1001 Albums Summary

Far too electronica-y for my taste. There are vocals, which helps, but not enough.

I wanted to like it, but her voice was just too grating, and I had trouble understanding some of the lyrics.

I really liked this, and I liked it more the more times I heard it. (I left it on repeat, so it played about three times.) It really evoked the '60s folk scene.

Nearly every song sounded exactly like Cars, so the piano song was a lovely surprise. I actually enjoyed this album, although it could have been a bit shorter.

A few tracks were quite good, but too much was unenjoyably self-indulgent.

Oh God no.

Why, Jeff? Why. Such an annoying voice, and too much noise.

They need a producer to rein in their excesses.

Might have been OK with less noise overwhelming the vocals.

This was such a wonderful change from most of my recent albums -- I will definitely listen again.

Just doesn't do anything for me. Jim Morrison's voice is aggressive, and the music is dull.

It sounded like the Dead, and that was bad. Other than that (or maybe because of that), it was completely forgettable.

It was mostly innocuous, but why?

This was pretty great — Billy Bragg and Jeff Tweedy kept the feel of Woody Guthrie tunes while making them sound modern. Highly enjoyable.

Surprisingly enjoyable, except for Elevation, whose weird time shifts made me want to puncture my eardrums with an ice pick.

It was mostly pleasant, but it washed right over me. There was nothing memorable.

This was a truly excellent way to spend an evening — Willie knows how to tell a story.

"Oh, is it over? Thank Christ."

The word "experimental" is always a bad sign, but parts of this weren't nearly as bad as expected.

Perfectly pleasant, but I probably won't listen again.

It was enjoyable, but because I couldn't understand the lyrics it just washed over me like instrumental music does.

A bit darker than Harvest, but quite enjoyable. A few of the songs are excellent.

This is the first album of my 1,001 that I was familiar with, and it's not my favorite Beatles album. Most of the songs are a bit too drug-fueled for my taste, although of course "When I'm 64" and "She's Leaving Home" and "A Day in the Life" are great.

So very, very great. His interpretations of these songs make them brand new. I would listen to this album again and again.

Too much blues and electric guitar.

I really enjoyed this. There was nothing really memorable, but I would certainly listen again.

So great. The song "Tragedy" stopped me in my tracks, and I played it three times, then listened to the whole album again.

Seemed inoffensive at first, but got really annoying by the end.

Not a huge fan of Sandy Denny's voice, but the songs are good (heavy on the murder ballads). I would definitely listen to this again.

We enjoyed it a lot more than we expected to. The sonics were great.

Very good album that I nonetheless have issues with for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the songs.

Such a wonderful album — full of great songs and energy and Sam Cooke.

Bouncy and fun — more fun than I expected, although I like American Idiot.

I’d never heard of John Grant (or the Czars), but I really enjoyed this album. It’s like a cross between Harry Nilsson and Father John Misty. Will definitely listen again.

Utter insanity. I guess the drugs helped.

It was fine. Nothing terribly interesting or terribly annoying.

Bouncy and fun, but nothing exciting.

Interesting but not really enjoyable.

The WiFi connection from my computer to the stereo kept dropping, and we dutifully reconnected it each time. Shouldn’t have bothered.

This is just noise with no fucking purpose. At least with Nevermind I could tell Cobain was making music, even if I didn't enjoy it. This is truly just noise.

I’m not sure what to say about this — it’s a 60-year-old album that still sounds fresh. Have listened before; would be happy to listen again.

A bouncy little excursion back to the ‘80s. We listened during a power outage, so it was our only music of the day.

Prog rock, but even worse than the mainstream stuff.

I enjoyed this album more than I expected to, and discovered the original version of "She Comes in Colors," which I always assumed was a Hooters original.

Bouncy, enjoyable.

Covers of standards. An excellent way to spend an evening.

It’s a certain kind of catchy. Not really my cup of tea, but not as loud as I expected it to be.

I mean, it's fine. It's not bothersome, but it doesn't really grab me either.

Quite good — interesting mix of songs.

Great album -- I'd be happy to listen to this anytime.

I still don’t believe this is not a Stones album. It was pretty good though.

A bit too loud for my taste, but not unbearable.

Some songs were OK; some were painful.

So very awful.

A little loud, but very listenable.

Instrumental. Boring. Pointless.

Not horrible, but not really enjoyable either. Loud, although not as distorted as it could have been.

Right down there with Nevermind. I will never understand why some people want to listen to other people shriek.

Such a great album -- great songs, great arrangements, great voice. I'd listen to this anytime -- and certainly will again.

Surprisingly, I liked this. It was a lot of fun — especially the cover of “I Got You Babe.” I wouldn’t mind listening to this again.

Pretty good, although not as good as their later stuff. Too instrumental-heavy for my taste, but definitely listenable.

Not as aggressively awful as some of the others, but annoying enough that I was glad when it was over.

Not bad -- OMD was never a favorite, but I'd listen to this again if someone wanted to. Nothing really caught my attention.

This is the first album so far that I already loved and choose to listen to occasionally. There's nothing like it, and nothing I say can convey the joy it brings me.

Loud. Not particularly enjoyable. But it didn't make me want to pierce my eardrums with a skewer to make the noise stop, so I guess that's something.

Surprisingly inoffensive. I'd never choose it, but I wouldn't run screaming from the room if it happened to be playing.

I'm not a fan of yelling, but the music wasn't bad. Tim enjoyed it.

Enjoyable enough. I certainly wouldn't mind listening to it again, and in the right mood I'd actually be happy to.

I enjoyed this one. Quite a few of the songs gave off definite Sting vibes.

Too loud. Too much yelling. Too much punk and not enough proto.

Meh.

Oh. My. Fucking. God. No. This is the first album we just could not listen to. We did the first 30 seconds or so of each song, occasionally jumping ahead in the song to verify that yes, this *is* 3 minutes of nothing but the same metallic banging. I wish I could give this negative stars.

Dolly Parton, Linda Ronstadt, and Emmylou Harris team up to cover country songs. What's not to love?

Catchy, melodic, interesting songs. Reminds me of another band, but I'm not sure which one. Happy to listen again.

At first it was just weird and boring, but not as mind-numbing as some prog rock. But as it went on it edged into jazz, and by about halfway through was sapping my will to live.

Very '80s without being catchy. Not horrible, but nothing I need to listen to again.

A fun little country break from all the rock (and noise) lately. Would absolutely listen again, happily.

Not nearly as annoying as the Wikipedia article made it sound. Nothing I'd choose to listen to again -- it was not particularly interesting -- but I wouldn't mind if it were on in the background.

Mostly enjoyable — and quite Beatley in parts.

Too loud; did not enjoy.

Not bad at all -- nice poppy little tunes.

It's fine -- a bit too electronic for my tastes, but fine. No real need to listen to it again.

A little less bouncy than their previous albums but still definitely ABBA. I’d be happy to listen again, but probably wouldn’t choose it.

Well-done update of ‘70s R&B, but it didn’t grab me.

Very close to pure noise.

Endless jams. Second didn’t-listen-to-the-whole-songs album in a row.

Drone-y but not actively annoying. Nothing memorable except Bittersweet Symphony.

Basically the Dead, without Jerry Garcia’s talent — and, blissfully, also without the endless jamming. Tim called it “the ‘60s of a slightly more boring timeline.”

Absolutely perfect album — except for those last two songs, which are just meh. Not sure how they made the cut. But otherwise perfect, and I know every single word.

This is exactly the kind of album I was hoping for when I joined this challenge; I've heard of Louis Prima, but as far as I know I'd never heard any of his music. And I loved this -- it was so much fun. I don't think it will occur to me to play this again on my own, but I'd be very happy to listen to it more than once.

I was in high school in 1982, and I heard "Rio" and "Hungry Like the Wolf" ad nauseam. But I had never heard the rest of the album, so I was happy to see this pop up. I hadn't missed anything. It's fine, but not particularly interesting.

I was so excited when I saw this album was in French, but The Young Gods are basically a Gallic Rammstein. Too loud. Too angry.

Far too reminiscent of Nevermind.

Very Cars-like, but not the good Cars. A little too frantic.

It was perfectly listenable, even enjoyable. Nice mix of musical styles.

Undertones of Cheap Trick (and on one song the Byrds), and in general fairly enjoyable.

I know I'm in the minority, especially in my demographic (sorry, Emma Thompson), but I've never been a Joni Mitchell fan. I just can't get past her weird phrasing, which makes some of her songs almost like jazz. On this album that's not as much in evidence, so it was mostly fine. (And I actually like "Help Me.") But just fine.

Wikipedia says this has been "acclaimed by writers and music critics as one of the greatest albums of all time." I'm neither a writer nor a critic, but meh. It's fine, with a few good songs and more boring ones.

"Come On Eileen" this isn't. I have no idea what it is, actually. There's a lot of talking -- maybe channeling their inner Moody Blues -- and just general weirdness.

I mean, it's fine. Not loud or atonal or arhythmic. (Although Chris Martin's voice got pretty annoying by the end.) It's just ... not interesting.

Interesting mix of genres -- definitely more interesting than yesterday's Coldplay.

Again, fine. Kind of like Abba on downers.

Relentlessly dance-y.

Very much of its time, and most of the songs didn’t really hold my attention.

This album was a pleasant surprise. Despite being a child of the '80s, I was not really familiar with the Smiths, and I was expecting this to be much more drone-y. Would absolutely listen again.

Loud and annoying. But at least it's not Nirvana.

This is an excellent album -- even the songs I didn't know were good. I'm so glad I got to listen to this straight through.

Not my favorite of his — I prefer his older stuff.

You have to move while listening to this album -- nothing crazy, no jumping around, but I doubt anyone can avoid at least a little swaying. I would be happy to listen to this again anytime.

Scott Walker reminds me of someone, but I can't place who. This is a good album: nothing really catchy, but I like his style.

It's Queen all right -- but not the Queen I know and love.

At times her voice is a little hard to take, but most of the songs are good. (There's only one unlistenable one.) I think this is an album that will require more than listen before I know whether I like it or not.

I knew several of these songs, of course -- everyone does. But I'd never listened to the whole album, and it turns out it's really pretty great. Good songs, good arrangements, good sonics -- just a really fun experience.

Without the extended guitar solos, this would have been a five-star album.

This is the album of a boy who didn't get enough attention from his mommy -- or got too much. It starts and ends pretty well, but in the middle it's pure self-indulgence.

Perfectly listenable, but not exciting or particularly interesting.

Why?

I started out thinking this was a two-star album -- not my thing, but not unlistenable. That didn't last. Too much yelling.

Not bad at all. Nice melodies, nice vocals, nice instrumentation.

Wide variety of styles, including a very ... interesting cover of "Comfortably Numb." A little odd, but quite interesting.

This album has the downside of Neil Young (the voice, of course) without any of the upside (good songs).

This is a really interesting album with a range of styles. Would happily listen again.

So. Boring.

I had somehow never heard this whole album, and I like it — will definitely listen again.

Very '80s -- a slightly harder Cure/Smiths/etc. vibe.

I don't like prog rock. I don't like shapeless noise. I don't like blaring guitars appearing out of nowhere. I did not like this.

Wide variety of genres, from funk/hip-hop to traditional. Not surprisingly, I much preferred the traditional.

This is a whole double album of Bee Gees songs I'd never heard before -- and it was great. I could see quite a few of these songs becoming hits; I don't know why there weren't any hits off this album. Will definitely listen again.

I mostly missed the '90s, so I only knew "Shadowboxer." But the whole album is good, and I will definitely listen again.

Sort of a combo of Duran Duran and Earth Wind and Fire (between songs, not within) -- not bad, overall, but kind of disorienting.

Too loud and aggressive for me. But still better than experimental German noise.

Nothing offensive. Nothing interesting. Might as well be Muzak.

It's Depeche Mode. Interesting, but not something I'd choose to listen to.

This is a fantastic album -- four Goffin-Kings, two Randy Newmans, and a Bacharach! And "Son of a Preacher Man"! Plus Dusty!

Much less annoying than expected -- some songs are actually enjoyable.

Such a great album -- really top-notch. Nanci Griffith sure could write songs. I could listen to this on repeat.

What can you say about an album you've listened to so many times? Some of my favorite Beatles songs are on Rubber Soul -- "Michelle," "Nowhere Man," "In My Life." Other songs I enjoy less. I don't think I'll ever choose this album (or any Beatles album) when I'm in the mood for music, but I'll always be happy if someone else does.

Smooth and mellow.

I have it on good authority that this is the best rock and roll album ever recorded. I'm not sure I'd go that far, and I'm not a huge Stones fan. But in general I like it, and I'd be happy to listen again.

I mean, it's fine. It's there. But it's not particularly interesting in any way.

Like so many other indie albums of the '90s and '00s, it's fine. Enjoyable enough, but nothing to really catch my attention.

I've had a run of uninteresting indie albums from the '90s, so I wasn't expecting much from this, but I really enjoyed. The songs are catchy, and Sebastian's voice really works for me.

Ambient music makes me want to kill.

Fantastic album -- great mix of songs imbued with Redding's unique style. Definitely a keeper.

Perfectly fine R&B, but for some reason it had a truly soporific effect on me.

They want to be the Cure. They're not the Cure.

I didn't think I had ever heard of Travis, but it turns out I know -- and like -- one of the songs on this album. The whole thing has a very Oasis vibe, but I prefer Travis because they're quieter. Tim summed it up as "Someone has been studying their Oasis studying their Beatles."

Interesting as a historical document, and fun to listen to.

Not as bad as I was anticipating, but I'd be happy never to listen to it again.

I know this is heresy, but I'm not a fan. He plays well; I just prefer not to listen.

I really like this album -- "Our House," of course, but most of the other songs too. They're catchy and fun, and I'd be happy to listen again.

Too much rhythm; not enough melody.

Loud. Weird. Did not enjoy.

Didn't find it all that engaging beyond the two songs I knew ("It's the End of the World as We Know It" and "The One I Love"). It was fine.

Meh. Too much going on, with not enough payoff.

Wikipedia calls this post-punk. I don't understand the distinction. In any case, no.

I was really dreading this because of the last Eno album we had to listen to, but this one had actual songs. It was tolerable, although not particularly enjoyable.

If you must have jazz, this is the jazz to have. So much fun.

I was tentatively optimistic when I saw that this is post-Eno Roxy Music. But no.

Any album with "Tainted Love" can't be all bad, and this was actually rather fun, in an '80s-flashback kind of way.

Good stuff, because of course it is. Very nice change after the past few albums.

“Björk’s new self-imposed mandate was to build a record almost completely out of a cappella vocals. ‘I want to see what can be done with the entire emotional range of the human voice—a single voice, a chorus, trained voices, pop voices, folk voices, strange voices,’ she told a journalist at the time. ‘Not just melodies, but everything else—every noise that a throat makes.’” Fine. You do you. But why do I have to listen to it?

I recognize that Peter Frampton is a supremely talented guitarist, the same way Clapton is. But I just don't enjoy listening to him play.

Great album (except for that one song ...). Happy to listen again anytime.

This album doesn't do anything for me -- I'm not a huge Bowie fan in general, but this seems more unfocused than most of his work.

It was fine. The vocals were a little weird, and some of the songs a bit chaotic. But it was fine.

Please, never again.

Truth in advertising, I suppose. There *is* a lot of screaming.

Surprisingly, this really didn't do it for me. The songs I liked were, of course, fantastic, even the ones I was not previously familiar with. But the covers ("Reason to Believe," "Help," and to a lesser extent "Baby It's You" and "I'll Never Fall in Love Again") were just bad.

As always, David Byrne’s voice is like nails on a blackboard. Other than that, it was fine.

I like this -- catchy songs, good lyrics. And although Smith's voice is high, it doesn't have that reedy tone that makes me want to pierce my own eardrums.

I mean, what can you say about such an iconic album? It offers a bunch of great songs, some so-so ones, and one or two that lean far too heavily on the sitar.

The hits are good, but there’s a lot of filler. (And “Mother,” which is just awful.

Good R&B. I wouldn't mind listening again, but I wouldn't choose it.

Well, "Heroes" is a great song. The rest of the album is pretty bad.

This is a live album, and includes the lengthy song intros. While I love this stuff in the context of a concert venue, it doesn’t work for me on an album. I just wanted him to get to the music.

The first song is awful (Tim: “Maybe they’re trying to establish their indie cred by putting the worst song first”), but after that the album improved greatly.

So monotonous, but not ignorably monotonous. It gets into my head and makes me want to kill.

This is an amazing album -- so many foundational artists, so many classic songs. I am giving this five stars even though it doesn't exactly meet my standard criterion, because giving it fewer would be wrong.

Not a fan of Lana Del Ray's voice, and the songs were too trippy/dreamy to hold my attention.

I'm not sure what I think about this. I wanted to like it, but it felt like he was trying too hard.

Mostly listenable Brit pop.

Mostly Inoffensive, with a hint of the Beatles’ drug years.

Some really great songs; a few less enjoyable ones. This is a classic for sure.

I have a soft spot for Leonard Cohen, stemming from a perhaps unhealthy childhood fascination with "Suzanne." But in general his lyrics are a bit too abstruse for me, and he really can't sing.

I didn't like this at all. Too electronic and loud and abrasive.

What a great fuckin’ album. Hadn’t listened to whole thing previously.

This was surprisingly enjoyable. I'm a lyrics person, so generally not a huge fan of music in languages other than English, but this was a nice background soundtrack.

I dislike Jacqui McShee's voice, to the point where listening to some of these songs was painful. Otherwise, the music is good.

I'm not a fan of pop in general, and although I know Beyoncé is widely considered to be wildly talented, I just don't understand it.

It gave me a headache.

Maybe it's just that I had to listen to Beyoncé, Destiny's Child, and this all in one day, but it's just a no. This album caused me way more stress than I needed today.

Pleasantly Beatley. If I listened a few more times, could probably make it to four stars.

Actively annoying.

Too weird and spacey for me.

Blandly inoffensive, for the most part. There were stretches of annoying instrumentals, though.

Weird but surprisingly fun.

Who pays for shit like this to get made? It's noise, literally. No attempt at music.

No.

I liked it, although it’s a bit anemic, like he’s phoning it in.

Unexpectedly, we both really liked this. There’s a range of styles, all interesting.

Live Who is considerably more abusive than studio Who.

Oh, God -- so good. 12 perfect songs in 25 perfect minutes.

I enjoyed this much more than I expected to. The lyrics are pretty good, as is the music. With a few more listens I think it could be four stars, so I'm just going to rate it that way.

This is the Elvis you think of when you think of Elvis -- or at least when I do. It's early rock and roll, and he does it well.

A couple of songs weren't too bad, but most of it was just weird for weird's sake.

Abusive.

Not the Beach Boys you know and love. They definitely went weird on this one.

I understand that Hendrix is considered one of the greatest guitarists of all time, but talent does not necessarily translate into listenability.

I really liked this, despite the fact that the music wasn't exactly my thing. I would like to listen again to pay more attention to the lyrics, which seem pretty great.

Such a great album. The last three songs are meh, although they might grow on me with repeated listening. But the rest, well, they're fabulous. It's a delightful album.

Overall, it was just kind of boring. I think I just don’t get ABBA.

I liked that -- it was mellow but interesting.

Not quite bad enough to be a 1.

Tim gives it a 3; for me it barely scrapes into 2 territory.

A few songs weren't too bad, but overall, no.

This album started off a little aggressive, but overall I really liked it. Some of the songs had a bit of a Squeeze feel, and a couple were more like the Smiths.

Pretty classic blues. I'm not much of a blues fan, so I'm going to give it three stars, but that's purely based on taste and not on quality.

Unexpectedly enjoyable funk, but most of the songs are instrumentals. Tim loved it.

I thought it was awful: too loud, too discordant, too much noise. Tim liked it.

This album sounds as if it was written and produced by AI.

Mostly fun little pop tunes, quite enjoyable to listen to.

It was a lot less annoying than I expected after reading the Wikipedia article. Tim found it annoying, but I kind of liked it.

Really boring.

Electropop, but the opposite of vacuous.

This was relentless sludge.

Anarchic pop-rock that was close to growing on me.

A few songs were tolerable, but not enough.

To quote a good friend of mine, this is a killer album. So very, very good.

Some good stuff, but most of it is a bit overwrought for my taste.

Anger management might have helped these guys.

I'm not a huge Stones fan, but I actually liked this album. (Apple Music only has the American release, but we added "Mother's Little Helper" and "Out of Time" from the U.K. release as a bonus.)

Definitely not what we were expecting, although with the context of the rest of the album you can hear the soul influences on "Holding Back the Years." It's a strong 3, edging toward 4.

Tim: "That guy's a bucket of cheer." Other than the depression, the music is pretty standard '90s indie rock, not bad but not great.

Interesting mix of genres. Nothing offensively loud or annoying, but nothing really exciting either.

I didn't think I was much of a Steely Dan fan, but this album is great.

This is a really great debut album, including Breakdown and American Girl. I'd go 4.5 if I could.

Too loud for my taste.

Mostly annoying, aside from one song that sounded strangely like Al Stewart.

What an unexpectedly fantastic album! So many excellent, truly diverse songs. This may be my best discovery of the project so far.

The songs themselves are fine, even enjoyable. The five minutes of masturbatory guitar solos at the end of each one are wholly unnecessary. The last song ("Thorn Tree in the Garden") was by far the best song on the album.

Some of the songs were OK but boring, and the others were actively annoying.

All covers, and not particularly interesting ones.

Really enjoyable album, with shades of Sam Cook.

I enjoyed this more than I expected to -- there's a wide range of genres, and the lyrics are clever. But I'm not sure we need three hours worth. Had it been a single album, it would have merited four stars.

I love this -- it's exactly what you expect from a Richard and Linda Thompson record, and that makes me happy.

Not bad, although his voice was a little grating.

Tim gives it a 3 because his tolerance for endless electric guitar solos is far higher than mine.

What the everlasting fuck?

Our second vinyl record of the generator. This album is just lovely, start to finish. "For Emily, Wherever I May Find Her" is one of the most ethereally beautiful songs I've ever heard.

My friend Dave and I frequently discuss the albums in the project. About this one he said: "I don’t like those guys at all. Sometimes you dismiss music that I like as 'just noise'. But they really are just noise."

I really like this album -- the songs are interesting enough to keep my attention, which isn't always the case with R.E.M.

We both unexpectedly really enjoyed this. It's basically '80s Smiths vocals and verses with late-'90s pop-punk choruses.

Perfectly pleasant (except for his voice) mix of folky and jazzy. If I could, I'd give it a 3.5.

Some light British-invasion-ish songs mixed with discordant walls of noise. If I had half-stars, this would be a 2.5.

Really dreary. Some songs were OK, but most just made us want to die.

I mean, it's the blues. Surely he's one of the greats, but it's still the blues, and it could have all been one long song for all the differences we heard.

Interesting album, full of good songs.

Some good songs ("Pretty in Pink"!); some noisier ones.

Too much noise.

“Well, that bored the piss out of me.”

Tim: “The hit songs are amazing songs, and the entire soundscape of the record is unique and tasty. Five stars.” Lil: “Meh.”

Jesus Christ.

“Well, there was fast ones and there was slow ones.”

The hits — “Monday Monday” and “California Dreaming” — are among the best songs ever, but most of the rest drag a little. Still, with those two it can’t be less than a 4.

Painful.

What the fuck? It's just the same thing over and over and over again, like the Dead at their most stoned.

Poppy and inoffensive, but not interesting. But her ability to sing was a nice change from Sleater-Kinney's caterwauling.

Albums don't get much more perfect than this. And don't fuck with Loretta.

This is the first time I ever listened to the whole album, and it's really good. I enjoyed the story arc.

Overall, not as bad as I expected. A few songs were downright listenable. Tim found it "utterly charming." I found it too weird for words.

Music was mostly fine, if a little bluesier than I'd like. Buckley's voice is grating, though.

The book describes the band as creating "a mix of sheer abuse and welcome diversity, for a truly challenging listening experience.” I chose not to be challenged, and gave it the 30-second treatment. That was far too much.

As per Wikipedia: "Ray of Light is an electronica and techno-pop record which incorporates multiple genres, including ambient, trip hop, psychedelic music and Middle Eastern music." Nonetheless, it was surprisingly not annoying.

More noise; more shrieking. Why? Even at barely audible, this is unlistenable.

Really enjoyable. Have to listen again when I can pay better attention to the lyrics.

Not horrible, but far to droney to listen to again.

Kinda fun, a little silly at times. There was a lot more to the band than "Song 2" would have implied. A solid 3.

It was kind of interesting. Could have been a 3.5, but Tim did not particularly enjoy it.

I didn't like every song, but every song I liked I really liked.

I just don't get Joni Mitchell -- her phrasing is weird, and that takes me so far out of the music that I just can't enjoy it. I know everyone considers her a genius, and this isn't the first time (nor will it be the last time) that I just don't get it.

I just don’t get Bowie. Besides “Young Americans” and “Fame,” this was just dull (aside from a truly annoying cover of “Across the Universe”).

Excellent album, with a range of styles. A bit too much screaming, but otherwise quite enjoyable.

Top-notch. Only not a 5 because it's hard for me to listen to a whole album with energy this high.

This is a pretty typical Elvis Costello album. Tim: "It's everything I love about Elvis Costello."

I had never heard of the Go-Betweens, but I quite liked this album. It's got a real Echo and the Bunnymen feel.

The singles ("Wonderwall" and "Don't Look Back in Anger") are great. The other songs varied between enjoyable and too loud. I think with a few more listens it could be a 4.

I mean, how can you go wrong? It's delightful. It's a 5 at Christmas for sure.

I feel like I should have liked this more than I did. I like her voice. The songs are melodic and quiet. But for some reason it just didn't grab me.

The singles are great, and I can definitely see myself listening to it enough to learn the rest.

I just don't get this. It's not *bad* -- it's just not even the slightest bit interesting. There's no real melody, no interesting musicality, no meaningful lyrics (at least, not that I could understand). It feels like someone playing with the musical equivalent of Photoshop. (Garage Band, I guess.)

Oh my God, this album is amazing. It's the lyrics -- they just keep getting better. We found a review that describes it as an "exultant wallow in heartbreak" with Jones inhabiting songs "like an inmate on suicide watch."

There are a few listenable songs scattered throughout the two mostly unbearable hours of this double album. Do not recommend.

Nearly a 5, but there are a couple of weird songs.

Surely, it meant something to someone. But not to us.

If you were to imagine what the rest of the album that contains "Don't You Want Me" sounded like, it would be this. I don't like electronic music as a rule, but I liked this.

I was dubious when it started, but it really grew on me. The songs are interesting both musically and lyrically, and even though it’s a little harder than I prefer I really liked it. We both think it could be a 4 after a few more listens.

It was more stylistically diverse than Tim expected, but too consistently jazzy for me.

Definitely too loud for me, but unlike many (many!) other albums I’ve listened to the past year, I could hear the musicality. I can understand why someone might like it.

It's fine. Not nearly as annoying as I was expecting.

Surprisingly, this album includes one or two songs that are not abusively loud. Unsurprisingly, those songs are ruined by Jack White's nails-on-a-blackboard voice.

Weird, as expected. But not charmingly weird. Annoyingly weird.

I know this album meant a lot to a lot of unhappy young men in the '90s, but I am just not its target audience.

I was surprised how much I liked this. (Tim called it "crazily catchy" and said he'd give it a 5 on vinyl but a 4 digital.) I'd happily listen again.

It's meaningless pop, but at least it's not as annoying as I expected it to be -- or as annoying as Pearl Jam was.

I feel the same way about Kate Bush's vocal stylings as I do about extended electric guitar solos. I'm sure she's very talented, but I don't enjoy listening to her.

What the everlasting fuck?

It was fine. Dull, but fine.

Classic Monkees. Nothing brilliant (and a bit of weirdness), but lots of fun.

I guess I lack the context to fully appreciate this. It’s fine.

Some good songs, but overall I didn't enjoy it as much as I expected to. It's a 4 for Tim, though.

I’ve never really appreciated the Talking Heads, and this album did not change that.

This is such a great album -- the Clash is so much deeper and so much more rooted in music history than we ever imagined.

It just did not resonate with me (or Tim) at all.

Interesting time capsule, but nothing I feel the need to listen to again. Maybe a 3.5, if that were an option.

I might have enjoyed this more if I'd been stoned. Or tripping. But I’ve never been stoned, unless you count the time I took Percodan on an empty stomach. And I think it goes without saying that I have never — what’s the term? — dropped acid. And so all I can say is “what the fuck?”

This was really pretty great -- a time capsule in the best ways.

What can you say about an album like this? I was 15 when it came out, and the singles (most of the songs on the record) were everywhere. Being the contrarian that I was (and still am), I didn't like anything that everyone else liked, and that included Michael Jackson. But 40 years on, I can see what an impressive feat it is -- there's a variety of styles, and they're all good. (And it made Tim move. Not much makes Tim move. He called it tasty.)

I ... don't know what that was. It was a weird amalgamation of '60s folk(ish) and psychedelia and '90s noise. I don't want to listen to it again.

For the most part, the songs are good, although they all kind of run together. But his voice is really hard to take.

Well, I only had to skip four songs (out of 12), so I guess that's something?

This is very 1980, in that a little goes a long way.

I feel like this is an album that could be one of my favorites if I took the time to play it over and over again and really learn the songs. There's just something about it that speaks to me. (Tim gives it a 3.)

That was just awful. (Tim admires their moxie.)

I'm sure Beck is quite talented. Nonetheless, I'd rather not.

This is an excellent album -- most of the songs had a great groove -- and we both want to listen to it again.

Nothing massively stood out, but it might benefit from another listen.

How can I possibly review the White Album? It's got a bunch of good songs. It's got a bunch of songs I'd happily never listen to again. Tim says "It's manifestly a 5." If I could make one album by choosing the best songs, I would agree.

Not as bad as I feared -- there were actually a few songs that weren't walls of noise. But Thom Yorke's voice is still excruciating. (Tim's review: "That was a long 48 minutes.")

“One or two songs rocked harder than I thought was their gestalt.” It’s very much of its time.

Just a fantastic record, start to finish.

Great album, start to finish. Both the hits and the lesser-known songs are well worth the listen. But it doesn't transcend -- there's nothing brilliant about it.

So drone-y. So boring. Tim: “There might have been a time I’d have cottoned to it, but certainly no longer.”

The acoustic side of this album is great. The electric side is too noisy. But anyone who knows me could have predicted that I'd say that.

Man, what a perfect album. No hits; just one perfect song after another.

Straight-up country. Lots of longing.

This is a surprisingly mellow album until, well, you know.

Except for one song (maybe), it's pure product, every aspect carefully crafted for maximum selling power.

We were pleasantly surprised by most of the album, although we could absolutely have done without the nine-minute chaos of "The Murder Mystery."

This is a really interesting album -- a mix of genres (punk, rock, some quieter songs) and tempos. I'm not dying to listen to it again, but I wouldn't mind if I had to. (Tim would give it 2.5 stars.)

You want outlaw country? This is outlaw country. (Tim gave it a 3.)

The original songs are very of their time, but the covers (and there are a lot of covers -- "Born to Run," "Do You Know the Way to San Jose," etc.) are a lot of fun.

Grunge. No.

Just boring. Tim: “It was … challenging.”

This is a really fun album -- a nice variety of very listenable songs.

I wanted to like this, but it just felt tedious by the end.

Kind of boring — nothing really grabbed me. (Tim: “A lot of classic-sounding EC arrangements — heard stuff I want to hear again. 4 stars.)

Tim: “At least it’s melodic punk. … I wouldn’t say I was eager to listen to it again, but it wasn’t horrendous.” Ditto. (It was slightly better than a 2, but certainly not a 3.)

I always thought I didn’t like punk, but then Green Day and the Clash made me think I was wrong about that. This album reminds me I was right. It was awful. (Tim: “The musicianship was better than I expected. It was raw but not sloppy.” 2.5 stars)

A little too blues-heavy, but CCR is gonna CCR. Excellent album nonetheless.

Why?

With the exception of a couple of more chaotic songs, this is a really solid album — music is good, lyrics are intensely personal. Piano-forward arrangements are unique for the time.

Some songs are Beatley, some are Stonesy. Overall, the album is more of a curiosity than something I’d choose to listen to again. I’d give it a 3.5 if I could.

It’s got a good beat — you can tap to it.

Fourteen songs in 29 minutes — you have to appreciate a band that gets in, gets the job done, and gets out. It was nearly four stars, but there was just a bit too much similarity between the songs.

The worst the worst elements of free jazz and some of the worst elements of rock, combined into an album I don’t want to listen to.

Oh my fucking God. (Tim’s review: Amazing as the day it was cut. 5 stars.)

Boring pop with delusions of profundity. Tim: “1989? Really?”

It’s rare that I find myself agreeing with rock critics, but in this case the ones quoted in the Wikipedia article are spot on. So much unnecessary and unjustified self-importance.

Sounds like a collection of demos and outtakes. (Except for “Maybe I’m Amazed.”)

It’s fine. Solid 3. (Tim: His mannered vocals are hard to take. Still a 3.)