driving and in control of the radio. His preference was 97.5 and 98.5, while my sisters and I preferred 100.7 and 92.3 and 107.9 (although I'm guessing this was before 107.9 was The End). He said "I'll change the station if you can name the artist of one of these songs." We kept guessing, like, Eric Clapton or The Eagles as it was on 98.5 (Cleveland's classic rock), but to no avail. Then they had a commercial trying to make a dig at damn kids these days and what has befallen rock music, but don't worry, we're 98.5, we'll never play that shit. To make their point about terrible modern rock music, they used the intro to "Self-Esteem" that's just "La la lalala, la la lalala" which my sister correctly identified as The Offspring, so we were granted a station change on a technicality. A great win for punk rock. Anyway, I really enjoyed revisiting this album. Beforehand I was thinking it was a 4 with the iconic singles and some filler...but this holds up well in its entirety.

Maybe this album is good enough for a 2...but I found it hard to get through. 1.5.

More like "SuperMEH" amiright?

This was perfectly fine BritPop. On the whole, I think I actually liked it better than "What's the Story Morning Glory" even though it didn't hit the same highs. Maybe that's a dumb thing to say, and it's just colored by how disappointed I was when that Oasis album came back up here, but at any rate I thought this album was solid. 3.5.

This was fine.

I'm glad this album's on the list, as otherwise I probably never would have checked out Tracy Chapman. I initially wished there was a little more pace, but I ended up really enjoying the chill vibes on this album. Great vocals and overall an enjoyable listen.

While I'm getting more tolerant of hardcore vocals over time, this album still felt like an assault on my ears at times. The drums are fucking awesome here, and there are some great metal guitar riffs, but I can't say I loved the experience as a whole. It's definitely a 3.5...and I guess I'm rounding up to a 4 for musicianship this time.

The Beastie Boys are very much hit-and-miss for me. Personally they get some bonus points for their inclusion in "Patriot" which remains one of the best TV shows of all time. That's enough to round this 2.5 up to a 3 for me. I liked a few of the songs on this album, but overall it was more miss than hit and probably deserves a 2.

Well that was fun. I don't seek out funk, but I enjoyed this.

I liked it more than I thought I would. I have a vague memory of checking out early Arctic Monkeys stuff and not liking it much, but this was decent.

Typically I make myself listen to the entire album even if I don't like it. After an hour of this I had to give up. Sorry, Prince, you remain too damn 80's for me.

This one is a solid 3.5. If I'd heard it when it came out it would probably be an easy 4, but hearing it for the first time in 2024 makes me lean closer to a 3. Really solid 90's pop rock and an enjoyable if unremarkable listen.

Pretty good stuff. 3.5.

I generally dislike 80's music, and the quality tails off towards the end of the album, and sometimes the music feels basic...but damn Bon Jovi's got some bangers. I didn't expect to like this album in its entirety as much as I did. 3.5.

Honestly I was a little disappointed by this one. It's not bad, but it's not my jam.

This one just didn't do it for me. I feel like it's probably objectively better than I'm giving it credit for, but personally it didn't work. 2.4.

This is fine (probably even good) for what it is. Impressed by the speed with which syllables were spit out, and for something from 1991 it's perfectly fine musically. That said, this falls into the "I'm glad to have heard it but I'll never listen to it again" bucket.

Had I been a teen rather than an infant in the mid-80's I probably would have really enjoyed The Replacements. I can't say I love it 40 years later, but it's not bad.

More bluesy than I was expecting from The Doors. "Riders on the Storm" remains a good jam, but most of the rest of the album kinda just passed by in the background for me. 2.7

Not my jam, but this was fine. 2.6

Pretty solid classic rock. I don't remember having heard any of these songs beyond "Bang a Gong" before, but I generally liked this album. 3.4.

For a rap album from 1990, this was fine.

Maybe this is fine for a disco album...but the second Spotify switched to another artist on auto-play I said "thank god that's over." I feel like I've reserved 1-star ratings for music that is objectively bad rather than just subjectively, so this gets a 1.5 from me.

My only previous exposure to Alice in Chains was the singles that made it to the radio. This is probably a decent number of songs, but not enough to prevent me from mixing up Alice in Chains with Alice Cooper in my mind (which is probably part of the reason I was so surprised by how little metal was on the Alice Cooper record that came up earlier in this project). This album holds up really well, though. It started to feel repetitive by the end of the album, but they were repeating a good sound. I'll be buying some Alice in Chains. 4.6

Meh. Not bad, but not their best work overall.

Maybe it's just because I'm tired today, but I feel like I didn't enjoy this one as much as I expected. It's perfectly fine, just not great. 3.2

I'd never heard of Paul Weller before, but this was good stuff. I didn't like it *quite* enough to buy it, but I wouldn't mind listening to it on Spotify again sometime. This was as good as pretty much any other 90's pop-rock band. 4.1

This is probably pretty good, but I don't listen to much classical or jazz so I can't really compare it to much. It was fine as background music.

This was fine for what it is. The vocals are good enough to get to a 3 even though I'm not a big fan of the genre, but barely. 2.5

Solid. 3.3

Very much a mixed bag here. It's weird, some of it was fun, there's some interesting stuff, and unlike Throbbing Gristle this actually works as music rather than a collection of sounds. As an album...it doesn't work that well. It was kinda hard to get through and I very much welcomed the end of the album even though I didn't necessarily dislike most of the songs. A song from this band here or there to add some variety to a playlist is perfectly fine, but given the overall experience of the album I can't rate it very high. 2.3

Interesting to hear this one the day after The Avalanche. There's also a bunch of weird stuff happening in this album, but it works much better as an album for me. Admittedly I've also heard this one a handful of times before. I never liked this album as much as music critics seemed to (I was originally only aware of it because it made headlines for getting a perfect score from Pitchfork or Rolling Stone or something) as some of these songs just don't work for me, but there's a lot of good stuff here. I appreciate the originality and it feels like she had a good time making it. 4.0

Inoffensive but also unexceptional. I don't get why this album is on the list. It sounds generic to me now, but I suppose it probably felt more original in 1970. 2.4

Mixed bag for the album. A few classics, including an all-timer in Bohemian Rhapsody, so big points there. I can't say I loved this album on the whole, though. Probably more good than bad, so we'll settle in at 3.7.

Not the worst 80's album (you can point to the year if you want, but this IS 80's pop), and I liked a couple songs...but this is still not my jam. 2.3

This was some perfectly fine alt-rock. Didn't love it, but it was solid. 3.3

Objectively it's not bad. Pretty decent vocals, and...uh... well, I'm not sure what else I can recommend about this album. It bored the hell out of me, honestly. I want to give this a 2 as I can see how some people would find this beautiful and relaxing, but there's just nothing interesting to me about the composition/instrumentation here. 1.4

I'm glad they put some foreign-language stuff on the list as some of it has been good or at least interesting. This one still qualifies as "interesting," but I can't call it good. Not my jam.

A few of these songs hold up pretty well today, but much of the album sounds fairly dated at this point. Given that it came out in '88 that's entirely understandable, but it does cap the ceiling for me. That said, it was an enjoyable listen overall. 4.0

Not my jam. A couple songs held up OK, but the rest of the album was milquetoast for me. 2.3

This was decent, but not nearly as good as his "Pink Moon" album. Still sounds surprisingly contemporary given how old it is, I just didn't like it as much. 3.3

This was fine. Good musicianship and it sounds fun for a couple songs, but this isn't something I enjoy in large doses. 2.9

Well, I was decidedly *not* looking forward to an album from Iggy Pop...but this was much better than expected. I mean, it's still not great and I'll never listen to it again, but I thought this would be a 2. Turned out it was decent. Interesting to read the Wiki blurb here noting that this was a collaborative effort with Bowie. 3.1

Not sure why they picked this album over "The Colour and the Shape" (which contained Monkey Wrench, My Hero, and Everlong) as this one doesn't hold up terribly well to my ears. Kinda just sounds like noise rock to me. It's not bad, and it's cool that Dave Grohl apparently did the whole thing himself, but I'll never listen to it again. 2.9

Pretty good for 70's/80's pop-rock. A couple classics, which made me think I should consider getting their greatest hits album...but I tried that and I'll pass. Still, not bad. 3.1

Huh. This feels like it probably would have been a fairly unique sound in 1993, and for some experimental/indie/alt-rock it holds up pretty well. It's a little raw for my tastes, but I thought it was decent. I can totally understand why I've never heard of this band (I can't imagine their whole vibe appealing to a wide audience), but they're pretty good at what they do. 3.3

I am admittedly not in a good mood while listening to this...but much of this just sounds like noise to me. It's early punk, and I can appreciate that it was transgressive and groundbreaking in 1968, but it does not hold up well to these ears. For me, this is another case where different != good. 2.0

It's fine for what it is, but R&B is not my jam so it's hard to rate this appropriately. 2.5

I largely feel the same about this as the other King Crimson album on here: props for doing weird prog rock shit in 1969, I liked some of it but not all of it, and I'm glad it's on this list. 3.3

This was fine for what it is. 2.8

It wasn't awful, it was interesting in spots, but it was still decidedly not my jam. 2.3

I can appreciate that they're doing something original here, but it just doesn't work for me. 2.1

For me, GNR has always been the light shining in the darkness of 80's music. Most of my distaste is for 80's pop specifically, and if I think about it more I'm sure I could find more artists who released stuff in the 80's that I liked, but my maxim is "I don't really like 80's music...except for Guns N' Roses." This album is fairly incredible for a debut with a handful of classics, and the filler songs ain't bad. Great album. 4.8

Points for putting a dog on the cover, and this was inoffensive as background music, but it also didn't do anything for me. I just don't enjoy jazz that much. 2.1

I can confidently say that this is an album of jazz music. Behold how astute I am.

This was fine, I guess, but also unexceptional. 2.4

I don't really get the appeal of Morrissey. I feel like I've seen him pop up as an influence for various artists that I like, but his music doesn't do it for me personally. 2.1

I can't properly rate this one. When it started, I was like "Oh, this is a Beatles imitation band" but then it got weirder as the album went on, so that no longer fits. I know it's not something I ever want to listen to again, but while "listening" to it I was fairly engrossed in my work so this mostly just washed over me as slightly annoying background music. Points for doing some weird shit, and maybe I would have appreciated it more if I paid more attention to it. Rounding up to a 3 here, partly because in retrospect I feel bad about giving the recent jazz albums a 2--it's not a genre that I enjoy, but the musicianship was objectively good enough to get those to a 3 even if I didn't enjoy them that much. Sorry, jazz guys. 2.5

Man has this project done Tom Petty dirty. The only album on the list is this one, which is, at best, fine. It's also his/their first album, so it's not surprising that it's not the best. Why the hell did they choose this one? I get that this list may lean more towards "influential" than "great," and if a band has an original sound then you can make the argument that their first album should be the pick...but are mediocre albums all that influential even if they have a newish sound? Aren't the "influential" albums the ones that inspire other bands, meaning that they were *good* albums that those later songwriters would listen to repeatedly? At some point I'll stop complaining about the list because it's an impossible task and everything artistic is subjective, but this album is a terrible representation for an artist/band with decades of music. Obviously, "Wildflowers" is the single greatest album that isn't on the list of 1,001, but even some other Heartbreakers albums would have been better choices. RIP, Tom. You deserve better.

Good for what it is, but not my jam. Fun instrumentation from time to time, and I found my head bopping at points, but asking me to fully appreciate a double-length 70's pop/soul/funk album is a tall ask (although I did listen to all of it). It was fun to learn that "Gangsta's Paradise" (and more significantly for me personally, "Amish Paradise") originated with Stevie Wonder in 1976. How about that? 2.7

This was fine.

Well, that was a pleasant surprise. I had no expectations going in, but I mostly enjoyed the brand of weirdness these guys deal in. Maybe a little too much variance for one album, maybe a little too long, but this was a good listen. They do a nice job of coherently combining different sounds. I'll be coming back to this one. 4.2

This was a solid pop-rock album. I'll probably never come back to it, but it was certainly a good listen. 3.6

Decent stuff, particularly given how old it is. I liked it more than most 60's/70's stuff. 3.3

I was not expecting to enjoy this album as much as I did. I knew Adele was a good singer, but "good" is underselling it. Great vocals here, although the music is fairly basic (it's perfectly fine, but nothing exceptional). I'm glad this is on the list, and I'll add this to the options for days when I want something to chill me out. 4.1

This was perfectly fine, but it didn't really grab me. 3.2

No thank you. I don't *think* this is actively bad so we'll leave it at a 2...but it might be. 1.6

Points for energy, and the album cover is pretty cool, but this largely felt like a thrash/noise rock album. Not sure how much of that is because it's a live album and how much is just Motorhead, but I didn't love this. It all started to sound the same after a while. 2.7

Not much gets a 5 from me on here, but I enjoy me some CCR. I've got their greatest hits album, and listening to this felt like simply a subset of that. Good stuff. It's particularly impressive given how old this album is and how well it holds up. Also: love the album cover. What a bunch of dorks. 4.8

Well, I understand why they made a live musical show out of this as I found myself thinking "I bet this would be cool in person with a full orchestra." I remember listening to this album a few times in college, deeming it overrated, and never listening to it again until now. My older, wizened self likes it much better than my ~21 year-old self did. It still strikes me as a bit highfalutin and artsy-fartsy, but I can't deny how good the composition/orchestration is on this album. I don't love the style, but I definitely appreciate the quality here. This was a nice way to start the day. 4.2

I'm sure it was intentional, but this sounds like an album from the 60's, so...no thank you. This was hard for me to get through. I don't think it's objectively bad, so it probably doesn't deserve a 1, but it's darn close. 1.5

Kinda bummed by this one, to be honest. I've always enjoyed the song "Do It Again" so I was hoping there would be other songs on here I'd enjoy, but I'm afraid I didn't get much out of this album. I didn't dislike it, but it was fine at best. 2.6

I was able to tolerate this as background music while I worked, but this would have been a real struggle after the first few songs if I didn't have something else to concentrate on. It's fine. Reminded me a lot of the Daft Punk album on the list where much of it sounded like it should be the soundtrack to the Mass Effect video game. I didn't dislike it, and I've gotten to the point with techno where I can understand why people who are into the genre would like this album, but I'll never revisit this. 2.4

There have been plenty of artists over the years where I didn't love them at first, or the vocals annoyed me, but then they became an acquired taste and I learned to love them. I have tried and tried and tried to make that happen with Radiohead since they're so beloved by some...but I just can't get there. I like some of their songs, but intrinsically I just don't care for them on the whole. This album specifically is less palatable than some of their others, so I guess I'm just uncultured swine. I'm OK with that. 2.3

I'm glad they were apparently influential for so many bands that came after them, but this didn't do much for me. It's fine for what it is and when it came out. 2.6

Pretty good! Nothing I'll ever listen to again, but great vocals. 3.4

I'll say this: I've disliked other 80's music more. 2.2

Meh. Not the right kind of weird for my tastes. 2.0

Solid. I didn't love it, but that's the case for most pop albums. 3.3

This one feels like it holds up better than other 80's and 90's rap albums on the list. I imagine this was a formative album for a ton of people. My mom is lucky I never heard this album as a kid as we probably would have entered into a cycle of me getting it and hiding it and her trying to throw it away like the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. 4.0

This was perfectly fine but unremarkable. 3.0

This was fine for what it is. 2.7

Well, that was unexpected. I came into it thinking "oh, I liked The Beach Boys when I was a kid. Maybe this will be a fun trip down memory lane." Then I listened to...whatever this is. I don't get it. I can't say I enjoyed anything beyond the album cover here. 1.3

I didn't enjoy this one as much as "Are You Experienced?" but there was still plenty to like on here. I had only heard a few of these songs before, and the songs that were new to me were a mixed bag: some mediocre, some really good. This is a good reminder that some classic rock can still hold up a day after that Beach Boys album that was hard to get through. 3.8

Not a fan of the slow jams on here, but this fella's pretty good at the rock that he's known for. 3.4

There's some good instrumentation here. I'd never heard of Pulp before, and just based on the first track I kinda wanted to not like them, but this was pretty good. 3.6

Good chill music. Kinda dull so I can't rate it too highly, but good for what it is. 3.2

I think I probably like "Icky Thump" more as an album, but "Seven Nation Army" is easily their most popular song so I get why this album is on the list. A few songs on here feel like filler, but the good songs are enough to get this to a 5. Whether you like their music or not, it's hard to argue with Jack White as a singular talent when it comes to writing guitar riffs. Is he a straight up weirdo? Seems like it. Is he a great guitarist? Definitely yes. 4.5

This was fine. 2.5

Hell yeah. Sometimes I ding stuff on here for being too simplistic, but the simplicity here really works because the guitar riffs are so cool. This album rocks, and it's a prime argument for 70's music over 80's music. 4.9

I like the instrumentation on some songs, but I dislike the vocals on all of them. Just couldn't get into it. 2.1

Meh. Inoffensive, but it didn't do much for me. Actually, it *was* inoffensive until I got to "Knight-Errant" and then I had to knock this down to a 2 for being grating. The longer I listened to this album the less I liked it. 2.0

Well, that was weird. It was occasionally fine, but it largely didn't work for me. 2.3

I guess there's a reason I haven't heard most of these songs. "Sympathy for the Devil" is an all-timer, though, and there are a few other good tracks on here and it finishes on a high note. I don't think of the Stones as a piano band, but I enjoyed its use here. 3.6

This album reminds me in many ways of Talking Heads: I get that they're doing some original, weird stuff, but it's not the right type of weird for me. It gets points for creativity and musicianship, but I ultimately didn't enjoy listening to it very much. 2.4

This was fine. 2.7

Eh, not for me. 2.2

Too long for me, but I imagine that's a benefit for those that like this music. I didn't hate it, but this is not my jam. I guess this week's theme is stuff I just can't get into. 2.2

<obligatory note about how hard it is to separate the art from the artist> It sounds dated, and disco/80's pop is not a genre I particularly enjoy, but I can't deny that some of these songs are catchy. There's almost enough good stuff here to get this to a 3, but the back half of the album falls off. 2.4

I'm glad this album is on the list, and I like a number of elements here...but The Gorillaz just don't quite do it for me. I like a bunch of alt-rock bands, and I like a bunch of bands that blend rap with other genres, so I'm not quite sure why this doesn't work for me as it seems like it should. I don't dislike it, but I feel like I should like it more. 3.0

This was interesting, and the production value was high. I didn't love it, but I'm glad to have heard it. 3.3

Woof. It's possible that I'm just not in the right headspace to appreciate this today...but it's more likely that I'd still hate it if I tried it again tomorrow. Luckily we'll never know.

Sounds like some old punk. Presumably they were trailblazers to some degree, so I heartily thank them for their service...but I'll never listen to this again. I imagine this is something I would have liked if I were 20 when it came out rather than -4. 2.5

This holds up shockingly well for something from 1971. There's a bunch of stuff on this list where my general takeaway is "I get how this was a stepping stone in the evolution of this genre of music, but it's hard to appreciate it in the current day." I don't love this album given all the artists I've listened to that came after Carole King, but it also was not a struggle to get through. It's cheesy in parts, and sounds a bit dated, but a decent listen for chill music. 3.5

This continues to be a genre that I simply do not care for. 2.0

This is another one that falls into the "thank you for your service" category. It's fine for what it is. 2.5

This is not my jam, but I can at least see why some people would be into this. Some of the funk is kinda fun, but some of it is annoying. 2.4

Fuck this was long. I liked some of this as background music while working, but it was hard to get through the whole thing. I assume this is a pro for people who are into this kind of music, but it ended up as a con for me. This falls into the "it's good for what it is" bucket. 2.4

This was fine. Liked it, didn't love it. 3.3

Pretty good, but uneven. I still have a hard time fully appreciating jazz, and much of this felt jazzy to me. 3.2

Massive shrug. 2.5

No thank you. It's probably fine for what it is, but it's not for me. 1.9

If I've heard any of these songs other than "Beautiful People" before now I don't remember it; I imagine Marilyn Manson didn't make it into many Christian homes in the 90's. Teenage me probably would have liked some of this, but the relentless screaming probably would have turned me off. I'm more tolerant of hardcore vocals these days, so overall this worked reasonably well for me. Good not great. 3.7

A bit flowery for my tastes, but otherwise fine. 2.8

Huh. I hope the lyrics to this album are brilliant, because sonically it largely blends together after a few songs. Thanks to Bob for paving the way for later folk artists, but this was hard for me to finish. It's better than a 2, but I sure would've liked a little more variety in the guitar. 2.5

Not my jam, but not bad for what it was. 2.7

This didn't do much for me. It's another one where I assume the lyrics are significant part of the draw. 2.2

This was fine. Liked a few songs, didn't love it. 3.0

Solid classic rock. 3.6

Not all of Muse's songs work...but when they do they're typically bangers. Lots of bangers on this one. 4.9

This is some perfectly fine nu metal. I never got into Korn at the time so there's no nostalgia here for me beyond the singles. I liked it well enough in 2024, and I thought the song with Ice Cube held up pretty well, but I'll never listen to this again. 3.4

This was fine. 2.9

It ended up being too long, but the good songs hold up pretty well 30 years later (including a couple of all time classics). 3.9

Well, this was interesting at least. I'm not a Beatles fan, but at least half of these songs don't sound like The Beatles. It was certainly longer than I wanted it to be, but it's a double-album so I can't really ding it for that. It was all over the place, but I think that was also intentional. So what I'm left with is this: I liked a few songs. I don't think I loved any of them, but it wasn't a slog to get through (other than the overall length and "Revolution 9"). The variety helped me get through it, but also detracted from it as an album. 2.9

I largely enjoyed this. On a different day I can easily imagine myself thinking "this was dull" and giving it a 2, but it worked pretty well for me today (although it was a bit dull). 3.6

Well, this is a bit frustrating. I liked the Leonard Cohen album we had yesterday, but this one felt...fine, I guess. Is this because it's 2 days in a row of music that's already kinda static? Am I just not in the right mood for Cohen today? Or is it because this album is objectively worse? The world will never know. Sorry, Leonard. 2.6

This is a weird take coming from a guy who has trouble getting into albums without vocals, but I think my favorite track on here was the instrumental one ("Tides"). I'd like to say that I really appreciated the unique sound and the deep meaning behind the lyrics and the musical artistry...but that would be a lie. This album did not work for me. 2.1

This was fine. It very much sounds like something from the 90's. 3.0

This was fine for a chill album. Certainly more accessible than some of Beck's other stuff. 3.1

This was an album of music. Some of the songs were better than others. 2.8

Perfectly fine, but I didn't love it. 3.2

Some songs have an 80's vibe that I don't particularly care for, but I can't deny that they're well done. Some of these songs also sound exactly like The Head and the Heart to the point where I had to check Wikipedia to see if there was crossover (the answer is either no or I'm too lazy to find a yes). Anyway, this was a largely enjoyable listen. 3.9

It's fine for early 60's rock, but not my jam. I can't fault them for making music of the time, and obviously they're not bad musicians, so this probably doesn't deserve a 2...but it was hard for me to get through and that's the 2/3 tiebreaker for me on here. 2.4

This was fine. I'm jealous of people who can whistle that cleanly. 3.1

I continue to be unable to fully appreciate jazz, and today I realized it's at least in part due to how I listen to the albums on this list: while working, usually. This is usually a detriment for albums where the *lyrics* are a big part of the draw, but I think it's also a problem for jazz despite the lack of lyrics. Jazz can be fine as background music, but it can probably only be appreciated at a 4 or 5 star level if you're really paying attention to it. A few times during this album, I'd devote attention to it and think "oh, that was a nice little ditty in the middle of this 8 minute track" but then the rest of it would just be pure background noise. I didn't dislike any of this, but I also don't think I'd like it enough to just sit and listen to it.

The best I can say about this album is: it was creative. Maybe a little too creative. Points for sounding weird, but not much of it sounded good to these ears. 1.8

This was fine. I don't think I'd heard anything beyond "Jane Says" before, and I don't think I'll be seeking out any more Jane's Addiction. 3.0

I could do without the...whiny yelling? I'm not sure how to describe the occasional shitty vocals on here. Otherwise this was some pretty good alt rock. Not what I expected from a band that I know from "Use Somebody." I won't come back to this, but I didn't mind listening to it. 3.4

I continue to be baffled by the selection process for this list. After 300+ albums, my main complaint is how often they select a band's first album since I thought the point of this list was "influential" albums, and many times (not always!) bands are kinda working out the kinks and finding their sound on their first album, and they dial it in and become good/popular/influential on their later albums. In this case, this is neither the first nor the best album by Arcade Fire in my opinion. I love the songs "Keep the Car Running" and "No Cars Go" but the rest of the album kinda blends together. I don't dislike the other songs, but this is not an album I ever choose to listen to from start to finish, so I kinda wish they had picked The Suburbs instead. Anyway, I generally like Arcade Fire and their expansive sound, but I also generally don't love everything they do. They're good and they're unique and I appreciate their whole vibe, but intrinsically they're not a 5 star band for me. 3.8

All my general Eminem thoughts in my review for The Slim Shady LP still stand; it's all intentionally offensive, so it's hard to rate appropriately. I almost wish this album were in a foreign language so I could just say "sounds cool" because it does, in fact, sound pretty good. I wish I could throw out about 5 tracks, though. 3.9

Well, I can't say I enjoyed a single track here. I didn't outright hate any of them, but this was very much not my jam. It was both very 80s and also boring after a while. 1.7

28 songs in 41 minutes; that's something. Most of this strikes me as noise rock, which I don't love in most cases. I know it's intentional, but it largely sounded messy to me. I'm sure the "raw" sound works better for others, but I was glad to be done with this one. 1.9

Meh. Inoffensive, but I'll never listen to it again. 2.8

Every time Bob Dylan comes up on here I generally like the music and dislike the vocals, and this was no exception. It's an acquired taste that I can't seem to acquire. 2.4

Well damn, that was good. The Neil Young stuff on this list has been hit and miss, but this was definitely a hit. This has held up extremely well for something from 1972. 4.8

Per the Wikipedia blurb: "in 2020, it was ranked No. 56 by Rolling Stone in its 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list." WTF??? This album was fine. It was not bad; I did not dislike it. But the 56th best album of all time? Go home, Rolling Stone, you're drunk. Or, more likely, you're conflating different and good. 3.0. This album is the threest three that ever threed.

This was the first time I've listened to a full Slipknot album, and I'm glad it came after I've softened my stance on hardcore vocals. I still can't say I love the relentless screaming, but it's not the total disqualifier that it used to be. The drums on here are occasionally incredible, including the first track; that was a great intro to the rest of the album. The style here (a relentless auditory assault) made some of these songs blur together after a while, but I'm not opposed to listening to this album again at some point in the future, so I guess it's *just* good enough to get to 4 stars. I'm interested to see whether they refine things in later albums. 3.5

Meh. Elvis Costello has never really done it for me, and this was no exception. 2.3

I never fully appreciated Rush until they became a staple in Rock Band/Guitar Hero. I always liked them when they came on the radio when I was a kid, but I didn't seek them out during high school and college, so I'm glad I got back into them afterwards. I'm also glad that I was fortunate enough to see them live once; seeing Neil Peart in person was pretty cool. I think they're probably the most impressive 3-piece band for my money. The vocals are fine-not-great, but damn near everything else they do regularly hits 10/10. Great composition and great musicianship leading to a bunch of great songs. This album in particular is the easiest 5 since Dark Side of the Moon. 5.0

I was kinda excited for our first Fleetwood Mac album on here, but this one didn't do much for me. A few songs worked fairly well, but those ended up being the exceptions on a long album. 2.8

I think I first heard N.E.R.D on a sampler album from Adidas that I got from a mall shoe store. Remember malls? I liked the single well enough to buy a couple of their albums. I basically never spin them up in their entirety these days, but I enjoy it when the songs I've liked come up on shuffle (particularly "Fly or Die" and "Thrasher"). The whole album holds up a little better than I was expecting. Good stuff. 4.2

It seems like I should like this one more, but I'm afraid funk doesn't intrinsically work for me in large doses. I don't have any particular criticism of this album, but it wasn't for me. Maybe if I had listened to it on a different day... 2.4

Got through about half of it before giving up out of boredom. It's probably fine for what it is, but I found it tedious. 1.4

Pretty good! Even the remastered version still leans a little too noise-rock on a few tracks for my personal tastes, but this was a largely enjoyable listen. I really only knew Deep Purple from "Smoke on the Water" so it was nice to learn that they were also hard-rock forefathers. 4.0

This was fine-to-good. 3.4

Meh. The vocals are great, and Killer Queen is a classic, but the overall sound on this album is not for me. 2.4

TLDR: what the fuck? The longer version: what the fuck is this shit? As a disclaimer, I listened to a playlist on Spotify that includes most of the tracks from this album since it's not on Spotify as a standalone album. I might say "well, some of these are live tracks, so the true studio version of this album is probably better" except for the fact that I checked Wikipedia for the track listing and then read the rest of the Wikipedia article. My reaction after reading the article: holy batshit, Batman! If you haven't read the article, I highly recommend it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trout_Mask_Replica There are a number of great quotes in the "Reception and legacy" section such as "it was not even 'ahead' of its time in 1969. Then and now, it stands outside time, trends, fads, hypes, the rise and fall of whole genres eclectic as walking Christmas trees, constituting a genre unto itself: truly, a musical Monolith if ever there was one." I'll agree with that much: it is a singular album. I find it hard to agree with all the publications ranking it as one of the greatest albums of all time, but I think it goes back to my main criticism of critics: they have to listen to so much stuff that they lose their minds over something that's truly different and creative regardless of whether it's objectively good. That's how this album strikes me, but maybe I'm not enlightened or open-minded enough. Matt Groening (yes, the Simpsons guy) also hated it at first, but loved it after 6 or 7 listens. I didn't pay for this double album so it won't get that much time from me, but maybe I'd grow to appreciate it if I tried. Maybe once you get into the mindset of "if it's intentionally discordant and shitty then it's not actually shitty" it works, but I'm not willing to put that effort in. Anyway, given the critical reception and the absolute batshit nature of the album as a whole, I understand why it's on this list and I'm glad to have been exposed to it. I did not enjoy this, and I can't imagine I'll ever listen to this again, but it gets points for creativity and for spawning a great Wikipedia article full of apocryphal shit. 1.5

Did I get through the whole thing? Dear lord no; this is an assault on the ears. But I did learn that "thrash jazz" is a thing, so there's that. Who knew you could make punk/noise-rock with saxophones? Neat! But also terrible.

Hard for me to be objective here; while listening to this I found that I still knew all the words to the songs that never even made it to the radio. That said, this album holds up really well. Yeah, it's tainted a bit by the nu-metal of its time, but I still enjoyed the heck out of a re-listen in 2024. I forgot what a great song "A Place for My Head" is. I know there's a line in one of their songs that "rock and hip-hop have collaborated for years" but I still feel like Linkin Park lead that charge in the 21st century. I'm not going to write a treatise comparing the influences of Run DMC and Linkin Park here; I'll just say that this album felt novel at the time and it's still fucking great. I wasn't expecting to see this one on the list, but I'm very glad it is. 4.9

This was fine, but not their best work. Not bad by any means, just not exceptional. 3.1

Mixed bag here as some songs have more twang than I prefer, but the sound quality was shockingly good for something from 1972. I'd only ever heard "Fishin' in the Dark" from The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, so I was surprised to learn that 1) they've been making music since the 60's and 2) they're at least as much bluegrass as country. This album would fit right in with The Comatose Brothers or Old Crow Medicine Show albums from 30-40 years later, so I thank these folks (and all the guest performances) for their service. Gotta say the second half of this double album falls off, though. Early on I had this pegged as a 4, but it was hard to get through the back half. 3.4

This was fine-to-good. There's probably a world where I'd move this up to a 4 after a few more listens, but we don't live in that world. 3.2

Not my jam. I'm sure it's grand if you like soul, but it's not for me. 2

How have I never listened to this album before?! I'm very familiar with the singles from OutKast, but for some reason I've never checked out any of their albums and now I just feel silly. Really good stuff here. 4.4

For some reason I had it in my head that all Nirvana's hits came from "Nevermind" but obviously that was incorrect. Lots of good stuff here from one of the seminal bands of the 90's. 3.9

Nahhhh. This ain't it. Welcome to the exclusive club of albums I couldn't force myself to finish.

Well, I did not personally enjoy this all that much, but I imagine most people who like Bowie liked this album. It has an interesting sound: it's still very much a Bowie album with an 80's vibe, but it somehow sounds more contemporary. This is one of those "it's good for what it is but it's not for me" deals...with *just* enough personal appeal to get to a 3. 2.5

Meh. This was fine with a few good tracks. The tiny little bangs on the album cover are...something. 3.0

I've been a fan of Flogging Molly and The Dropkick Murphys for many years, but I'd never really checked out The Pogues so I'm glad they came up here. This was some really solid Irish stuff, and I'm glad they paved the way for later bands. I also really enjoy the guy in the top left corner gently holding his...according to Wikipedia: probably a tin whistle. 4.1

I'm afraid I can't tell if this is good or not; I am largely resigned to the fact that I don't have a good ear for jazz. I was fine with this on the first track, but couldn't wait for it to be over by the end.

Yep. That was some noise rock. 2.7

This one was not for me. 1.7

This was mostly fine and reasonably enjoyable, but it got aggressively bad at the end. Way to end on a sour note, guys. 2.7

This was fine. Obviously "Respect" is an all-timer, and the vocals are great, but this is not in my wheelhouse. Objectively this is probably better than a 3. 3.1

One of the nice things about this list is that it isn't ranked; it's just a bunch of albums that have been deemed influential or noteworthy or whatever. While I have some quibbles about what is and isn't on the list, at least I can't argue with the ranking of any particular album. Another nice thing about this project is the Wikipedia blurbs on here, which tell you that according to Rolling Stone, this album is only the 235th best album of all time which, quite frankly, is bullshit. Yet another nice thing about this project is it helps me appreciate the fact that I'm not a professional music critic, which allows me to maintain sane opinions on music. Yeah, I'm not going to give you detailed descriptions of why certain songs are great, and I don't have every album ever made as a comparison point in my mental catalog...but I can very easily tell you that this album fucking rocks. 235th? Get outta here. I know Metallica is not for everyone and we all spent a few years shitting on Lars for the crime of wanting to get paid for a living, but this album is unassailably great. 5.0

Kinda fun, and "Wish You Were Here" might be my favorite Pink Floyd song. I appreciate the rest of the album for what it is, but I don't love it. 3.3

Interesting vocals, and I enjoyed a couple songs, but this was largely not my cup of tea. 1.8

I hate to keep repeating the same point on here, but I really wish they would have picked "Toxicity" rather than this album for System Of A Down. The first album fetish continues to annoy the gosh darn heck out of me. This one is...fine. This is admittedly the first time I've listened to this album start to finish as their later albums drew me into them. I had heard "Sugar" a bunch of times before, and it still slaps. ...OK, it's better than fine, and holds up fairly well in its own right. I appreciate how they later cleaned up their sound a bit, but there's lots of good stuff on here and I'll probably give it a few more spins in the future. These guys are pretty good at what they do. 4.3

Sounds too much like 80's pop for my liking. No idea whether or not Jeff Buckley started the trend of covering "Hallelujah" but since a billion others have covered it at this point it doesn't hit me the same way it would have in 1994 (although it's a fine cover). On its own, I kinda liked "Eternal Life" but it was jarring as part of this album; I assumed autoplay had moved me on to someone else. 2.4

There are some classics on here, which is *just* enough to get this to a 4 for me. This is about as good as it gets for glam metal, but it's not a genre I love. 3.5

Not my jam, but the musicianship is decent and I'm sure this slapped 50 years ago. Well, for some people, at least.

I get the significance of The Doors historically, but their music hasn't held up as well as Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd for me personally. It's certainly not bad, but I'll basically never choose to listen to them. 3.2

Yep, that was really good and it holds up well. Great vocals and a clean sound. It's not *quite* a 5 for me, but still good stuff. 4.4

Honestly this was hard to get through. If the name of the artist were different this would probably get a 1.

Part of me feels like maybe objectively this should be a 3 as there's nothing specific here that I particularly disliked, but ultimately I was really glad when it was over so I guess there wasn't much that I liked, either. 2.2

YMMV with gangsta rap, but I thought this album held up pretty well. 3.4

My condolences to the people of the 60's who considered this hard rock. You poor souls. I'm thankful to live in a time with more options. That said, this album is solid. I even enjoyed the instrumental track (The Ox). At the time I imagine this would have been an easy 5. 60 years later it's hit and miss so I can't go that high, but given how old it is and how much I still liked it, I feel like it deserves a little better than the standard 3. 3.6

I was a little surprised to see a Dylan album from 1997 here, and even more surprised to learn that he's still making music (and if I'm being honest, I didn't even know he was still alive). He's now at 40 albums. Gosh dang. I was immediately pleased by the change in the sound of his vocals compared to his classic stuff; his voice has lost some of the nasally sound that's made it really hard for me to full enjoy the music that the rest of the world seems to hold up as some of the best ever. This worked well as background music while working. It didn't grab me enough to ever seek it out again, but it was solid. 3.3

I actually liked the first half of the album, which I wasn't really expecting. I thought we were heading toward a solid album. Side two strikes me as mediocre at best, though. It's experimental and a little different, but it doesn't work for me. 2.4

Just some really solid classic rock. 4.1

Loved the first song, but didn't care much for the rest of the album. It wasn't bad, but nothing great either. 2.7

This one sounds like it's probably decent if you can get on the same wavelength. There's some good piano in there, but the general vibe is not something I enjoyed. 2.2

Looked at the artist, year, and album cover and thought "ah, shit." Then I pulled it up and saw it was only 28 minutes and thought "I can do this." Listened to the first track and thought "ah, shit." I gave each track 10-30 seconds in the middle. This is in no way whatsoever my jam.

I enjoyed some of this, which is about as good as it gets with me and jazz. It definitely dragged in some parts, but the musicianship was consistently good. I think. I dunno, it got harder to pay attention to in the last half of the album. 2.5

I guess I've probably never listened to this whole album before (and maybe with good reason). It's a real mixed bag here. There are a bunch of songs on here that I'm familiar with, and they all hold up pretty well (shocker: the popular songs are good). The whole concept album thing doesn't totally work for me, though. This was pretty long, clocking in at 26 songs and 80 minutes, and I was fairly glad when it was done...which is not something I expected going into this. A pared-down version of this would fall somewhere between a 4 and a 5, but then it wouldn't be this album. Hard to rate this one. I didn't dislike all the stuff I'd never heard before, and I can't fault artists for being artsy, so I guess this ultimately gets a 4 as the good outweighs the bad...but barely. 3.5

I really liked the first track, but the rest of the album didn't reach those heights for me. The vocals on this one bothered me less than Dylan albums usually do; not sure if I'm just getting used to them or if this was a little less Dylan-y than his earlier stuff. Ultimately this falls in the good-not-great bucket for me, just short of a 4. 3.4

It's hard for me to appreciate any country before the general Garth Brooks era of the genre, and this is no exception. It's not offensively bad, and it was a brisk 27 minutes, so it wasn't hard to get through. I just didn't enjoy it much. 2.4

Well, certainly not something I'll ever listen to again, but solid musicianship. This was better than expected given that I gave the other Can album on here a 1. 2.8

I already knew I was not the type of person who appreciates jazz, but this one was less enjoyable than maybe all the other jazz albums on this list. It largely sounded like elevator music to me, with only brief forays into something interesting. A real shame since I was taught by "Billy Madison" that Miles Davis is the coolest person ever. 1.7

Meh. I think this is another "thank you for your service" album. I'm sure it was much better at the time, but it doesn't do much for me today. 2.3

This was fine. I had never heard of The Dictators before, but they certainly sound like a 70's punk band. 3.0

This was fine. 2.9

I'm embarrassed to admit that this is the first time I've listened to a full Nick Cave album. I'd probably only heard a handful of songs before, despite knowing that this is a top-5 artist for many people. Well, better late than never. This album was pretty darn good. Love the vocals. Love the piano. Dipped in on the lyrics a few times and found them to be pretty good. Reminds me a good bit of The National. That said, this doesn't *quite* get to a 5 for me on the whole as it all started to blend together by the end of the album; I needed a little more variety from song to song. Good stuff, though, particularly the opening track. 4.4

I'm at peace with the fact that Radiohead is not for everyone. There are times when I really dig what they're doing, and I appreciate that they make unique music...I just don't always like it. I found this album a little more enjoyable than "Kid A" and "OK Computer" though, which probably means Radiohead fans like it less. 3.3

I feel like I should have a stronger reaction to what is apparently a seminal record...but I'm afraid I don't. I didn't dislike it. I didn't love it.

By all rights I should not have enjoyed this album given my aversion to 80's pop/new wave...but I'll be damned if I didn't like some of this. I didn't like it enough to seek out more by this band, but this was perfectly fine and much better than expected given the genre. 3.4

Nothing I'll ever seek out again due to personal preferences, but I'm glad it was on this list. Sounds like it was a religious experience for those in attendance, and James Brown was clearly a hell of a performer. 2.8

Fun random note: on the Spotify page for this artist, 3 of the top 5 songs are just different versions of "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida." I think that's a pretty good sign that we have a one hit wonder on our hands. I can't say the other songs on this album made much of an impression on me, so I guess that makes sense. Also, shout out to The Simpsons for making me aware of this song. The bit where Bart gets this song into church as "In The Garden of Eden" and maybe kills the organist by the end of it burned itself into my memory about 30 years ago. Anyway, I did enjoy listening to the 17 minute version of the title track here. Solid early prog rock. Didn't really care for the first half of the album though; just sounded like generic oldies to these ears. 3.1

I did not have high hopes going into it, but I tried to have an open mind about each song. This era of Radiohead just doesn't do it for me. I like some stuff on "The Bends" and I like some stuff on "In Rainbows," but everything they did in between those albums is mediocre to me...but that seems to be the Radiohead era that their fans like the most. Whatever. Different strokes for different folks. I wouldn't say I hated this album, but I was still glad when it was over so I could move on to something else. 2.4

Like most classic rock bands (and this album came out 5 years before I was born, so it's classic rock to me), I've spent little to no time with their full albums. I just bought one of their greatest hits albums and called it good. This might as well be a greatest hits album on its own. What a monster track listing! An easy, easy 5 stars.

It sounds like early 90's hip hop, which is a genre that sonically just hasn't aged well in my opinion. Hip hop is inherently supposed to be cool as hell, and I'm sure this was in 1990, but it sounds a bit cheesy today compared to contemporary music. It's the aural equivalent of hammer pants. 2.4

Respectfully: what the fuck is this shit? I try to be open-minded about this list, give everything a fair shake, and accept that there are people out there who enjoy some things that I don't...but this was a rough listen.

A bit too electronica for my personal tastes, but good for what it is. 3.3

Kinda fun. Not really my jam, but an interesting listen. 3.1

This was fine. 2.9

I didn't love it, but this was solid. Probably the most I've ever enjoyed Elvis Costello. 3.4

I was on board through the first few songs, but then it just became background noise while working. Not sure if that's because I don't have a keen ear for thrash metal, or if these songs all legitimately sound fairly similar, or if I was just devoting too much mental energy to my work to appreciate the differences from song to song. At any rate, this was not bad, and I appreciate their service to the genre of metal. 3.1

Sounds like some 90's alt rock. It was fine. 3.0

I'm sure this album deserves better than a 2 objectively speaking, but this just didn't do much for me personally. I respect the vocal talent here, but this is not my jam. 2.3

Just an iconic aughts album. Still holds up well on the ~50th listen.

If nothing else, I'm glad this album is on the list so I could experience the song "Makin' Whoopee" in the year 2025. Simply delightful. Sometimes unintentional comedy is the best comedy. I'm also glad that I was forced to listen to at least one Sinatra album in my lifetime. I'll never listen to this again, but I'm glad I did; I enjoyed it more than expected. 3.3

This feels like it was performed fairly well, and I didn't dislike it, but I didn't love it. It somehow sounds simultaneously like something from 1968 and 1980, with the organ reminding me of Boston or Kansas. 3.2

This holds up much better than I expected compared to all the other early 90's rap on this list. This is a *slightly* different Ice T than the guy on SVU that John Mulaney pokes fun at. Anyway, it was probably pretty good, but also not really for me.

No thank you. No matter how many Bowie albums they put on this list, I can't bring myself to like his general sound.

Not my favorite R.E.M. album, but the highs are high enough to get to a 4. 3.8

I continue to have absolutely no idea whether any particular jazz album is good or not. They almost universally strike me as fine for background music, and I can also almost universally say that I didn't specifically enjoy much about them. 2.5 I guess?

This was fine. I actually liked it more than expected. 2.8

They sound like a proto-Postal Service, which is a mixed bag. I can't help but compare them and find the Pet Shop Boys inferior, but this also came out a dozen years earlier. I can clearly hear the influence of 80's pop/new wave which is almost always a turn-off for me, but I didn't hate this. I can't tell if this one should gain or lose points for the album cover. It looks real dumb, but if that was intentional then I love it. If this was an honest attempt at "art" or something serious then I hate it. Anyway, I'll never listen to it again, but I thank these guys for their service. 3.2

I've never attended a rave. I don't know the difference between house and dub-step. This album is definitely too long. I was a conscious person in America in 1998, so "Rockefeller Skank" has been burned into my brain (although not the extended album version; just the radio edit). All that said, I somehow still enjoyed some of this. Is this what Throbbing Gristle aspired to? It was ultimately too repetitive to get to a 3, but it was close. 2.4

I am flabbergasted. I saw the year and the genre and I was prepared for a slog; I figured there was a pretty good chance I would cut out early on this one. But I'll be damned, this was fun! Maybe this is something I can only appreciate on some days and this is one of those days, but I actually enjoyed my time with this album. Also the sound is shockingly clean for something from 1958, even if it was remastered in 1991. 4.1

You guys make weird album covers. This was decent. 3.2

I kept trying to find the good in this, and I kept coming up empty. I guess we can just call it "experimental" rather than explicitly bad, but this was more distracting than interesting to me. The normalish stuff just sounded like mediocre 60's music, and the weird stuff sounded like...fuck, artsy fartsy grad students at the circus or something. I'll give them this: they accomplished what they set out to do. Bully for you if you like this particular brand of weird, but it ain't for me. This is like a Captain Beefheart record. This was painful to get through, so it's gotta get a 1. 1.4

This was probably fine for something from 1972, but the further into the album I got the less I liked it. 2.3

This is not really my jam, but I can recognize some decent stuff on here. It's a borderline 2/3 for me. 2.4

Sure, I guess. Kinda feels like cheating: it's technically a "live album" rather than a "greatest hits," but it doesn't really feel like a live album. Then again, I don't particularly care for most live albums so I'm not really complaining, it just seems like a curious choice for this list. 3.5

This was fine. It's just, you know, jazz, and I'm uncultured swine.

Two seconds in: oh no. We're in for a rough one. By the end: are we done yet? Oh thank god. Given that this is one of my least favorite genres, there was no way I was going to be into this. That said, I feel like I would probably really like this album if I liked 80's synth pop stuff. I think this is pretty good by the genre standards? 2.3 Side note from the next day: I'm watching the show "The Americans" right now, and the episode I watched last night featured a poster for The Human League on the wall of a girl's bedroom. Fun coincidence to see that twice in the same day.

Meh. I was onboard with a 3 at the start, but then we hit "Frankie Teardrop" and then it ended after a mere 32 minutes, so I can't get there. 2.2

Didn't hate it. 2.7

This was interesting and I appreciate the ambition. Anything "experimental" is going to be highly subjective, so I figured "experimental techno" was gonna rate pretty low for me...but this actually turned out OK. Plenty of variety, and this guy is clearly a skilled composer. I didn't like the style enough to ever listen to this again, but I'm glad I heard it once. 3.4

I'm not typically big on R&B, but this was good stuff. 3.8

After one listen, this album feels like it's right on the 4/5 border for me. It's hard to give out 5's in general, and especially when I've only heard each song once as background music. I really enjoyed my time with this album though, so I guess I'll round up. 4.5

OK, so they're the French version of Rammstein. Gotta say this is pretty damn good metal for something from 1989. I never would have guessed they were contemporaries of Metallica if I hadn't seen the year. The weird stuff doesn't always work and I don't love the vocals (although I'm not sure why I find them inferior to the two bands mentioned above), but other than that this was pretty good. 4.2

This was fine. I'm sure it was good at the time, but it feels a bit dated now and doesn't blow me away. 3.0

Yeah, not my jam.

Meh. Not bad, but it didn't grab me. 2.6

This was fine. It was probably a lot better in 1996. 2.8

It's not objectively bad, but it sounds like discount-REM to me. I'll give it a little credit for coming out in the mid-80's without sucking. 2.6

This was pretty good. Strong Foster the People vibes here (which is fine with me) if not quite as good. 3.6

Meh. This never really grabbed me. 2.3

I imagine this landed much better at the time. It's not bad, but it's also largely unremarkable to these ears in 2025. Grading on a curve a bit for the release year, so this one sneaks into a 3. 2.5

With the caveat that almost none of the lyrics actually made it to my brain (even though lyrics are, you know, kinda important when it comes to rap), I thought this was solid. 3.2

I feel like this one holds up much better than most rap albums from the 90's. It sounds a little dated, but it still manages to sound cool 30 years later. I mean, I'll never listen to this album again as it's not for me, but it wasn't hard to get through. 3.4

I enjoyed the beginning of the album more than the end, but this was fine. 3.0

This was fine. 3.1

For the time, this might have been fine. Although looking at the history on this site, I'm seeing albums from 1967 from Jimi Hendrix and The Byrds and The Doors, so maybe this isn't old enough to get a pass. I don't quite think it's objectively bad, but I had to start skipping around after a few tracks as this was hard to get through. I feel like a 1 is probably too harsh for this album but that's what I'm going with since I couldn't force myself to finish it. 1.4

I don't think I've ever listened to Badly Drawn Boy before, but this was pretty good for some chill 90's stuff. I'm sure I would've liked it more at the time, but it's still solid. 3.5

I knew going in that this band is not for me, but even so I found this fairly boring. 1.7

I'd never spent much time listening to Mars Volta before this, and I'm not sure how much time I'll spend in the future, but I'm not opposed to more of them. As with most prog-, weird-, or noise-rock (and I think this hits all 3), it doesn't work all the time. However, it was at least interesting for the vast majority of the album even if it was occasionally grating. I appreciate the originality and composition here. I feel like this style of music takes more effort to really love; maybe someday I'll get there if I go back to them. For now: pretty good. 4.0

This was fine. 3.3

Sorry, The Beatles still just don't do it for me. I don't think this album is objectively bad and I can appreciate some of the musicianship here, but intrinsically it's just another dud for me. 2.3

Not their best album (which is understandable since it's their first), but there's still some good stuff on here. Hard not to compare it to their later stuff that's more polished. 3.4

During the first track I was afraid I wouldn't get through the whole thing, but then I got into the groove and was able to appreciate the musicianship here. Not a genre I'll return to, but I'm glad to have heard it. 3.3

I'm surprised that I wasn't already familiar with these guys. This sounds like pretty solid grunge rock to me, so I'm not sure why they weren't more popular in the 90's. I guess they just never had a breakthrough single on the radio. 4.1

Liked this much more than expected for an album from 1972 by a band I'd never heard of. Solid if unspectacular. 3.4

This is one of those albums that I liked less over time. I started out thinking it was interesting and might be one of the few mostly-instrumental albums that worked for me, but it got tedious as hell by the end of it. Not bad, but too long for something like this. 2.7

Not my jam, but this was probably fine at the time. Kinda sounds like discount Billy Joel.

This largely sounds like some standard 80's rock, although I'll say that "Beating Gets Faster" is catchy as hell and holds up. 3.2

Very much not my jam, but that goes for everything before 1960. Probably fine for what it is.

The Wikipedia blurb here got my hopes up (noting that The Byrds inspired the term "folk rock"), but I didn't end up loving this album. It's definitely a "thank you for your service" album as I appreciate them laying the groundwork for later folk acts, but I didn't love the dated sound here. 2.7

Huh. Not at all what I expected from the cover, or from an album from 1975. Some real solid punk here, especially given the release date. Nothing complicated or mind-blowing, but really good for what it is. 4.2

Fine for what it is, but not my jam. 2.5

It had been a while since I'd listened to this album in its entirety (even though I bought the CD 20-30 years ago), so I wasn't sure if it was a 4 or 5. It was nice to find that it never really dragged between all the singles that I've heard a million times. Great album, and a fairly easy 5. I never worshiped Cobain the way that some Nirvana fans do, but this album is undeniably a banger.

As a known hater of 80's pop I wasn't looking forward to this. Then it started, and I couldn't help but admit that the first few songs were pretty catchy and well made (notably the title track). Then I got to the back half of the album and it kinda fell off a cliff for me. There's enough here for this to sneak into a 3, but barely. 2.5

For the most part, this was not objectively bad. It was grating at times, too long for my tastes, and not a genre that I ever seek out, but it's probably fine for those who enjoy this type of music. It gets points for originality, but not enough to overcome my personal preferences. 2.4

Pretty good for something from 1965! I was pleasantly surprised by this one. 3.8

Meh. 2.6

Solid stuff. 3.3

This one was not for me.

I was prepared to throw this album on the trash heap of new wave after a few minutes, but it grew on me a tiny bit. I still can't say I enjoyed it, but I was able to make it all the way through the album, so there's that. 2.4

It's not quite a 5 for me, but it was still a good time. There's some good shredding here. 4.4

I'm sure this was an intentional "artistic choice"...but fuck this particular noise rock. Just because squealing guitar feedback is something you can do doesn't mean it's something you should do, and just because it's different doesn't mean it's good. 1.3

Fine for what it is and when it came out. 3.3

I guess this was a little ahead of its time since it came out in 1987 and sounds like standard 90's pop-rock. It's fine. 2.9

I tried on two different days, but I could not get into the headspace where I could enjoy this. This ain't for me (or most people born after, like, 1970).

The highs are really high here. Great stuff, and a good reminder that I should appreciate Boston more. 4.7

It's not a bad album, but the songs blend together after a while. "Supersonic" remains a good jam. 3.3

Good stuff. "Hurt" is an all-timer, but the whole album was solid. Crazy that he made this at 70, and cool to hear him lend his voice to these songs. 4.5

This was fine. 3.2

Fun instrumentation at times, but I didn't love it. It's like poppy Death Cab. 3.2

Fine for what it is, but it all largely sounds the same to me. 2.7

This wasn't objectively bad, but I can't say I enjoyed listening to it. Maybe I'm just in a bad mood today, but this did nothing for me. 2.1

Points for being weird and interesting even though it didn't totally work for me. 3.3

Bummer. I rather enjoyed the first song in a "this is weird but still accessible" way that I enjoy a bunch of Modest Mouse stuff. Then it fell into "this is just weird and not all that great to listen to" like a bunch of other Modest Mouse stuff. Squealing horns just don't do it for me. It's a different sound than MM, but the same vibes. Objectively this should probably get a 2, and I'm sure plenty of people would give this a 5, but I did not enjoy the vast majority of this. I skipped forward on the last few tracks, and my rule of thumb on here is to hand out a 1 if I couldn't make myself listen to the entire album. Fun album cover, though. 1.4

I guess it's pretty good noise rock for something that came out in 1987. Still noise rock, though. 2.7

I've never loved any other LCD Soundsystem albums I've heard, so I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this one. Not typically my jam, but this was pretty good. 3.9

I know I'm not a jazz aficionado, but this just made me think of Will Ferrell scatting as Robert Goulet ("BOP BOP doo doo doo doo...GOULET!"). Really hard to get into this one. 1.8

I was never going to love a pop-rock album from 1966, but points for creativity. One of the lessons learned from this project: I don't know shit about the Beach Boys. This was much more in line with expectations than "Surf's Up" but still a little surprising. 2.7

The vocals are obviously great, but the music isn't quite enough to get to a 4 for me. It's not bad by any means, just not my jam. 3.4

Still too new-wavey for my personal tastes, but I enjoyed this much more than expected. 3.2

What a pleasant surprise! I'd never heard of this group before, I don't typically go for instrumental-only stuff, and it's from 1976 so I did not have high expectations...but I enjoyed the hell out of it! This was beautiful. Good composition that was well executed. I can't believe this, but I think this is getting a 5. 4.5

Nah. This just ain't for me. It wasn't bad, I guess, but I didn't personally enjoy it. 2.4

I appreciate the level of skill here. Not something I'll ever listen to again, but this was really well done. 3.6

Solid stuff. 3.7

Solid R&B, although that's a genre that doesn't do much for me. 3.1

I may have appreciated this more on a different day in a different headspace, but I largely just found this boring. It wasn't bad, but it didn't do anything for me today. 2.3

Bleh. Not for me.

I'll say this: the album cover tells you exactly what you're getting, which is noise rock. I was into it to start, but by the end of track 4 I started to dread finishing this album. There's some stuff I can appreciate here, but it's also a relentless assault on the ears. 2.7

This is probably? good for 80's pop, but 80's pop ain't for me. 2.4

I didn't love it, but it was interesting and not at all what I expected from the album cover. Glad to have heard it. 3.5

Just a big ol' meh. 2.4

Fine for what it is. 2.6

I'm probably too harsh on here on 80's albums, but I can't find a way to enjoy new wave. This is a me problem, and I already feel bad about giving that Peter Gabriel album a 2 when it probably deserved better, but...woof, this album was painful. I can't tell whether it's objectively bad, so we're going with the lowest 2 possible. 1.5

I don't come back to this one much anymore, but I was an early fan of this record when it came out. It's understated, which caps the ceiling, but still a solid album. 4.0

It's not bad, and it might even be great for what it is, but there's a limit to how much I can personally enjoy a Cuban jazz album and that limit is not very high. Far from the worst entry on this list, but I was also glad when it was over and I could listen to something I enjoy. 2.3

I was told this would be a punk album. In this case I think "punk" is just code for "messy." Punk doesn't *have* to be bad, but this kinda is. I'm guessing Sleater-Kinney would cite this band as an influence, but they actually made good music. Positive points for a fun band name and interesting percussion, but negative points for pretty much everything else. 1.8

Huh. I'm not entirely sure why, but I enjoyed this much more than most new wave stuff. Probably because it's got a healthy dose of weird mixed in. 3.2

Well hot damn. I'd never heard of The Waterboys before, but I rather enjoyed this Irish folk stuff. 4.1

Cool that he did almost everything himself, but this is otherwise an unremarkable album. 2.7

Soul is not something I ever seek out so I'll probably never rate it highly, but this was good for what it is. Higher Ground still slaps. I'm sure when he wrote that song he hoped that in 50 years people would still think it "slaps." Mission accomplished, Stevie. 3.2

Solid album that gives you everything you would expect from Aerosmith. Rounding up to a 4 here, albeit barely. 3.5

There might be a world where I give this a 5 after listening to it with headphones in a dark room, but in this world where I listen to most of these while working, this never really grabbed me. 2.6

I appreciate that Brian Eno's music is weird, but it's not my particular brand of weird. 2.5

So, yeah, Black Sabbath was awesome. Part of me wonders: did Black Sabbath discover all the coolest guitar riffs in the early 70's, leaving nothing but scraps for every band that came after? I know the answer is no because there have been a million awesome bands that came after them, but there's a finite number of ways to arrange notes in a 2-5 minute song, and Ozzy and co. sure found a bunch of badass ones. 4.5

I can't tell if this is awful or not. I think it's probably fine for what it is, but it ain't for me.

Coldplay takes a lot of shit, but this album holds up well. Side note: I distinctly remember listening to this album while driving in high school. I had the portable CD player plugged into the cassette deck in my truck and maybe 10 or 15 CDs available at a time (whatever I could shove into the CD holder velcroed to the visor). I had to take this album out of rotation because it almost put me to sleep a couple times. It's beautiful music, but maybe not the best for driving. I also maybe (definitely) didn't get enough sleep in high school. Anyway, I almost never listen to Coldplay anymore so I was glad to have the excuse to revisit this one. Given how stingy I am with 5's on here I can't quite get there with this album, but it's close. 4.3

Pretty good for a debut album! 4.3

While I appreciate the distinctive vocals, I largely found this album to be boring as hell. I mean, even the vocals are more "spoken word" than "singing."

Meh. This felt creative in a jazzy way, but jazz has never totally worked for me. This is probably good. 2.4

"Beautiful Day" is still catchy, but I can't say I enjoyed much else on this album. I like some of their hits, but otherwise U2 just doesn't do it for me. 2.4

Fine for what it is. 2.7

I dunno, it was probably good at the time. Hard to hold up for 60 years.

This was fine for a punk album, and I was fine to be done with it. 2.9

I wonder how I'd feel about this album if I'd never heard of Metallica before. There are some absolute classics on here (namely the title track), but I don't love the album as a whole knowing what else the band is capable of. I mean, it's still getting a 4 from me which is more than the vast majority of albums on this list, but not a 5 like the black album. Maybe I'm just a square who likes their later stuff more than the early, thrashy stuff. 4.0

This is fine. "My Iron Lung" is a good song, and I like this better than some Radiohead albums, so there's that. However, I am of the very, VERY strong belief that we did not need 6 Radiohead albums on this list. Music is subjective, and lots of people really like Radiohead...but fucking hell this is a terrible job of curation when the entire history of music is available. 3.0

Not for me.

If nothing else, I really like the album cover. That crab is ready to rave. Other than that I didn't love it. It's another one of those "fine for what it is" albums that I didn't personally enjoy too much, but I can see how others would. Not as hard to get through as some other techno on this list, though, so we'll (barely) go with a 3. 2.5

Sorry fam, I couldn't get through this one. I appreciate that he had a run of albums simply named "Scott 1-4" but this is not something I'm capable of enjoying (beyond being slightly surprised that the phrase "stupid ass" was used back in 1968).

Well, this very much sounds like it came out in 1989, and it very much sounds like something from the Jackson family. I don't think it holds up terribly well, but this album hit its mark for the time (per the Wikipedia blurb: it's the only album with 7 top-5 songs). However, I was 4 at the time so I have no memory/nostalgia related to these songs, so I can't go any better than "it's fine for what it is."

Liked it more than I thought I would. 3.3

Well, I didn't see that coming. An album from 1969 with this boring-ass cover from some band I've never heard of? Then it starts up and sounds like a good folk album that would fit right in during the 2010's. Then "A Sailor's Life" comes on with the jam band sound that I don't even usually like...but I'll be damned if it wasn't great. Through the first half of the album, this was a 5 for me. The latter half kinda fell off, though. I think the back half just sounds more dated, so the album as a whole doesn't hold up as well as I thought it would. Still a surprisingly fun listen, though. 4.4

It's not the worst country I've ever heard, but I'm not sure why it's on the list. 2.8

I think this is an album that could be mind blowing if I listened to it in a dark room while on some kind of psychedelics. Listening to it in the background while working, it was fine. There's obviously some good guitar work in there, but otherwise it didn't grab me.

This album did not make me smile. Honestly, it was hard to get through this in the year 2025. I can appreciate the vocal harmonies here, but that's about it. 1.7

This was fine. 3.3

It's almost impossible to like Kanye the person at this point, but the music ain't bad. That said, I was glad when it was over. It was interesting in parts but more than I needed.

Blarf. Objectively this probably doesn't deserve a 1 so I won't give it that, but this was hard to get through after "Freedom." Sorry, "Freedom! '90" which makes for an awful track title. 1.6

Kind of an interesting artifact for punk transitioning to grunge, but I can't say I particularly enjoyed listening to it. 2.6

Fuck, what a mixed bag. I actually really like the instrumentation here...but I just can't stand the vocals. I know they're genuine, but they sound to me like Maya Rudolph or Kristen Wiig is trying to perform the most annoying song in the world. Had to stop halfway through to save my sanity. Sticking to my rule that anything I can't force myself to get through gets a 1, even though I might rate an instrumental version of this as a 4. 1.4

I don't know if I've ever listened to this album in its entirety before. It came out before I started collecting music, and I ended up just buying their greatest hits album. While I didn't love the songs on here that I haven't heard a million times already, this still gets a 5. Holds up really well for something that came out in 1991, and the highs are really high. 4.7

Huh. I guess I really don't like R&B. I'd never listened to this album before, but the cover is so iconic that I figured it would be fine. I can appreciate the vocal talent here, but similar to how I can't seem to find a way to appreciate jazz I just couldn't get into this.

This was interesting. Oddly, this band sounds like a predecessor to Halestorm, but if they were influenced by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. I liked it enough to check out more by them. 3.9

Liked it more than I thought I would. This sounded closer to Disturbed (who I love) than Pantera or Sepultura (who I don't, but they're what I was expecting). It's a little disjointed as a couple different times I assumed autoplay had taken over since the vocals switched from screaming to singing on a few tracks and it's a long album. Overall pretty solid for a metal album, though. 4.0

I wouldn't say I loved it, but I enjoyed it more than most stuff on this list. Really solid blues. 3.9

Nope.

A Grateful Dead live album? I bet this is gonna be long. Oh, it's only 7 songs. Oh. It's still an hour and 13 minutes. Buckle up. I've never been a jam band guy, but I've never been high at a jam band concert so who knows how I'd feel about them in their natural environment? This might be the first time I've listened to a full* Grateful Dead album, and I guess it went about as expected. They clearly had some talented musicians, and it wasn't hard* to get through for the most part. This didn't convert me, though. Similar to jazz, it's hard for me to appreciate jam bands beyond background music. 2.8 *I had to skip ahead on "Feedback." Honestly, fuck off with that. Pretend that this track is "art" if you'd like, but just because it's different doesn't mean it's good.

This was pretty good for what it is. 3.6

Probably fine for what it is.

For a Cure album, I found the first few tracks shockingly inoffensive. Then expectations were restored and it turned into a slog. The "gothic rock" stuff was fine and had some fun bass guitar; the "slow sad shit" was slow sad shit. I love plenty of sad music, and I know The Cure is often cited as influential for some of the emo music I love, but this ain't it. 1.9

This struck me as wholly unremarkable. 2.3

Solid stuff, and I'm willing to grade on a curve since it came out in '66. 4