1001 Albums Summary

I've heard this one many times, it is quite good in some ways, although it's definitely not my favorite Peter Gabriel album, as I kind of like the earlier ones that are a little less over-produced. I don't know which of Gabriel's albums I like best (maybe "Melt"?) but this one feels like a bit of Daniel Lanois doing a dress rehearsal with this sonic palette for U2 albums, which have greatly soured for me in my old age (but that's another story). Basically, this album feels a bit artificial to me, and that's a lot to do with the production, of turning live instruments into that very '80s sound, of mixing them into sounding like synthesizers. That bass, especially, sounds really synthy. I miss Robert Fripp from some of Gabriel's earlier stuff. I think they worked really well together. It's no coincidence that this album is the one that really launched Peter Gabriel into the stratosphere, as it's WAY more pop that his previous albums. And even though this has an appearance from Kate Bush, quite frankly it's a bit of a cheesy ballad. Not their best, either of them - of the three "duets" on this album, I think the one with Laurie Anderson. And even though Gabriel did it better than people like Sting (ugh) after him, and maybe even Paul Simon before him, I still have quite a lot of feelings about this whole "worldbeat" subgenre that was rippling through rock and roll at the time, largely through white men having midlife crises, using African people as props in their own music. It's a little gross, isn't it? "In Your Eyes" is a really great, although Youssou N'Dour is just kind of an ornament hung on it. The douchebag from Rusted Root said this album "gave everyone [white people] the go-ahead" to swipe the music of colonized people and turn into pure cheese-pop. Ugh. What's the opposite of an endorsement? That's what that quote is for this album. I guess that kind of points at my issue here - Gabriel is doing a lot of the same things his peers were doing at the time, like the worldbeat thing, and the Fauxtown ("faux" + "Motown" = the sound of middle-aged white guys like Gabriel, Billy Joel and Phil Collins trying to emulate R&B like Motown and Stax-Volt... yes, I made that word up, so what), which we see in "Sledgehammer" and "Big Time." And the U2 sound is hard to avoid for me, even though this is before those albums. Gabriel is doing all of these things BETTER because he has more ideas and better songs, but those are things I'm really not into, so that kind of stains this album for me. It's probably my least favorite Gabriel album because I have to kind of suppress my gag reflex throughout. 5/10

I'll admit, it took me a while to get into Roxy Music, but this album and "For Your Pleasure" have definitely grown on me. They're both really weird, and while this one isn't quite as weird (and therefore, in my estimation, is the inferior of the two), it's still really solid. Or rather, FLUID - and that's what makes it so good. As his career has gone one, it really seems like Bryan Ferry wanted to make rather straightforward music, but also be a weirdo doing it, as opposed to wanting to be a weird guy making weird music (he's pretty conservative in his politics, you'll find!). The 'proof' I offer for this hypothesis is what results we get when Ferry is completely in charge, like on the last three Roxy Music albums, after they reunited in the late '70s, as well as Ferry's first three solo albums, which to my ears sound like Bizarro versions of Rod Stewart's "Great American Songbook" albums, or at least trying to do the same thing (decades earlier, but you know what I mean). The problem is, Ferry in the early '70s put together a band of weirdos who were actual weirdos. Brian Eno is a weirdo. His entire job in the band was to make them sound weirder. He went on to make weird solo music and contributed significantly to the weirdest music Bowie ever made. Phil Manzanera is a weirdo. There are some moments here where his playing is predicting what Robert Quine would do with Richard Hell and Lou Reed. It's weird! And Andy Mackay is a weirdo. He looked weird, he dressed weird, like if the 1950s were also somehow the 2150s. And he played OBOE in a rock band. His second solo album is a concept album about the Chinese Revolution. That's weird! And it's those weird parts that really make these songs come alive, I think. Don't get me wrong, they're good songs, but I can see an alternate universe where Ferry has a different band and different arrangements and the songs simply aren't as good. So yeah, it might be Ferry's name all over the songwriting credits, but it's the presence of all the other guys that makes this really noteworthy. All these weirdos were assembled and moving various directions that worked because, for the time, there was no in charge. Inmates running the asylum and all that stuff. It works here, really well. Having said that, it works much better on Side One than it does on Side Two, which does drag a little bit. "Sea Breezes" is a little overly long, and by "Bitters End," they've kind of shown of all the tricks they currently have in their bag. They'd have a few more by the time they started working on "For Your Pleasure." 7/10

Billy Joel sucks and there's likely not a single song of his that you can't say "Oh, it turns out this is just a second-rate version of ____." This album is his bid for respectability - look at that idiot cover, for fuck's sake, wow so deep - but it is also his bid for mainstream success in a commercial landscape where singer-songwriter stuff, like on his previous albums, was slowly metamorphosing into pure cheese which would culminate with yacht rock a couple years from now. So this kinda sums up Billy Joel to me - someone who wants to be deeply respected as a songwriter, but someone who also wants to make a fuck-ton of money. Those are conflicting desires, and they give us a mixed-bag of shit here, like the "working-class anthem" of "Anthony's Song" (ack-ack-ack-ack-ack) which is less entertaining than Springsteen farting into a microphone, or the retro bullshit of "Only the Good Die Young," or the attempt at observational songwriting in "Scenes from an Italian Restaurant." Stuff like "She's Always a Woman" and "Just the Way You Are" are showing that Joel is plenty good at aping cheese and processing it even further. Terrible stuff. His next two albums are even worse mainstream garbage than this - Huey Lewis both mimicked this stuff and topped it, so that should tell you something - and then Joel remembered he wanted to be a respected songwriter, so he made "The Nylon Curtain," which is one of the most embarrassing albums of all time in its overly-serious shlockiness. Joel's ambition really exceeding his reach there, and then he went right back to aping the style of others with his album of "homages," "An Innocent Man." Good God, that album sucks, but it hit right at a peak boomer midlife crisis moment and kept Joel around. He wanted to say something serious with "The Nylon Curtain" but his idiot boomer audience just wanted their bellies rubbed, so that's what he did with "An Innocent Man," and then he just leaned into midlife-crisis music with his next three albums and retired ("A Matter of Trust," "We Didn't Start the Fire," "River of Dreams" - in these three songs you will find everything you need to know about toxic boomer pathology, but that's an entirely different review!), because he could coast for the rest of his life. He has written TWO songs since 1993, as far as we can tell. He has now been a NON-songwriter for as long as he was a songwriter. He doesn't need to write songs, he can just sell out stadiums playing old crap. So this album is him trying to work out whether or not to sell out. Mostly, he decided to sell out, and frankly, his songwriting chops were only ever good enough to do that. He never would've made it as a serious songwriter with important, interesting things to say. Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen he is not. Huey Lewis he is.

Five stars for "Down to Zero," everything else is a little bland

"That's All You Need" and a couple others are bangers, but as a whole, pretty dull.

You know what's the killer and what's the filler. Just go listen to a greatest hits album instead.

As usual, the early Byrds are good at Dylan covers and not much else.

Pleasantly surprised, I usually hate electronic music.

1 great song, 1 great meme-able song, and the rest is pretty shit.

Don't like REM. Never have, no matter how many times I tried. Listening to this again did not change my mind. I liked tracks 1, 6, 7 and (maybe?) 9.

She's kind of an insipid, mean girl pick-me-girl, isn't she?

I forgot how much this album is also a really solid FUNK album in addition to all the other things it has going for it.

Good for what it is, and another of those albums where my assessment is "I can respect it, but it's not my thing."

"Love Vigilantes" is great, everything else is meh at best. Never cared much for New Order, too techno-y, too disco, too new wave.

Not my thing, sorry. Not bad, just not my thing. I can see how others would appreciate it a lot, but I don't.

I think I finally figured out what it is about Jack White that I increasingly do not like - everything he does seems like an affectation and the more you notice it, the more you notice it, until the only thing you can see is him doing affectations. And that makes watching him an exercise in secondhand embarrassment.

Not as bad as I remember, but certainly not good.

Whenever somebody said "white people don't have a sense of rhythm," I always felt defensive. Now I'm not so sure.

Not quite as good as its reputation makes it out to be, unfortunately.

Fine for what it is, just not my thing. Some of the elements are definitely not for me.

Good start, with the hit singles, but it definitely starts to drag a bit in the second half.

What in the fuck is an album like this doing on a list like this? Are you fucking shitting me? Who wrote this fucking book? Slipknot is fucking terrible. Jesus. For fuck's sake.

There's a good reason "Greatest Hits" albums exist, and it's so you don't have to listen to entire albums like this. In other words, the singles are good and everything else is pure shit.

"Do You Wanna Dance" gets a point here; everything else is pretty crap. Hard to believe only a year after this they release "Pet Sounds." What a world of difference.

My distaste for Eric Clapton on "the blooz" grows every year. I don't like them. This is fine, but it's a bunch of English guys pantomiming better bands, mostly actual Chicago blues guys. Why do you need this when you can just listen to them?

Do I give this more than one star because it has "Stepping Stone"? No, I do not.

Fine, just not my thing.

Catchy tunes, but this is fluff from a narcissist.

I struggle to describe Incubus to people in explaining why I don't like them, and actually sitting down and listening to this, I think I've got it - they're Deftones if Deftones sucked, and if the lead singer was determined to do goofy-ass vocal affectations and obsessed with making sure people saw him as an intellectual, but being the kind of 'intellectual' who read two books, has a freshman-in-college-level vocabulary (as opposed to the average 8th-grade-level) and wants everyone to know those things about him.

Dude, if you had made it like fifteen love songs, like "Book of Love" and the other good ones, sure, but...

Fuck the Eagles.

As much as I hate U2, I have to admit... this is a pretty fucking great album. A little irony can do you a world of good.

Pretty good, I guess, but frankly Muddy Waters is not one of my favorite bluesmen.

This is some of the most fucking idiotic 'art' I've ever forced myself to listen to. Pure shit. Makes me wish I could rate albums in the negative.

Just don't understand the hype. I just don't get it. Not terrible but not great, and not an album I would ever put on again.

Cocaine makes you think every idea you have is a great idea. It's not.

One of those bands that seems universally beloved by people who have similar musical tastes as me, but I just CANNOT get into them. I cannot understand their appeal whatsoever. The only decent song here is "Watch Me Jumpstart" because it's the only one that is given space to develop. The rest is, to put it nicely, undercooked to the point of being raw and inedible. For my tastes, at least. I just don't get it.

Some interesting beats but... not my kind of music. Got pretty boring, boring lyrics, etc.

It's got three good songs, and you probably know which ones they are. The rest is pretty terrible.

One of his better albums for sure, but I just don't give a shit about Sinatra.

You already know which three songs are the listenable ones, and the rest is not very good, and one of those three songs is way better in the radio edit version because who can listen to fifteen minutes of cheesy talk box stuff.

It's OK. Not one of my favorite of his (I prefer the stuff from about 1968-1975) but it's pretty good.

Bowie's talent has always been being one half step behind the trend, close enough that he's positioned as a trendsetter rather that someone who is very good at spotting what the next big thing will be. This album feels like him saying, "Aha! The next big thing is going to be what I myself was doing around 1980 - so that's the kind of album I'll make!" And the results are... pretty good!

Somewhere in the middle as far as Zeppelin albums goes. Not as bad as their last two, not as good as IV, HotH, and the good stuff on PG.

Boring as shit. Not BAD, so not one star, according to my scoring. But boring as shit. I would never listen to this again. It is wallpaper.

The only good songs on here are the ones that end up on the Greatest Hits albums. As for the album as a whole, remember what Rufus said in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure - they get better.

Tom Waits is tricky because he's one of those guys who needs someone looking over his shoulder and saying "THIS song's great, THAT one should stay on the cutting room floor," but having that kind of person around would probably kill his muse. There are several songs here of the former kind, and they're great, but many of the latter - songs where he seems to just be chasing some scrap of an idea and presenting an underbaked version of the results.

He's too interested in thug shit here. Earlier stuff, where he cared more about the world, is much more interesting to me.

Crap. Madonna had her moment in the 1980s. But you can only coast so far on spectacle over substance, without being good at the things that are actually your job - singing, dancing, writing pop songs. Madonna's post-'80s career is a textbook study in diminishing returns.

I feel as thought I 'appreciate' Ray Charles more thank I 'like' him. He's an important musical figure, but this is not really my kind of music. And since my ratings as based on 'do I like this,' it gets a low rating.

Good as far as Radiohead albums go - which get pretty shitty after this and immediately before.

Sorry, I just don't like musicals, and even though there are some cool moments here, this feels like a musical.

"Indian Song" is fucking terrible but I was pleasantly surprised by the rest.

It's hard to listen to an album about Black artists negotiating co-optation within rich white power structures without thinking about how Lamar has since enthusiastically allowed himself to be co-opted.

Fine for what it is, but just not my thing.

Love this album, love the Minutemen. They're one of the preeminent embodiments of the punk spirit, as far as I'm concerned.

Sting is one of those guys who is desperate to prove how smart and deep and spiritual he is, and he sees art as a vehicle for ego rather than expression. I've always really fucking hated Sting because he's someone with a real knack for melody, but he's also someone whose talent just does not match his ambition at all, and he's hampered by the aforementioned desperation to prove himself. I imagine being in a band with two people whose musical talents completely eclipsed his made that a hell of a lot worse - "Sting, man, you're not even the best musician IN YOUR OWN BAND." Sting is the kind of guy who reads books and feels the need to prove it to you. Sting is one of the worst lyricists in rock history because he writes lines like these "I have only come here seeking knowledge, things they would not teach me of in college" "Hey there, Mr. Dinosaur, you really couldn't ask for more" "We have to shout over the din of our Rice Krispies" and think, "Yeah, looks good." Every Police album seems like a watered-down version of whatever was cool and cutting-edge six months earlier, and this one is no exception. Feels like Peter Gabriel and Genesis and all that kind of stuff, right down to using the same behind-the-scenes guy (Hugh Padgham). BUT - this is the best set of songs Sting ever produced. "Every Breath You Take" shows what he can do when he stops trying to prove how fucking cool he is and just decides to write a really fucking good song. "King of Pain" and "Wrapped Around Your Finger" mostly take that approach, too. Same with "Synchronicity I" and "Synchronicity II," which are less successful but still OK. But the other songs? Holy fucking shit, the rest of the album is SO FUCKING BAD. "Mother," "Miss Gradenko," "Tea in the Sahara," "Walking in Your Footsteps," "O My God," they are all SO BAD they drag down everything else. And even the good songs have really shit lyrics. There is only one song on this album that doesn't make me cringe at least a little, and that's "Every Breath You Take." One flawless song does not make a classic album. Here's how the songs break down individually - 5 - "Every Breath You Take" No notes, basically flawless song. 4 - "Wrapped Around Your Finger" Some real cringe lyrics in there, but otherwise solid. "King of Pain" Great melody and arrangement, cheeseball lyrics. "That's my soul up there" over and over gets really grating. 3 - "Synchronicity I" "Synchronicity II" Same problem with both songs. Sting is really trying to show you how deep and smart he is, and it hampers what are otherwise pretty solid songs. 1 - "Mother" "Miss Gradenko" "Tea in the Sahara" "Walking in Your Footsteps" "O My God" All unlistenable trash. This is HALF THE ALBUM. And it drags it down sooooooo much. Average that out and you get 2.4, which gets rounded down to a 2. Not even musicianship like that of Stewart Copeland and Andy Summers can make up for the immense flaws of this set of songs. Great musicianship means very little to me if they're playing bad material.

As with all CCR, lots of filler interspersed with lots of bangers. The fillers here really interrupt the string of bangers.

David Crosby was the guy everyone kept around because they could count on him to score drugs. This album is him cashing in those favors.

Just not my thing, sorry.

Like all CCR, it has some filler, but much less filler than some of their other albums.

Some beautiful moments on here, but they're just absolutely buried by twee, faux-intellectual, self-indulgement, cringey garbage. Her voice gets really grating after a while. I have tried for years to like this stuff and have come to the conclusion that I just don't.

Good for what it is, just not my thing.

Good first half, then it takes a bit of a nosedive. I'm not inclined toward this type of music to begin with, so that colored my entire experience with the album.

Mostly good songs, though there is definitely some filler. The problem is twofold - the best songs have better versions by the people who originally recorded them, and King's voice is lackluster, not up to performing this material very well.

Boring as shit. All these '90s post-rock bands are boring as shit with the exception of Mogwai.

Good stuff. Everything from the Who up until 1973 is fucking gold.

Pleasantly surprised, not usually my thing.

Least favorite band of all time?

Occasionally catchy, but still soulless cheese, really.

Quite a depressing slog, with few highlights.

My favorite concept album about oral sex.

Like all the latter-day Beyoncé albums, this is the dull, navel-gazing bullshit of people privileged by their fame and class trying to make "art" without thinking too hard about what art actually is. Better than Beyoncé's crappy albums, at least.

Not really songs, more just grooves. The title track is the best one, but this is still pretty dull.

Definitely starts dragging by the end, where we get crap like "Boogie With Stu," but also has the best Led Zeppelin song, "Ten Years Gone," and lots of other highlights.

I have to give this a 4 only because it's not quite at the same level as "Astral Weeks."

Unfortunately it would be much better without the Rob Malone songs, but other than that, this is a very strong outing from them - not their best (that's the next one) but extremely high point in their discography.

Starts off strong and then unfortunately really drags in the second half.

Something about Wayne Coyne just bugs the shit out of me. Maybe it's this hippy-dippy shit he seems to exude, this feeling I can't shake of performative sincerity and depth. I can't take it. Just stick to stupid little shit like "She Don't Use Jelly," because that's what you're good at.

How the fuck are there so many bad techno electronica dance shit albums on this list? Just fucking shit, all of it, pure fucking shit.

Pretty wallpaper is still wallpaper. I'm rating these albums as pieces of music I would sit and listen to and enjoy as a piece of art, not as a piece of wallpaper. I'd happily put this on as background music, but I would never sit and listen to it as an actual album.

As a historical document, sure, it gets five stars. As an actual album, of actual music? Not very good at all.

The problem with Tom Waits is that half his albums are stone-cold brilliant masterpieces and the other half is him howling while he's plunking around on something he dug out of a junkyard. The brilliant half of this + the brilliant half of "Swordfishtrombones" gets a 5. This album, as it is, does not.

Five straight up classics, but... the rest is filler, and some of it is quite bad.