1001 Albums Summary

Listened on 4 January 2024

It sounds good (mostly) but it doesn't make me feel good (mostly). I don't think that's what they were going for, though. I think it's a record about not feeling quite right.

I didn't like this at all when it came out, even though I was in the target demographic. Listening to it now, I will say that it's not so bad...as long as you don't have to hear it all damn day every frigggin day.

I want to like it more, but it's giving me a seizure.

They're generally pretty good songs by a good band, but they kind of sound exactly like all the songs on the previous records. If I didn't know that, I would rate it higher, I guess. There are a couple of nice exceptions, though.

Look, we've all known from the very beginning that Tom Waits is not for everybody, and he'd be the first one to tell you that. But he'll be there for you when you didn't know you needed him.

This is thrash metal, so it's obviously not going to be enjoyable to everyone. It's not really my thing either. However, if you can at least tolerate it, give it a chance and understand the subject matter and history a little bit, you may find that -- within the scope of this sub-genre -- it's fairly innovative and meaningful. It will still hurt your ears, though.

I think you had to be there.

I recognize that this might not be everyone's cup of tea, especially if you have no context for these guys. This is what my radio sounded like in 1994, though, and I have very particular and long-lasting associations with this record -- in particular "The Wild Ones", which was a radio hit, and "Still Life", which feels like a farewell to that era.

the most terrifying album of 1997.

It grew on me a little bit as it went along. I don't love it, but it's not terrible.

She doesn't TALK with a silly baby voice, so why does she sing like that? I've even seen her in concert, where she would talk to us like a normal person and then sing like a silly baby. It pisses me off. That same show also had a band called CocoRosie, with a singer who did exactly the same thing, but worse: adult woman speaking voice but deranged baby singing voice. Nope. Joanna Newsom is obviously a talented musician, the music here is nice, and she's even got Van Dyke Parks and Steve Albini. But the fake voice....

Some people are judging this record by what the guy looks like or where he was born. I don't care about any of that -- I'm just listening to it. I can't say I love it, but I am finding it enjoyable; it sounds like driving around on a sunny Saturday.

I assumed this would be terrible, but I accidentally kind of like it.

Reading many of the reviews of this record raises once more an interesting question: Can I appreciate the art while disliking the artist? (Conversely, there are plenty of cases where I like the person but not the songs.) Do I stop liking the Milli Vanilli records when it turns out that it wasn't the pretty guys on the cover? Can I no longer watch movies I like if the actor did something terrible in real life? It seems like Kanye is a reprehensible but mentally ill person whose career is now (2024) no longer about music -- which I guess he can't do any more -- and now requires him to say and do ridiculous things in order to get attention. But this record is pretty good.

This record is the one that prompted me to ask (as a little game), "What's your least favorite song on your favorite records?" The answer in this case is "When Doves Cry". It's still inarguably a great song, but I guess I heard it a few million too many times in 1984 and 1985 and 1986 and every day after that. Anyway, even the filthiest songs have lovely melodies. [Almost unrelated anecdote: The first time I ever listened to music on a Walk-Man (borrowed for a few minutes), I was standing on a ladder scraping old paint off a garage door. Suddenly, I was able to focus on this boring job in a way I had never been able to focus before. The tape in the machine: Purple Rain.]

This record is perfectly okay, but I don't understand what inspired someone to put it on this list. Nobody else seems to get it either.

It's not for me, but I do recognize the talent, the voice, the songwriting and the appeal for other people. I'm allergic to country music, though.

A masterful performance of music that is impossible to enjoy.

Doesn't the guy who made up this list owe us SOME kind of explanation? If he offered a few words about each one, maybe people would not be so pissed off and puzzled. Come on, man.

Some music is much more enjoyable to perform than it is to hear.

When this record came out, a guy who had been a Metallica fan since the start told me that they were no good any more because there was a love song on it. He told me James Hetfield had insisted that they would never do a love song and, if they did, it would be about beer. To that I said: 1) You're not listening to the words -- "never opened myself this way.... nothing else matters"; and 2) How do you know it's not about beer?

In the 1990s, at the left end of the radio dial -- between the conspiracy theories and the fire 'n' brimstone -- there was college radio, and it sounded just like this.

Is this a great album? Sure, maybe. Does it have the ability to transport me IMMEDIATELY to the summer of 1988 like a friggin' Harry Potter portkey? Definitely.

It's very meaningful for a certain type of person of a certain age. And maybe other kinds of people can like it, too.

As with many of these records, I can appreciate the significance and innovation of it without actually enjoying it that much.

Pretty entertaining.

As I have stated in several of my reviews, I heard the radio hits from this record (against my will) about 1000 times too many when it came out and didn't like it. Now that about 40 years have passed, I still don't love it, but I am able to appreciate it as "not terrible". Actually, it's quite well done...just not really my thing.

The old-timey C&W swing might not be your thing, but her voice is always sublime. Why did she make this record in 1988? Because that's what she knew and loved out on the prairie in the middle of nowhere.

Holy schneikeys, I had no idea I was going to love this record.

Pretty standard mid-60s sound. Very well done, but a half-step behind the people who were actually inventing it and writing the songs. I bet they were a blast to see in a club, though. Here's what I really want to add: Mike "Smitty" Smith, the drummer, sings the second track "There's Always Tomorrow" and sounds like a combination of Jim Morrison and Ringo Starr, which I find pretty hilarious.

Not objectionable; definitely not essential.

Quite nice, especially if you liked U2 in 1983.

This record is better than you think it will be.

The sound of this record and of Steely Dan in general represents the archetype of what I found icky and intolerable about a lot of music when I was a kid in the 70s and 80s. It took me 40-some years, but I can appreciate and like it now. Maybe the people who detest this now will find that it grows on them after a few decades.

I don't think it's one of the 1000 greatest albums I've ever heard, but I like it.

As some others have indicated, I know that this is a record of historical significance, etc., but it's still not that nice to listen to.

I have a MUCH higher tolerance for music from the 70s than I did in the 70s. This used to make me feel a little ill, but now I kind of like it. I guess I could say that about numerous things.

I like this a lot, but I recognize that the songs are essentially identical.

I can like the music without loving the musician. Right?

Wait! Give it a few minutes before you turn it off in disgust! This is not my favorite thing either, but it's a young Nick Cave sounding like Tom Waits if Tom Waits were a young angry Australian fellow who just came back from a tour of shitty bars in Southern US college towns. So think about that for a few minutes, and THEN you can shut it off in disgust.

It's not terrible. It lands somewhere among Genesis, Steely Dan and almost everybody else who made a record in 1980.

Sometimes it's hard to know whether you don't like something or just heard it too many times when it was new. Having been granted about 20 years of reprieve from having to listen to this, I can say that it's not terrible and I simply got tired of hearing it everywhere all day every day. It's innovative and retrospective at the same time, by a band that had been together for almost 25 years at this point.

Ignore the one-star reviews. This sounds like late-80s hip-hop because that's what it is, except more European. It's not my favorite thing, but three stars because "Manchild" has been mesmerizing me since 1989.

Just because you heard it way too many times doesn't mean it's no good. You just need a break from it for about 10 years. Maybe 20. Then you can appreciate it.

Imagine Pink Floyd (in about 1971, before they turned dreamy) tried to make a record with Nick Drake and, say, Neutral Milk Hotel. The process maybe didn't go as well as they hoped, and nobody actually loves it, but they managed to come up with 5 or 6 mildly interesting tracks.

Influential but not actually enjoyable.

Listening to this makes my throat hurt.

Is it possible to dislike the artist but like the art? Of course, but this prick doesn't make it easy.

They DO sound a lot like Nirvana, but, you know .... about 12 years after Nirvana.

A month or two ago, I started listening to my own copy of this record. After a few minutes, I got so irritated that I stopped it, removed the CD and threw it away. (EDIT: I didn't actually throw it away; I donated it to a charity shop.) Van Morrison's voice is a dull blade sometimes, and you can feel it tearing at you. You really need to be in the mood or in the right setting for it, and I was not. I'm giving it another chance today, and it's not terrible, but he does still stab at my eardrums in a way I don't appreciate like I think I should. The songs are interesting, though, and the music is nice. I especially enjoy the prominence of Richard Davis's bass. I'm not going out to buy it back, and it might not be one of 1001 records I needed to hear, but I think Mr. Morrison and I have achieved a certain level of détente.

This is not my thing, so I can't really like it, but I can tell that they're good at what they do. And they were from Des Moines? Hilarious!

This record changed the world. I recognize this; I just don't really enjoy listening to it.

It's like that time Ween and Primus got together to make a record everybody agrees is their worst.

It's not for everybody, but I enjoy it. If you're a slow person like me, or maybe if it's late at night right now, perhaps you will, too.

Many years ago, when I was on college radio, I accidentally played Tortoise when I was supposed to be playing jazz because I grabbed from the wrong shelf. The music was inoffensive but not what I wanted. Same goes for this one. I will say that this record would be much MUCH more enjoyable if they took that opening track ("Djed") and stuck it at the end instead of the beginning. I assume they lose 90% of potential listeners in the first two minutes because of that; the rest of the record is better. So if you're struggling, try skipping that one.

Okay, it has grown on me as I have listened to the entire record, but it's still quite grating. Imagine INXS, but with knives and teeth out.

I like to think I can appreciate this for what it is. It's a Rick Rubin record, and I trust his abilities and judgement. However, it is impossible for me to enjoy it, so I can't give it much of a rating because I wouldn't seek to hear it again. I'm glad other people like it, though.

It's fine. Sounds like 1970.

MJ on top of the world. Nothing but smooth sailing on calm seas from now on....

Even if Clapton is a dick, I expect him to make more interesting records. This is fine, but hardly a classic. Don't do heroin, kids. In fact...don't do anything this guy does.

I understand that Randy Newman isn't to everyone's taste (i.e. they hate his voice), but if you like him, this is a pretty great record.