Easier listening than expected.
Difficult to listen to, very old-fashioned and American, but I can see why it is on this list due to originality
Being older music it will feel less original, but it clearly stands out from the era. More than a few of the tracks from this album have lived on as cultural touch points
Despite being relatively recent, there wasn't much in here that I liked or felt was truly original. This album could have been from "U2" and I wouldn't have guessed any differently. First because it has a religious theme and secondly because there is a lot of borrowing going on in here. Without surprise this band came to relevance from being front-runners for U2.
I have a fear that this list will be a bit too america-centric. There are some genres which hold a lot more importance to the north american audience (e.g. country) which will earn them positions on this list without being a musical novelty. Similarly there is a marketing issue of north americans waking up to a style only once it has been done by a north american band. I feel that's the case here.
Classic
I'm not far into the album, and not sure why it's included in the list. Nothing special or original here.
Some of the instrumentals are quite relaxing (pity when they start singing though.)
Ok, I got most of the way through then scrubbed over the last few. It's the same formula, relaxed instrumental strumming then mopey, unenthusiastic vocals join in.
Again, no idea why it would rank in the top 1000, let alone rank before a Queen album, let alone the Queen album that contained Bohemian Rhapsody. Let's hope that it is randomised and the rest of this thing isn't facetious trash.
This album is from 1983, yet it still feels contextually appropriate.
A bit of a classic album. I think at least for me, I remember it to be better than it was.
If Mambo is what you want, Mambo is what you'll get. This album doesn't miss.
It's like being transported to a lively cuban festival
This album defines that psychedelic genre quite well. While it's not my personal taste the late 60s/early 70s definitely stood out.
It feels quite experimental (read: druggy) and since the album itself is a typical length of 36 minutes, yet has just 7 tracks, that experimentation becomes clear with track 7 coming in at nearly 20 minutes.
The era of vinyl makes it easy to consume these since they're each under 40mins.
I know of Joni Mitchell, but never knew what she was famous for, so I'm looking forward to find out her appeal.
Speaking of "her", this is the first album which is from a female artist. (Yes it's random, but I'm 10 in, so that's quite a dry spell.)
So far I understand the parodies, she does tend to sing like a butterfly fluttering all over the place (adjusting pitch for no real reason or obvious emotion.) While it comes across as very feminine and "floral", it also makes the album sound like one long song.
I'm not a fan of early punk because its only cohesion is the aesthetic of just being noisy, everything else is just random and without nuance. I feel like AI could write punk rock very easily.
The 80s had a lot of bands which had a budget aesthetic. They sounded like they were either recorded in a garage with no mixing whatsoever or performed in a beer hall where they can't hear themselves. This is one of those albums.
Due to my age this is a very familiar album. While I can hear some shortcomings, it's put together by someone who was already familiar with the types of sound, subject matter and attention span of the target audience.
Pretty typical and ordinary for the time period (90s) - perhaps choosing 1001 albums was a stretch too far and landed into "what we know of", rather than "what is actually good".
I'm guessing this album was included in the list to demonstrate that having a famous and musically gifted sister doesn't translate into personal success.
Neither original, nor clever, nor profound this album is Solange's clay-ashtray version of a number of musical tropes clumsily shoe horned together. I'd expect more from any artist, and a lot more from the people she would have had access to - the whole thing feels lazy and token.
Regarding the interludes - Musicians can sometimes be a source of wisdom and help the endeavour for peace, but the overwhelming majority are self-satisfied airheads with an axe to grind - this is the second one.
Assume I gave it 0 stars, but that's not an option.
Feels a little earlier than '96, but it delivers on its theme. Funny in parts and quite original in many ways. There are some things in here which I hear in more modern songs, it wouldn't surprise me if albums like this become unspoken inspiration for certain types of sound.
The 90s is when garage bands began to try harder. Despite the controversy and copyright issues regarding the famous 1st track, the album itself has many other great tracks.
Pretty average.
Scream rock
Drivel, lots of moaning and carrying on.
Lots of fun in here, but also lots of filler. (It's like they had different versions of the same idea rather than just letting one song have the glory.)
So this album isn't bad for what it is (alternative with that garage band sound typical of the late 70s/early 80s) - but so far the majority of the albums on here have just been mostly this same sound, with token break through albums which are well recognised and famous.
Lots of grungy energy in here, plenty of fun to be had.
LZ's most famous album
An album torn between generations.
Hallmark metal music
Another prodigy album, it's not bad - but prodigy is prodigy.
Always a bit similar to Muse's slower tracks, but with a few totally original songs thrown in.
Easy listening, a bit unique in places, a bit annoying in others
Quirky but interesting and relaxing.
This is timed well as Now and Then was released this week. Classic Beatles sound.
A bit of late 70s sound most rendered as muzac. Filler tracks consist of layers of of bustling random noises that are mostly made from instruments, typical for this period.
Gotta love Hendrix to like his albums
