1001 Albums Summary

Pretty good. A few big radio hits. Good choruses. Didn't seem inaccessible in the way Steely Dan has been described. Not one I would seek out often, but it may be a good background album.

Classic. Considered the album that popularized bossa nova. Astrud as well. Short and smooth. 4.5

Decent, but pretty sloppy. Not as hard rock as I thought. May have been better to experience when released. 3.0

Very solid. 4.7

Very good, probably better in context.

I mean, sure. 2.5

Interesting. Sort of introspective, strings, but considered rock. Almost in a U2 sort of way. Decent. 3.3

Pretty indie. A few solid jams. Feels pretty dated. 3.6

Decent, rough. Post-punk 2.5

Pretty. 'background' jazz. No strong hooks or solos, but classic. 4.

Good - not sure why it's better than his previous 3 albums. 3.8

post-punk, bordering on experimental

Pretty rough and unblemished. Can see why older folks didn't like them. 3.9

didn't listen to it all. sort of jumbles the brain 2.8

Good beats and flow. Seems kinda old by today's standards. 3.4

Celtic/english traditional songs, but good jammy background. Folky. 3.5

probably great for its time, especially if a lad. 2.5

Dubbed 'carabet' style. Good vibe and harmonies, production. 3.5

Jeremy Messersmith vibes. Soft and super precious. Reminiscent of Penguin Cafe in a couple places. 3.6

I wish this generator would give multiple albums from the same band in chronological order so you can hear their development. From what I recall, this sounds like a precursor to "OK Computer". Some of the grungy songs are little dated, but overall pretty good. Again, I can't understand most of the lyrics but that suits his voice. It's good, but from what I can tell on the wiki, would have been better to discover it in '95. 3.8

probably better in context. 2.9

Not bad. Not as soft as I thought. Has a little edge. Can tell the influence it had. 3.5

Pretty hard. seems ahead of its time. 3.5

Real good. 3.8

Need a few more listens, but good. 4.

Big band classic. Feels early. 3.5

Indie/pop -- super solid musically, but needs a new singer. Breathy, precious, and shit...probably great for 2003. Want to listen more but this singer. 3.0

Meh. Lad rock. Not my thing. 2.7

listened to a little. decent

R&B, some psychelic hold over, some covers. decent. 3.4

the album that cemented her stardom. Cross over success. probably better in context. 3.5

Not as rough as expected, but fast vibrato. Probably better in context. 3.

Pretty good. Like a PTA or Wes Anderson soundtrack vibe. Probably would have really loved it in the day. 3.9

No thank you - has a little bit of edge beyond the experimental psychedelic madness, but mostly experimental psychedelic madness. Not much to grab onto unless you're in the throes of an acid-induced fever dream. 2.5

One can hear early heavy metal, but it's more bluesy than I was expecting. It's pretty good and Ozzy does a good job. 3.2

Good. Would have loved it in '96. 3.8

3.4

Not what I thought. UK/EU neo-krautrock. 3.5

probably better in context. One of the best selling albums of all time. 3.5

Said to be one of the greatest live albums of all time. 3.8

ahead of its time. Sounds dated but still fresh/unique. 3.7

Indie, but different influences, and more nuanced than expected. A soft on the vocals, but good harmonies. Really good. 3.8

Not bad. Radio hits unlike other tracks on record. 3.6

There are some good beats and his lyrics/flow is easy to follow. I remember when "Big Poppa" came out, but it sounds different to me now. Dated, I guess. Not my thing, but overall good. 3.6

Sounded like a carnival.

Pretty overproduced - trying to add some zhuzh to fairly lackluster songs (especially on the A side) but the B side has a little more life. Not sure how Primal Scream was influenced by this. It's okay, but not something I'd put on often. 3.4

Good. Prog-rock feel. 3.4

Sort of ambient, ethereal, experimental electro. 4.0

Good. Can hear the influence on Beatles. 3.7

Solid. Few radio hits. Get a flavor of each, for better or worse. 4.

okay 3.6

Prog rock - not bad. 3.6

Pretty good. Feels like 2000 in places, but this album is probably the reason why. Alan Lomax samples, but it's the beats that sound dated in 2023. B-side is more soundtrack-y. 3.7

Good. See /albums80 for more info

Melody and pitch are optional, but a lot of mid-90s aggro. 3.5

Radio hits aren't bad, but songs are too long. Huge for the time. 3.6

Great album. #2 of 4 in Stevie's 'classic period'. Multiple listens and it's ingrained. 4.8

"So In Love" is the only Mayfield song I really know and it's one of the better on the album. Some of the others can be a bit sleepy. Can hear flavors of D'Angelo in places. Overall pretty good. Cover based on an actual photograph. 3.7

Not excited to listen to this. I didn't know all these songs were from one album. Impressive. Apparently this set a new course in pop music. For me, "less is more" with Boston. None is best. 3.0

Radio hits are tolerable. My favorite parts were the songs that didn't sound like Zeppelin and the silence between tracks. 3.0

Love this album. For being 40 years old, it's pretty timeless. The zydeco songs feel out of place though. Interesting history with SA apartheid. 4.7

Not bad. "Avant-pop". Glad I don't understand French because this subject matter doesn't hold up. 3.3

Not bad. Vocals are little tough though. Decent musically, but some songs are super dated. 3.4

Not bad. Sort of lo-fi triphop, pink floyd-y in places. Prefer instrumentals over vocals. Probably huge for teen girls in 2000. Good background album. 3.6

Not my bag, but pretty solid. Isn't strictly metal - covers some other ground. Totally forgot about Glamour Boys (produced by Jagger). 3.5 (star ranking updated)

I mean, sure. If you're into that sort of thing. 2.4

Not big into Lou Reed, but this isn't bad. Kind of a poppier version of Iggy Pop, or at least equally offkey. Decent. 3.5

Pretty good. Not as electro as expected. Downtempo and chill. Dig it. 3.8

Hard to describe this music. Electronic? Experimental? Soundtrack to an emotional sprial? Not bad overall, enjoyed some of the beats. Other elements not as much. 3.3

Was going to skip, but listened anyway. Ended up liking it a lot more than expected. Nearly 30 yrs later, it still goes hard. Prodigy is a pioneer of big beat - crazy. 3.5

Reminded me of the same type of insanity on Brian Wilson's Smile. Just more experimental and less enjoyable. 1.7

Skipped through most of it. Labeled "garage punk" which sounds accurate. Probably would have been better in the day. 2.5

Very solid. Good backup band - the drums sounds great. Appreciate the modern production. 3.7

Classic. Iconic. Essential. 5.0

Her voice is amazing. Suliram may be the most beautiful song ever. 4.2

Never listed to Sonic Youth in the day - some isn't bad, some is. Rides the line between noise and alt. 2.4

Some parts are okay, others pretty self-indulgent...that's kind of prog-rock in general. Not as bad as expected. Can see why it's influential. 3.3

By all measures, I should like this. But I don't. I should probably give it a couple dedicated listens. But I won't. 2.5

Energetic, boisterous, almost rowdy. His voice is rough, but good. Considered to be one of the best live albums. Crowd sounds really take you there. 3.6

Not a Mac fan, per se, but this is solid. It's been watered down over the years with all the radio play, but still sounds pretty fresh. Heard new things in old songs on this listen. Can see why it was so popular. Still don't like Stevie Nicks though. 4.4

Pretty good. Feels like 2000 in places, but this album is probably the reason why. Alan Lomax samples, but it's the beats that sound dated in 2023. B-side is more soundtrack-y. 3.7

A powerhouse album only someone at the top of their game could make. R&B, jazz, pop, classical, funk -- it's all over the place, but pretty cohesive. Might not be my favorite Stevie album, but it's a high water mark for music. 4.7

Listened to pieces of it. The harmonies and vocals are Alice in Chains, to me. Didn't realize how heavy the backing music is. Decent, but not my bag these days. 3.2

Not into xmas music, but 60s/Motown versions make it fun. Maybe worth a spin on future holidays. 3.2

I listened to this a lot back in the day, but it sounds different than I remember. Not bad on the relisten. The longevity of this band is insane. 3.8

Need to listen to it more... not getting the 'conscious' elements, but probably not hearing everything. Musically diverse - sort of reminds me of a neo-Gil Scott-Heron. 3.4

Not my bag, but not terrible. Sort of jangly, new wave, synth-y vibe. 3.4

Interesting. Different music styles -- hard rock/country/blues/roots. I like the music but it's too broad. Feels showy and self-indulgent at times. Not a fan of Jack White (esp his vocals) but it's a good album overall. Would probably get into it after a few listens. 3.8

If I had to guess what Thatcher-era UK indie folk sounded like, it would be this. Not bad, but probably a working class banger in the day. Funny how he's the only british person whose accent comes through when singing. 3.3

One can hear a lot of influences --sort of Rolling Stones vibe on a few, then acid house/indie/pop/gospel/psychedelia for the others. Seems like they took a big swing and landed. Imagine this was super influential. Not a fan of the vocals, but pretty good overall. 3.7

Can hear the remnants of CSNY and the precursors to "Harvest". Some decent songs here, but "Southern Man" is the standout (on which Nils Lofgren plays piano). Didn't realize Annie Lennox's "Don't Let it Bring You Down" was a cover. Good album, but I prefer "Harvest". 3.7

Not a hip hop fan, per se, but I like the jazzy/funky beats. Sounds more mid-90s to me. Decent. 3.4

Neo-soul classic. Smooth, jazzy, damn near raunchy. Over 10 million children conceived to D'Angelo in '95 alone. Pretty solid album. 3.7

Decent album. Sounds like the transition between psychedelic 60s and progressive 70s. Only four tracks, so it works better in the background. Apparently a landmark of soul. I prefer the Shaft soundtrack. 3.4

Sort of corny and schmaltzy at times, but fun and really good overall. Meatloaf sounds great when he's wailing. Can't believe I never knew Max Weinberg and the Night Court actress were on this. Don't know if something like this would pass today. 3.9

I don't know much about The Kinks -- if I did, I might appreciate this more. Some songs were decent, but the majority is standard psychedelic pop. Doesn't do a whole lot for me. 3.3

A sort of 'wall of sound' but using samples. So much going on, would like to hear how it was constructed (like these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFEZiMyfSYI ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epr8xDE3Kgk). The song breaks were a little jarring on YT - I'd like to hear it as one uninteruppted track. Really good. 4.0

Aware of Nick Cave but hadn't heard him before (apparently this album isn't representative). Really good musically, but grow bored with his verse after a while. Seems like he's one of those legends that primarily exists in his well-worn path. For a double album, pretty solid. 3.8

Classic country sound. Love the guitar twang, but feel the norteno accordion treatment is where the gold lies. I long for the radio hits ("little ways" "guitars cadillacs") but good overall. 3.4

I like the folk/traditional thing they do. An interesting british counterpart to US folk at the time. Didn't realize Richard Thompson was in FC. Love Nina Simone's version of "Who Knows Where the Time Goes". Not something I'd put on often, but enjoyable. 3.7

Innovative like Bitches Brew but more accessible. Has a sort of ambient vibe. Rolling Stone: this album "seemed near heretical by jazz standards". I may like this more than Kind of Blue. Miles is goat. 4.8

Sort of 60s retro/psychobilly sound with hard rock at times. It's an interesting niche but I'm not super into it. Good album if you're having a kitschy halloween burlesque show in your basement. 3.0

A solid debut album. Sounds fairly fresh despite being from '79. Never liked the Pretenders because of Chrissy Hynde (mostly her vibrato), but she has to be recognized as a trailblazer. Prefer the A side to the B. 3.4

Great album. Holds up, but funny how dated it sounds for being so innovative at the time. I'd like this in mono, as intended, but it's hard to find. 4.5

Never listened to The Smiths in the day. The music is pretty tight, upbeat, and more nuanced than expected. It sets a nice contrast to Morrissey's lyrics/melody that elevate both. Good thing I didn't listen to The Smiths when I was a teenager -- would have made me even more intolerable than I was. 3.6

Six singles from this album, but I only know three. The radio hits are solid, but the rest is fine. I can see how it was a 'grown up' album for her, but doesn't do too much for me. Probably better in context. In my memory, her voice is brighter. Here's it's sort of throaty at times. 3.4

She's a legend, and even though I love junkie musicians, I can't get down with Billie. The songs are nice, but the contrast with her voice in later years is more sad than anything else. 2.7

Hell yes, P-funk. Eternally groovy. George Clinton's influence on music is huge. Maybe one of the last classic bandleaders. He lets others shine (like vocals from Goins) where others would want the spotlight for themselves. So weird, so funky, so great. 4.9

Heard of this band but never listened to them. Didn't realize they were from the 90s. Probably an interesting contrast to what was out at the time. Sounds like mid-00s overly precious indie music. It's fine but not something I'd seek out. 3.2

Never really understood who Patti Smith was or why she was so revered. Supposedly punk rock, but it doesn't sound like it. Feels like something that could only come out of late 70s NYC. Not something I'd often listen to, but I get it. 3.2

I'm not very familiar with Sonic Youth. Thought they were more 90s alt. I suppose this is on the continuum of punk/art/rock with Patti Smith. Also uniquely NYC. It's not bad, but not something I'd listen to regularly. I appreciate the originality more than the music. 3.1

Not familiar with Brel. I didn't know he wrote "Ne Me Quitte Pas". Seems like he might be on this list for importance, not necessarily this album. It's alright. 3.3

Sort of cabaret opera vibe. Probably relevant for traditional German music lovers. Not particularly enjoyable but maybe there's a place for it. 2.5

Sort of country soul vibe. He's got a good voice but he's really selling it - almost schmaltzy at times. Prefer the B side. Non-album tracks are the best. It isn't something I'd put on often, but it's pretty good. 3.5

The introductions about the musical form were helpful. I generally like indian ragas though my western ears don't fully understand it. It's good, but makes me sleepy sometimes. 3.4

I like the more electronic sounding ones. The rest is decent too. Surprising how popular it remained in the UK. Singer/Songwriter doesn't do much for me these days, but it's pretty fresh for being 25 years old. 3.4

A lot of history in this dude. Sounds good for being live and really starts cookin' after a few songs. The last Newport blues festival, so important in multiple ways. Pretty classic. 3.5

Super solid, but a little unfocused at times. Innervisions feels like a tighter execution of Stevie's prowess. "Maybe Your Baby" is the funkiest shit ever, but the drums never kick in. Some great clavi and rhodes on this. 4.0

Was expecting something sloppier/unformed but it's fairly cohesive, although it sounds more early-mid 90s. I don't care for the singer's vibrato. Probably better in context. 2.8

Side 2 should have been the lead off. Then the experimental, frenetic, unfocused mess of side 1 would have made slightly more sense. Probably worth listening to for the ambition and influence, but the production is better than the music. 2.8

I like the accompaniment and I appreciate Cohen's place in folk, but I have a hard time getting with this. Very little to latch onto. Probably better in the day, esp. for Canadians. Not something I'd return to. 2.9

Rage goes hard, so ahead of their time. Zach's got seriously incendiary lyrics - "Some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses." Social consciousness taken to its logical conclusion - violent revolution. Great band, evergreen album. RATM is the soundtrack to the future. 4.4

Classic. Her voice is so strong and undeniable. Some pretty huge songs on here too. Rightfully dubbed the Queen of Soul. 4.5

I guess this was a huge album for Green Day. I never heard it, other than what was oversaturated on the radio. More mature and skilled than "Dookie" but pretty pop-y. It's arguably a good album, just not my thing these days. Or in 2004. 3.7

What does it say when the two Nick Cave albums on this list are both considered "departures" from his normal work? The accompaniment is good, but I get the same feeling from this as I did the Leonard Cohen album -- okay but a bit unfulfilling. (WTF with the Casio beat on that song?!) 3.3

It's great, but pretty rough... pitchy vocals and some sloppy production in places. Likely the stereo version exposing the flaws. A lot of bravado for a young band. I prefer HELP! and beyond, but this is a classic. 4.2

It's not bad, but sort of middle of the road alt/indie. The singer's voice is a little much - almost the novelty that keeps them afloat. Didn't know they were all brothers. Overall, fairly unremarkable. 2.8

Really good. I've heard of Elliott Smith but wasn't familiar with his music. I might have loved this back in the day. Sounds like a Paul Thomas Anderson soundtrack with occassional Wes Anderson vibes. 3.9

No thank you - has a little bit of edge beyond the experimental psychedelic madness, but mostly experimental psychedelic madness. Not much to grab onto unless you're in the throes of an acid-induced fever dream. 2.5

Some Tom Waits/Leonard Cohen vibes on here. Others are sort of meandering. A lot of talk in the wiki about how the production took away from Dylan's performance. I think it helped bring relevance to his music that was/is lacking. The biggest cultural impact from this album was "soy bomb". 3.6

Never listened to much Radiohead. Thought this was going to be more electronic, but still mostly guitar based. It's pretty good, although I couldn't understand most of the lyrics. Would revisit. 3.6

I like the rockers, but the slow ones are a little too sluggish for me - tend to sound the same after a while. Still, Springsteen is good at taking lyric heavy songs and making them palatable. Good ones on here, but maybe not my favorite album. 3.6

Pretty overproduced - trying to add some zhuzh to fairly lackluster songs (especially on the A side) but the B side has a little more life. Not sure how Primal Scream was influenced by this. It's okay, but not something I'd put on often. 3.4

The curator of "1001 Albums" must love a German cabaret album. Some of the songs are pop-y enough -- almost borderline Bjork/Tori Amos -- but it doesn't quite deliver. You can hear Waits & Costello come through in their songs, although I'd rather hear them sing it. 2.8

I hear a lot of Jack White in some of these. Didn't realize "Good Times" and "Communication Breakdown" were from their debut album. Some songs are okay, others are pretty mid. I can see why this was impactful, but I can't listen to Plant caterwaul for more than one song. 2.9

The 70s were a magical time - when ugly, uncool white men could put out technically proficient, yet nearly unlistenable music and still make a career of it. "Roundabout" is okay, but the rest almost pissed me off. 2.3

There is some pleasing guitar work on here that keeps the coffeehouse folk sound from getting too repetitive. Get some Arlo Guthrie/Nick Drake vibes. Overall pretty decent. 3.4

I like the ambient, ethereal sound. Some of the vocals and rock-forward sections take me out of it a bit. Definitely a vibe. 3.6

I was only familiar with the Pink Moon album, which is very sparse and unformed. A full band/orchestration really serves his music. Solid album and sounds very fresh for 1969. I can see why his navel-gazer approach was rediscovered in the 90s. 4.0

Kind of awesome, but kind of dumb too. Some solid jams, but pretty down the line -- you're not going to get a curve ball from GnR. It has its place, but not something I'd revisit regularly. 3.6

There are some nice beats on here -- mostly fresh despite being 30+ years old. What feels most dated is the neo-Africanist conscious rap component, but that's what I like most about it. "Mr. Wendal" was a nice trip down memory lane. 3.6

I haven't listened to this in years. The production is minimal but does a lot of the work -- the reverb and fuzzy distortion on guitars/bass/vocals gives it a level of blues authenticity and retro appeal that it may otherwise lack. Overall solid album and an enjoyable listen. 4.0

There are some interesting musical choices here, and even more 'interesting' lyrical choices..."Sex Dwarf"? That's some SNL/Lonely Island shit. "Tainted Love" is a solid remake, but feel the rest is lacking. Maybe it was better at the time (and in certain *circles*) but it feels like a time capsule now. 2.6

I thought of The Verve as a one-hit wonder, but the album is surprisingly good. It's radio-friendly alt pop, but has nice instrumentation and variation. I would have loved this back in the day. The singer is good but I would have liked a little more range and bite. In all, it's a really good album. 4.0

Classic southern rock/jam/blues. I suppose they were an early trendsetter for the genre. It's good, but gets redundant after a while. Not sure we need a 23 minute version of one song -- and that's coming from someone who likes electronic music. Probably better to either a) be there in person, or b) leave it play in the background while doing something else. 3.5

The fuzzy, buzzy distortion is interesting but I'm not a fan of the glitch oriented sound. I get the microsamples idea but it feels a little disjointed to my ears -- though you can tell there's a lot of thought to song structure beyond a disco beat. It feels ambitious and largely successful, but maybe not my flavor of electronic music. 3.6

Really good. There are a few different gears on the album -- rockers, acoustic jams, introspective indie numbers. I would have trimmed a few songs to make it tighter, but I suppose the breadth adds some appeal. Pretty timeless all these years later. 4.2

I wish this generator would give multiple albums from the same band in chronological order so you can hear their development. From what I recall, this sounds like a precursor to "OK Computer". Some of the grungy songs are little dated, but overall pretty good. Again, I can't understand most of the lyrics but that suits his voice. It's good, but from what I can tell on the wiki, would have been better to discover it in '95. 3.8

There's more nuance in reggae than I can hear -- political, spiritual, cultural-- but mostly what I get is the infectious groove. This site has some interesting info on Jamaican music (https://musicmap.info/#). Though seemingly simple and repetitive, you can tell how influential and evergreen it remains. It's a good album and a great way to start the day. 4.2 (This album cover freaks me out - looks AI generated.)

There's a lot going on here -- disjarring samples and dense lyrics, but a real snapshot of NYC in the 80s (and still very relevant today). Didn't realize how avant-garde the sampling was. It's not really my thing, but its place in history is undeniable. Probably one of those albums you have to know even if you don't like it. 3.4

Somehow Frank Black never got on my radar. I know of The Pixies but haven't heard them. Sounds like standard 90s alt fare with some interesting additions. Not sure if this would have stuck for me in the day. Doesn't do much for me now. And 22 songs?! c'mon already. 2.7

Love the jazzy sound - so fresh and fun (even have Ron Carter on the album). The flow is what makes it sort of dated, but it's awesome. I knew "Scenario" but the rest is great. I liked this a lot more than I expected. 4.2

I don't know much ABBA outside of the radio hits. I don't know Chess either, but I suspect this sounds closer to Chess than ABBA -- I get a soundtrack/cabaret feel to some of the songs. The production is very slick and polished. It's not bad, but doesn't land for me. 2.9

This is a great album and an undeniable classic. Still, it feels disconnected and forced together, much like a band that's about to break up (fittingly). But it's an album only the Beatles could have made popular - different genres and concepts that somehow work as a whole even if some of the songs don't stand on their own. They could have cut some of the fluff and made it tighter, but part of its charm is its disparate nature. It's great, but maybe not my favorite Beatles album. 4.4

Definitely unique and energetic. A strange combination of funk, jazz, ska, metal, rock... sort of hard to pin down. Also sort of hard to groove to. Very talented musicians, but maybe too eclectic for mainstream fame. It's okay but not something I'd revisit. 2.9 (came out same year as Public Enemy's "Takes a nation of millions...")

Another great and undeniable classic. Hell of an opening to an album. There are some real bangers on here, but a few songs don't do much for me... "Love In Vain" and "You Got the Silver" are solid attempts at authentic blues/americana, but not particularly good. Had "Honky Tonk Women" been on the album, it would be a monster. One can't slag off this album, though I kind of want to. 4.4

Very nice. I like the jazzier elements and think it suits his guitar parts well, but it doesn't suit his voice as well. IMO there's a sweet spot with somewhat sparse accompaniment supporting his voice/guitar (similar to "Five Leaves Left") but here it's more structured arrangements, bordering on folk pop. It's good and no one can imitate Drake. He's a unique talent. 3.8

Sort of easy listening, lounge type songs. Not bad, but not my preferred flavor of Brazilian music. 2.9

I couldn't get with this and I can't explain why. It's like I'm listening to a different song in each ear and can't make sense of it. Maybe under the right conditions or enough listens, but as of now it's unsettling and unenjoyable. 2.3

There are some classics on here, but also some not great ones -- 11 songs and almost 5 identifiable melodies. The world has dramatically changed and it feels like this music isn't as vital as it was then, but it's hard to argue against Dylan's impact. Maybe an occasional relisten, but not something I'd turn to often. 3.4

I like the jazzy funky beats, but the punk rock songs are a little out of place. I can't understand most of the lyrics but it's fun and playful while still being quite solid musically. Definitely more than just a rap album. In my memory this was later than '94. 3.9

Quick analysis is that it's good. But given more thought, I think I love the lead guitar player and drummer, while I'm not keen on the rest. The open and close of the album sounds so much like Spinal Tap that it can't be a coincidence. It's a rocker for sure. Kinda cool that they're Norwegian. 3.6

I listened to a few but will likely watch the recording on yt instead. It sounded like standard Cash. 3.4

Nice, loungy downtempo and bossa vibe. Good for background music. Nothing thrilling, but overall enjoyable. 3.6

Good singer songwriter fare. Seems strange this wasn't popular in the day. Has Dylan/The Band feel in spots which is nice. Other songs get a little sluggish. I only listened to the original nine songs. 3.5

I'm not savvy enough to understand how good this is. To me it sounds like a 70s influenced, movie soundtrack hip hop. It's good, but some hold up and others seem dated. Probably need to do more research to get the context. 3.4

Sort of ethereal, almost futuristic jazz fusion. Jaco only has one stand out song, but he's kind of the secret sauce on the album. It's a testament to the era that an instrumental like Birdland can become a radio hit. Not my favorite example of jazz fusion, but still real solid. Legendary performers, legendary album. 3.9

Groovy jazzy funky. Bass is trunk rattling. She has a unique voice - I normally don't like a slow vibrato, but hers is good. Sounds like it would be ideal to see live. Overall a chill listen. 3.8 (Except the song with vocals continuously panning left to right.)

Really good, better than "Big Pink" imo. Has the same rootsy appeal but a little more refined. Almost hard to believe a Canadian can write such classic Americana. Has a bar band energy, which I like. 4.2

Very cohesive and classy. 70s r&b/soul samples give it a timeless quality. Funny hearing that sitar sample in here after the Fugees album. I wish I had known this when I was young - it would have been a good entry point into rap/hip hop. 4.0

One can hear precursors to Graceland, but also some clumsy attempts at a more modern sound -- a couple songs don't really fit here. "Hearts and Bones" may be the highlight for me. Great songwriter, pretty good album. 3.7

So rough and raw. So much energy. This has some great licks and jams, but I'll pass on "LA Blues". For what it is, it's great. The birth of so much music history. 3.9

I'm not into it. Listening to this right after The Stooges probably helped impart some level of appreciation, but it's all over the place and not my thing. Maybe I need to try it again, but I won't. 2.2

Definitely more rock forward, but has some disco and progressive sounds as well. Not my favorite -- feels a little frenetic, but that's probably what they were after. Good, but I prefer "Maggot Brain" or deeper still "Mothership Connection" 3.4

This is the first I've ever really listened to The Cure. I know their reputation as the O.G. emo kids, which made me think I wasn't going to like it, but it's actually pretty good. I can tell the influence they had. Would have been huge for a teen in the day. Gets a little same-y after a while. 3.7

Meh. Lad rock. Not my thing. 2.7

It's of its time, but still pretty great. Some real solid radio hits and good jams. Definitely a monster album. 3.8

There are some good beats and his lyrics/flow is easy to follow. I remember when "Big Poppa" came out, but it sounds different to me now. Dated, I guess. Not my thing, but overall good. 3.6

Not into it. Seems like the distortion on the vocal is doing the heavy lifting. Probably better in context. 2.7

One can hear early heavy metal, but it's more bluesy than I was expecting. It's pretty good and Ozzy does a good job. 3.2

Never heard of Spirit, but with the album title and cover, I expected it to be tedious psychedelic nonsense. I actually enjoyed this quite a bit. Definitely prog but still pretty loose. I like it! 3.9

Good production. Each song gets its own treatment, so it stays pretty fresh as an album. Folk to jazzy to world. It covers a lot of ground. "Why?" is sort of heavy handed, but still poignant years later. Glad she's getting her due these days. 3.8

What an odd thing...setting out to make music that's intentionally unremarkable and inventing a new genre in the process. The synth voice was probably pretty novel for the time, but I prefer the piano-based track. It has its place and could be a repeat listen. 4.0

Maybe it's because I just listened to Eno, but I get some proto-ambient sounds in places. Other than a few attempts at conventional songs, it seems mostly noise/experimental to me. I only know Kraftwerk for krautrock, so this expands the genre for me. Not into places I cared for. 2.6

It's good but gets long -- they could've gotten it down to a tight 2 sides. Some solid radio hits and decent others. 3.8

Not really my thing, but I can appreciate it. I like the dark, trip hop elements. His rhyme scheme is interesting at times. I remember when this came out, but this is my first listen. 3.0

It's a pretty awesome debut album. And for the time, it must have been really great. It holds up, but there are several songs I wasn't keen on. Could "My Generation" be the perfect rock n' roll song? 3.6

Great record. You can see the members starting to take their own path on this album. It's a testament to their popularity (and the time) that songs like "Elenor Rigby" and "Love to You" could be popular despite having only strings/sitar accompaniment. Probably another example of an album only the Beatles could make. 4.7

He's got such a great voice. The ballad format gets a little tiresome after a while, but these are great. "El Paso" is too perfect. This takes me back. 4.2

I liked it, especially the funk/world/electronic beats... they brought cohesion to some of the more noisy samples and sounds. For as novel as it was at the time, it's still fresh as ever (aside from the opening track). 4.0

Sounds kind of grungy at times, heavy metal at others. Vocals sound like Ozzy on occassion. It's okay, but doesn't do much for me. 2.9

Sort of reminds me of the Soft Cell album -- seedy, electro, dirty. Like a glimpse into whatever 'scene' the writer was into at the time, but with a more industrial feel. "Personal Jesus" is still a banger. 3.6

I wasn't familiar with Scott Walker. His voice reminds me of someone, but I can't place it. Maybe it was unique for the time, but it gets a little tedious now. There's a place for it, but probably not in my rotation. 3.4

I've heard of, but never listened to this band. Not bad. It sounds like other groups of that era, so I suspect they were ahead of the curve? It's okay, but probably not something I'd return to often. 3.4

It has a Velvet Underground feel, which makes sense. Clearly ahead of it's time, if recorded in early 70s, and quite influential. Still isn't good though. I like how pitch and tone are merely suggestions for the singer. I guess he didn't hit his stride until "There's Something About Mary". 2.7

Jeremy Messersmith vibes. Soft and super precious. Reminiscent of Penguin Cafe in a couple places. I generally like it, but the convoluted song titles push me away. And 22 songs? ffs 3.5

It's fairly good. I think the harder rock elements don't suit his voice/style as well, but there are some good songs here. I'm not a huge fan of Morrissey, but it feels like somewhat logical step for him. 3.6

Jimmy's a legend. I'd probably recommend one of his albums - maybe even this one - for those who don't like jazz. It's easy, upbeat, fun, funky. For '60 too. It's great. Can't deny Jimmy Smith. 4.8

The radio hits are pretty classic. I'm not super keen on the rest, but it's hair metal and of the time. Almost 40 years later and some of these are still on the radio. Wild. 3.7

Really solid bar band banger that gets the big rock treatment - B3s, backup singers... just needs a horn section and a monster lead guitar. The radio hits are great and the rest of the album is pretty good too. It's got to be hard to follow up such a popular debut. 3.8

What to say. There's some decent stuff here - the music is good, but the vocals sound like shit, both in production and performance. Lennon can sing, so why doesn't he? Some songs feel complete while others sounded like a demo. If this was just some dude putting out an album, it would have rightfully tanked. 2.9

When I think of UB40, the cover songs come to mind. I hated “Red Red Wine”. So I wasn’t so sure about this, but it’s solid. Mostly laid back reggae, but there’s some good social commentary – and with the Thatcher era starting (nod to the cover art) it has a right-for-the-time feel. Some tasty bass licks too. 3.8

The dark electro reminds me a lot of NIN (which debuted only two years later). It’s pretty good. Covers a lot of ground for ostensibly being a pop album. Sounds like this was one album in a string of big hits for them. 3.8

A strange blend of straight forward powerful ballads, sort of kitschy-novelty songs, and almost experimental Pet-Sounds type stuff. It has a Beatles-y sound to some of the songs and I also get a Kenny Loggins vibe on occassion. Seems like he should have been more famous. 3.7

Curious that they call this a Stills album, although it definitely sounds like it. I can hear pieces of earlier CSNY songs. The wiki tells of how great the musicians are, and I guess they are, but it sounds like jam band/Cali country stuff or maybe CSNY meets The Band. Not bad, but not all the time. And surely nothing that requires a continuous 106 hours in the studio. 3.5

It's right on the border of intricate and too psychedelic/spacy. There are some interesting musical turns, so I have to give it props for that. The 1001 Albums book calls this "a cornerstone of his legend: a lush, accessible work by an enduringly complex artist". Sort of reminds me of Sandy Denny. 3.3

It's a great record. There's something for everyone -- heavy rockers, lush vocal harmonies, enduring classics. It's great. Their first true stereo album, so some spots are a little rough, but it's still pretty unassailable. IMO it's the best Beatles album. 5.0

Radio hits are classics, but the rest is a little unfocused - like 3 different sounds trying to battle for supremacy. I suppose this isn't the lineup I'm familiar with though. In a year when great music was coming out, this is good but middle of the road. 3.5

Though it has a folky traditional feel, there's also some good pop/rock sounds. Of course nice guitar work from RT. Title track could've been a radio hit. It's good overall. 3.8

The accompaniment is great, the production is wonderful, the harmonies emmaculate. But the lead singer makes me want to strangle someone. So breathy and pitch-for-shit, such weird pronunciation. It sucks, he sucks, and I can't listen to this album even though I want to. 2.0

The blurry eyes on the cover is nightmare fuel, but aside from that - and a shitload of cuica -- it's pretty good. It wasn't quite as funky or african rooted as I expected, still it's upbeat and fun. Love Brazilian music and would definitely add this to the rotation, though probably not my fav. 3.8

For a Neil Young fan, this has to be a great album. As a casual fan, it's what i would have expected, however there are some rocked up numbers that make it feel like new territory for NY. I guess that makes it a precursor to grunge? It's decent, but not something I'd reach for. 3.7

Definitely of its time, but ambitious and fun. The narration and concept of the B side is a little much, but the music is still pretty good. I enjoyed it - probably not routine re-listens, but maybe the stereo version on a long drive. 3.7

I never really listened to Arcade Fire. There's a lot going on... real indie at times and highly produced at others. Sounds like band with multiple personalities. It's pretty good but probably better on multiple listens. Overall enjoyable. 3.7

Not so much my thing, but I can appreciate it. Ah, to be young and stoned and mildly talented in in the late 60s. 3.4

Cohen is a legend so I can't say I hate it, but I don't like it. 2.8

Pretty good. A few big radio hits. Good choruses. Didn't seem inaccessible in the way Steely Dan has been described. Not one I would seek out often, but it may be a good background album. 3.2

Reminds me of something - Nick Cave, maybe? It's decent. Sounds like the early 90s in most places, but not so dated it's unenjoyable. I'm not familiar with Cope or his work, but this was okay. Not something I'd turn to, but an alright listen. 3.4

It's pretty good, upbeat, and a solid groover. More nuanced and layered than I might have expected, which I like. The B side is pretty eclectic, but the fun of the A side helps propel it forward and keeps it cohesive overall - on its own the B side might be too out there. Pretty out there all the same. 3.7 (I learned the Go-Go's were around earlier than I realized).

I can't imagine why it wasn't popular at the time. Great harmonies and accompaniment. The production is lush and layered. Reminds me of CSN, Neil Young, Eagles, The Band and other similars of the era, but building on that toward something bigger. I didn't focus on the lyrics, so there's probably more there to enjoy. The music is very solid. I'll definitely return to this one. 4.2 (The production is good, but compared to the 2019 remaster, sounds a little muddy.)

Sounds soft and muddy. I can't tell if it's youtube or some issue with my laptop, but it's so quiet. I think I like this better than their next album, but I wasn't particularly moved. It has all the ingredients of something I would be into, but I'm just not. There's nothing I actively dislike, but nothing I really enjoy. 3.2 (I read my review of their next album and I must have liked it. I don't remember that.)

It's fine. Jangly guitar which is The Byrds calling card, but also some real shitty 12-string work too... TF was going on during Eight Miles High? Probably good for the time, but not much in the way of sticking power. I wouldn't put this on intentionally. 3.1

Dusty's pretty iconic. "Son of a Preacher Man" is classic. Good R&B/Soul songs otherwise. I would've thought this album was earlier - sort of strange to think of this as being (basically) post-Beatles. It's good for what it is, no complaints. 3.8

Never listened to LCD in the day, so this is my first real listen. It's okay, but I'm wanting more electro... this feels like indie with some loops or plussed up casio beats. It sounds like what an older guy who was into 80s synth pop as a kid would make. It's decent, would listen again, but wanting more. 3.7

Classic, of course. A couple bossa and rocked up songs, but mostly straight forward soul. It gets a little same-y after a while, but it's a crime to slag off Aretha. 3.7

YES has such a distinct sound, typified by the first track. I'm not a fan of the bass tone (which is heresy coming from a bass player). They're clearly very talented musicians, but it's such a wank-a-thon... dudes sitting around trying to impress each other - I suspect the biggest YES fans are the members of the band. This album is a little more accessible to me than their next album, but I have no plan to return to it. YES radio hits are the only YES I can get with. 3.4

I didn't know this was all Grohl - pretty cool. This has a more pop/radio appeal than Nirvana and overall better imo. FF had some cool videos early on, starting with "Big Me", and I think that did a lot to get the band over. It's good, but not really a must-hear album. 3.4

I never listened to Massive Attack. I thought they were an alternative rock band. Learned a lot here... I didn't know MA was trip hop, was the 'first' trip hop album, and Tricky was in the band. Such an innovation for the time that seems almost too obvious these days. The album is a little dated, but still very fresh. Groovy, chill, heady. Love it. 4.7

What a killer album. Costello's acerbic lyrics and melodies are second to none. The Attractions are slayers-- the drums drive hard, bass lines are some of the best ever and the keyboards bring a frantic but poppy sound. It's pop, punk, new wave? It's all of those and more. Just great. 4.9 - deduction for non-album singles (and who else would do something so baller on SNL)

I didn't listen to the whole thing, but it would be a good soundtrack to accompany a mental breakdown. Metacritic gives this a 64/100, so naturally it should be on the 1001 albums list. 1.8

It's good and most of the songs became hits, but it's also a little rough. The vocal double tracking is kind of sloppy, as is some of the instrumentation. The harmonies are on point though. There's definitely a young, energetic feel to it. At times I sort of understand why older folks balked - "I Wanna Be Your Man" seems like it would've been edgy for '63. 4.0

Twangy guitar tone says it's country, but there's a lot of pop/rock sensibility here. Solid songs, good energy, sort of neo-outlaw attitude. The kind of authentic country that country lovers love. 4.4

Love the otamatone lead singer on the title track... I like ambient music so this isn't bad to me, but I could see it pissing off a Radiohead fan at the time. I appreciate they took a swing into new territory, albeit begrudgingly. A couple tracks are tough, but the rest is good. It's a vibe, not something you'd put on to groove to. 3.8

It's a good album and Bragg & Wilco go together well. There are a few songs that could be tightened or trimmed, but overall enjoyable. 3.6

Basement Jaxx's greatest hits was my workout album for a while, so I know the singles. It sounds like the 90s in places, but it's pretty fresh -- I'd say almost bordering on IDM at times. It's certainly more nuanced than just club bangers, but they have those too. I like it. Throw in some "Where's Your Head At?" and I'm all in. 4.2

I need to listen to more EWF 'cause this sounds like overproduced 70s shit to me. They probably invented this production, but damn. A whole album of being-on-hold-with-the-insurance-company songs. Tentative (and generous) rating until I learn more. 3.2

Not good. The worst of psychedelic art/prog nonsense. It's what I assume a bad acid trip is like. What's with the backward tracks? I had a hard time listening to it forward. 1.5

"Stranded in Time" and "Coming Down" really stand out for me. I'd return to this album for those songs, and probably listen to (most) of the others while I'm there. They take big swings with some of the electronic sounds, which I like, and I occassionally catch hints of Beatles or Beach Boys. Despite its soft spots, it's a really good album. 4.1

I didn't realize I knew some of these songs. I like Fela and caught some of the influence a few times. I'm not a Byrne/Talking Heads fan, but this was pretty hot. Crazy innovative for the time and the production sounds great. 4.5

I get Leonard Cohen/Nick Cave/Jack Johnson vibes from his vocals... it's good, but his low voice makes the songs feel extra sleepy. Some of the instrumentation is very nice, but overall it's a very chill album that's good as background. 3.4

EJ's albums sound like musicals or soundtracks to me - a little over the top but cohesive and enjoyable. I think I liked this more than Goodbye Yellow Brick Road. 3.5

It's sort of cheesy and of-its-time, but still ambitious and fun. It's funny that they'd do something like this to get away from the albatross of hit singles and engrossing stage shows. It's also funny that pinball wizard became a radio hit. As an album, it gets a little tedious and not necessarily something I'd turn to, but I may watch the movie now. 3.3

T. Rex is classic. They don't sound very good and their songs are pretty basic, but it's the height of glam perfection. Bolan is awesome, but he could only live in that time. I can't imagine an old Bolan today, trying to be all androgynous and cool while nursing a fragile hip. I might prefer "Electric Warrior" to this album. 3.6

Some good beats and tasty bass lines on a few songs. Norah fits in perfectly; admittedly I liked the songs with featured guests more. It's the classic Q-Tip sound but with a refresh. He's pretty timeless . 3.5

It's well produced and sounds really good (HT to John Paul Jones for the strings?!). I didn't realize Nightswimming, Everybody Hurts, and Man on the Moon were from the same album. I suppose this is peak R.E.M. It's good, but probably better in '92. 3.6

It’s well produced and better than what I expected from something described as indie/garage. There are some nice musical turns and poppy melodies, but the vocals sound like shit – karaoke night at the pub after last call. Sounds like the acclaim isn't universal and I'm inclined to think it sucks. Has a lot of potential though. 2.9

It was interesting. Sort of folky, sort of broody, a little strange. It has a certain vibe. Not a lot to latch onto for repeat listening, but good for the background. 3.4

I never listened to Kate Bush but have heard of her. I never saw Stranger Things, but knew it blew up "Running Up That Hill". I was curious to listen to this, but it didn't really strike me as a great album. It sounded like Tori Amos to me. So much so that I'm starting to think Tori Amos was doing a Kate Bush impression. Overall, the album is okay. It was probably inventive and bold for the time, but there's not a lot in the way of radio friendliness. Maybe it was more of a UK thing. Cute puppers on the cover though. 3.3

Straight forward punk. They work around her voice limitations well with good harmonies. Somewhat melodic, but mostly the same after a while. 3.0

This album came out the same year as the Kate Bush album -- so wildly different. It's sort of smooth jazzy, disco-y in parts, some pop, a few funky guitar riffs. Sort of diverse but under a broad soul umbrella. It's okay, but not something I'd clamor to put on. 3.3

Eclectic. Seems like something from the 90s - probably ahead of its time, but still sounds pretty indie. I expected something harder, but this definitely isn't that. Not familiar with Minutemen, so wasn't sure what I'd get. It's not bad - nice and short. 3.5

It must be hard to follow up a monster like "Rumors", but this doesn't do it. The songs are okay but they fall flat and the production doesn't sound that great to me. I love Lindsey's guitar but I think Christine shines more on this. It didn't need to be a double album or so expensive to produce. There are a couple keepers, and if I listened to it a lot would probably say there are more, but I'm not going to return. 3.3

Definitely of its time and pretty down the line english folk rock, but some songs get a nice instrumentation. It's a little more traditional than I prefer. Overall enjoyable. 3.4

There are some very relevant lyrics in the first track and really throughout the whole thing. It reminds me of Public Enemy with some of the avant garde sounds and conscious rap, but a little more musical. Despite some clearly dated beats, I think it still sounds pretty fresh and holds up very well. 3.8

I listened to this quite a bit back in the day. It was good - had some of the frenetic funk RHCP were known for mixed in with a few radio hits and a new melodic approach. "Scar Tissue" was everywhere for a while. It's a good album, definitely one of the band's greatest, but probably not a 'must hear'. Takes me back though. 4.0

I've heard a lot about Sly & the Family Stone but never really listened to them. The mock-harmonica was really great. And didn't Larry Graham invent slap bass?! It's a good album, but probably more impactful at the time. I didn't know "Everyday People" popularized the expression "different strokes for different folks" (per wiki). Also didn't realize it has no chord changes. 3.9

It's pretty good -- sort of chill, relaxed, nearly trance inducing at times. Love that African guitar tone. Still, not something I need to hear before I die. 3.4

This had potential but fell flat. Syd Barrett gets a lot of acclaim and I don't know why. 1.7

Thought they were more alt rock, but I guess that's a later. At this point, they're all over the place... some more alt rock, some pop, even the opening disco track. Not really my thing. 3.0

I expected a sort of schmaltzy 60s radio pop, but there are some rockin’ numbers on here. I didn’t know they wrote “Stepping Stone”. The songs are catchy and have good musicality to them. I enjoyed it – it was fun and had me grooving. It must have been impossible to compete against the Beatles, but they hold their own pretty well. I might re-listen to this. 3.8

This was probably great for '92, but I didn't enjoy it. The heavy distortion songs all sounded the same, the others were okay but not great. 3.0

I mean, it's super influential. Very rough and raw, and the production isn't great, but I suppose that's the template for all the other genres it spawned. Almost surprising how influential it was. Probably needed to be alive in the 60s to truly understand this one. 3.9

There are elements I like - the odd rhythms and chords are fun, but I'm not a fan of the spoken word. It sounds ahead of its time, yet feels aimless and amateurish at the same time. It has potential and does something different than was common at the time, so I'll give them that. 3.6

S&G is pretty classic although sort of pretentious. I suppose it was the time. Good stuff here but not something I'd return to often. 3.7

Although a bit dated, it's upbeat and fun. Infectious rhythms and good guitar sound. Enjoyed it. 3.6

I just can’t get down with Nick Cave. The band is good and the music is very serviceable, but I don’t like his pitchy vocals and the delivery feels more edgelord than punk. Leonard Cohen x Iggy Pop x Tom Waits but the result is mostly lackluster. There are no major faults, but it doesn’t connect with me. 3.3

Heavily produced, maybe a little *over* produced, but perfectly so. There's no other album that sounds like this -- the layering of guitar parts, the intricate arrangements, all the different styles of music, vibes from serious to campy -- it really is like a night at the opera. I listened to this A LOT growing up and I enjoyed every second listening now. What a great band. 4.8

Classic over-the-top 80s metal rock. It's great. Most of the songs on the record became hits, and I had no idea this was their 6th album. Overall, it's fun and still enjoyable even though I've heard "Jump" a million times. Short and sweet. 3.9

An interesting blend of pop-type songs and more orchestral or folk oriented numbers. She uses her voice in an interesting way - louder brash sound contrasting with soft breathy vocals. Also didn't realize she played guitars, piano, arranged strings, etc. Not my thing so much, but it's pretty good and holds up quite well. You get a subtle sense of her rebellious spirit, which I like. "These are dangerous days; say what you feel is to make your own grave". 3.5

I've heard of, but never heard, Bauhaus. I like some of the experimental aspects and it's fairly palatable with a few songs having radio potential. It's not something I'd seek out though. Good for today's spin. 3.4

Rock-forward, jazzy, bluesy, frenetic, energetic. Zappa lyrics can get a little silly at times, so this is a nice (mostly) instrumental album. A lot of folks consider Zappa to be a genius, and he may be; he's definitely an innovator and unique musician. Or maybe "composer" is a better term. This was good, but of its time. 3.4

Some big singles on here. I didn't know Dre added the skits to get the album finished. The immaturity and misogyny stands out, but in a way, it's understandable given their youth and reality at the time. It's definitely a classic with massive influence. The funky beats still hold up. 3.8

It's not bad - sounds like a mix of early CSN and The Band. Kind of California country. The harmonies are sometimes nice but the blend/mix/pitch isn't always good. I don't know much Dead but I assume this is a good representation and selection. 3.4

It's pretty good - better than I expected. It's got some alternative/punk sound but it's fairly tight, and the energy of the songs keep things moving forward enough that you don't really notice any shortcomings. Quite catchy and melodic, even on the harder songs. Well produced too. It's surprising they didn't hit bigger. I may have liked them back in the day. Solid album. 3.7

There's a definite Mamas & Pappas sound. It's of its time but has a nice vocal breadth others don't. They had a Lennon and McCartney song, but it didn't deliver. I've heard the radio hits ad nauseum over the years, so it's a little hard coming to this with fresh ears. Sort of funny the cover was controversial for showing a toilet. 3.6

Pretty classic - solid rockers with some down tempo numbers. I'm not a fan of the slower ones, but I suppose it's the contrast between songs like "Bitch". It's certainly held up over the years thanks to the strong radio hits. 3.9

It's great - the sentimental yet saccharine sound of Sinatra blends perfectly with the bossa chords and laid back style. Jobim gets a backseat here, but I suspect this album helped cement many of his songs as standards. What more could you want? Someone to slow dance with, I reckon. 4.7

This is probably one to really absorb over time, but it was a good quick listen. No frills, just straight acoustic singer songwriter. It can get a little same-y after some time, but there are some stand outs. "Reason To Believe" sounds like it could have been a rocker. Bold of him to put out such a sparse album. 3.8

Prima's got a great voice for this music -- a little rough around the edges with a touch of schmaltz (it's a perfect fit for a David Lee Ross cover). The moderate tempo songs are good, but those fast swinging numbers really cook. The boogie piano sounds so good and the sax and trombone are downright filthy. 4.7

This was tough. The first side is almost daring you to keep listening. The band sounds good, and the songs are mostly okay, but NY sounds like shit. Not calculated slop, but lazy slop. If you stick it out and get to the second side, it eases up a bit and maybe even feels like it was a decent attempt. This is the album equivalent of a drunk voicemail from your ex. 2.8 (a very, very gracious 2.8)

Good rhythmic energy and groove; world music with a bluesy feel. It has a contemporary and accessible sound. The music doesn't vary much with different sections (i.e. verse/bridge/chorus), but it works without feeling overly repetitive. Very solid overall. 3.6

I'm surprised I haven't heard of this before, if it was as popular as the wiki says. It has some of the rock/pop sound of that era but a little more ambitious. The production is good and the songs are okay, although not very sticky on one listen. I think it accomplishes what it was trying to do. 3.5

Did Queen invent thrash metal?! Leroy Brown had 70 vocal tracks. Taylor on the super high notes. May modifing equipment for bespoke effects. And no other musicians used. Christ, this is a great band. The album has a lot of rockers, and even in the genre change ups, it's energetic and fun. "She makes me" might be a lowlight, but probably because the rest of the album is so strong. 4.4

Energetic groove with almost trance-inducing rhythms. Sort of surprised Fela didn't play sax on here. I didn't get much sense of Ginger's contribution to the album -- probably more contribution off record than on. 4.2

What is this exactly? A lot of different sounds. AA Bondy a little. Sort of Springsteeny. Downtempo chill Bryan Adams? It sounds familiar but new in a way (although some of these songs could use a good Springsteen chorus). I want him to have a stronger voice or a little edge to it, but overall I liked the album and may give it another spin. 3.7

Definitely not something I'm into, but I was distracted watching the olympics, so it had that going for it. Songs were too long. 2.6

Very solid. Well produced. Enjoyable listen. 4.0

To get the full effect of what this album was trying to accomplish, I suspect one should be familiar with GM’s previous record and public persona. Unfortunately I don’t know it, so to me this was sort of self-indulgent and corny. He’s got a great voice and writes great songs – “Freedom” is undeniably awesome and "Soul Free" was decent – but this album didn’t hit with me. Still it's a bold choice when he was at his height, so kudos to him. 3.2 (“Heal the Pain” sounds like a vibe bite of Queen’s “Who Needs You”.)

"Rikki don't lose that number" is decent (I hope Horace Silver was getting residuals for that intro), and musically it's pretty good, but I think I hate Donald Fagen. He just makes it so white and uncool. I'd probably like it if I listened more. 3.1

I didn't realize EBTG were so electronic - maybe this is the start of that. I like the chill beats, although some are slightly dated now. She's got a nice voice, but the songs could have used some hooks and sing alongs. No major gripes, but no major thrills. 3.4

I saw this and thought, "10cc?! What, an album full of "I'm not in love"?" Turns out this is much more eclectic than I expected. Some upbeat head-bobbers, a couple quirky numbers, and Queen/McCartney/ELO vibes in a few places. It sounds like they were trying new things and having fun, and I appreciate that. 4.0

These damn headphones make everything sound great, so I can't tell if it was really as good as it sounded, and it sounded really good. The drums and bass are very solid. Edge is doing some cool stuff too. Sounds later than '83. Better than I expected. 3.8

Good groovy, funky, soulful jams. Didn't expect an oboe on this album. 3.8