1001 Albums Summary

The Stones’ best album. Heard it 100 times.

I did not enjoy this album at all. The song “Heroes” is good but the rest I never need to hear again. Bowie’s singing ability is not great and he is trying too hard to get beyond his limitations.

Great album but a bit uneven— several excellent songs but also some filler. Not an unexpected pattern for early Beatles albums.

Sounds fine I guess. I don’t really listen to this type of music.

Well-crafted catchy pop songs that I never need to hear again.

Pretty enjoyable.

Really dislike this album. I know it has a cult following of some kind, but it rubs me entirely the wrong way. I don’t like 70s hard rock at all.

I’ve heard of this band for a long time but never listened to them. I liked this album even though the 80s dream-pop vibe is not really my jam. The production is great, the instrumentation is great, the vocals are kind of hit or miss for me, but they do bring a unique feel. I appreciate this album from a historical perspective even if you won’t find me blasting these songs in my car with the windows down on a nice summer day.

Only made it half way through. Couldn’t stand it any longer.

Pretty good, not bad.

One of the jewels in the crown of folk-rock. Great album from start to finish.

I was not aware of this band. Not a bad album. Just when I thought I might be getting bored, they switch it up on the next track. This is another album I appreciate as an historical artifact, but not something I will probably listen to repeatedly.

I give this one a thumbs-up. I have to be in the right mood for something like this— late night, headphones, etc.

This was kind of an interesting one. No doubt I have heard of Kraftwerk but never actually sat down and listened to one of their albums. Some of these sounds seem almost cartoonishly cliché at this point, but they would have been new and exciting when this album came out. Then the album keeps going and it actually is pretty interesting once you get past the initial impression.

I didn’t really enjoy this album. Listened on Friday and today is Monday and I honestly don’t really remember anything about it, not sure what else to say.

I was not expecting this for some reason. I have never listened to TS before and it was very strange. I put on Taylor’s version because why not. Nothing against the woman, but this music doesn’t strike me as particularly good. It’s just well-engineered to appeal to a particular type of listener/fan. And in that respect it is very successful.

I hate it so much.

Another “interesting” album. I gotta find a new word. Anyway, not much to say, it feels a bit like a relic. Music that was once modern and is now old hat.

I'm not up on the current discourse surrounding Tom Waits. There was definitely a time when it was not cool to not like Tom Waits. So I've tried. I've had a couple of his albums moldering in my library for many years and I almost always skip over them. But if I'm being honest, the more I listen to this guy the less I want to hear. I just don't need him in my life at this point.

I've never been a Queen fan and arena-glam is definitely not my thing. I was pleasantly surprised by this album at first; it starts with some decent understated tunes. Kinda dark and jammy and proggy in places. By track six however we're firmly planted in 70s boomer-bait and bombast. Blech.

The Police back when they were just a few crazy kids. Not really that interesting, IMO.

There are some truly amazing songs on here, but it's weighted down by some pretty dismal stuff (at least by Beatles standards). The sequencing of tracks is questionable as well; why are we going from Bungalow Bill straight into While My Guitar Gently Weeps?

I gotta say, I actually liked this album when it came out, but now I'm not sure what to think. I don't think it has aged particularly well, or maybe I haven't. Listening to this is like looking through some blurry photos from a disposable camera in 1999. Green lawns, fake Oakleys, butt cuts, faint glow of youth.

Really just a great album. Stones in top form.

I'm not a hip hop guy and this is not the album that is going to change my mind. It was okay at first, but by the end I was ready for it to be over.

I really doubted I would be able to get all the way through this one. It's a tough listen. I don't mind some of the riffage and the drumming but the vocals are truly terrible and the guitar solos made me want to laugh out loud. Those are the high points. I felt physically ill while listening to this.

While I generally like oldies and first-wave rock 'n roll, I don't particularly enjoy Jerry Lee. I'm sure he was a fairly entertaining performer, but his recorded work doesn't really blow my hair back. This album was a quick listen and didn't make much of an impression on me. Moving on....

Mixed feelings about this album. I think the band/instrumentation sounds great. I don't like the vocals. Overall the songwriting seems kinda ho-hum. I couldn't tell you what the standout tracks from this album are. However, the sonic textures are impressive, especially for 1980. I can see this band developing over the decade and putting out some seriously interesting stuff.

This one was a bit of a roller coaster. My initial impression was mostly confusion. Then I started to warm up to it a little bit. Then I started to grow skeptical. Then anger and bargaining. Then depression. I finally ended with acceptance and hope. The songs are all pretty short so it was hard for me to really get into the flow. I'd like to see some of these grooves stretched out a bit which would therefore reduce the load carried by the vocals.

I'm finding it hard to articulate exactly why I don't like this album. It just doesn't do anything for me. It's depressing that one of the giants of 20th century music was essentially all washed up by age 30.

Wow. What the hell is this? And I mean that in the best possible way.

I feel pretty neutral towards this album. My one-year-old, however, absolutely loved it.

I kind of enjoyed this one. I'm sympathetic towards the 90s.

A little too poppy/upbeat for my tastes, but an enjoyable listen anyway.

Just an all-time great album.

This album is pretty wild. It has a quality to it of a band at a creative peak; they just can't go wrong. Quite often there are songs or parts of songs that don't seem like they belong on the same album as Song 2, or they seem like tracks around which entire albums could have formed, but the overall disjointedness is a feature, not a bug.

It seems crazy to take a point off for an album being too joyful, but here we are. Overall, it was pretty nice, but the production seems pretty dated. This would be a much different record if someone went back and stripped it down and replaced the rhythm section parts with something more tolerable. Get rid of that annoying metallic ticky-tack drum line that is on every(?) track.

No disrespect to EH, but this is basically a low-risk adult-contemporary softball. Emmylou’s allmusic bio glosses over this release without fanfare, noting only that Bruce Springsteen and several others make appearances. There are no songs that are outright bad enough to merit a two-star review, but you’re definitely not missing anything if you don’t hear this one before you die.

I was a young man back in the 90s and I remember this band and a slew of other "indie" bands that were almost universally loved by music "hipsters." Pavement is the king of these bands. None of them were that good? I should be nostalgic for this stuff, but I'm not.

I liked this album when it came out. I liked this album as it became widely known and reached a point of oversaturation. I liked this album ever since and I still like it now.

I gotta say, if I'm pulling out a Cat Stevens record to listen to, 95% of the time it's going to be Teaser and the Firecat, but this album is pretty good as well.

This was pretty good. I'm giving it four stars because this is the first album on the site (I'm only at #41) that I had never heard of that I actually liked and would add to my library and seek out other albums by the band.

I'm not really familiar with this guy. Although I am more receptive to country music than most, this album is not really hitting for me. The material is a bit scattershot. A lot of the instrument parts sound great (yet...why accordion?) however the drums and the vocals are not really doing anything for me. If you don't have a drummer or a singer, you don't have a band.

I don't particularly like hip-hop. I definitely didn't think I needed to hear British hip-hop, but I'll be honest, this one had me hooked for a minute. Strong 3.

I'm a casual fan of this band. I listen to an album and then forget what it sounds like until I listen to it again. This is good. Moody. Atmospheric. Layered. But not memorable.

The first half is a 1 the second half is a 3. Sorry just not my thing.

I had never heard of this. Terrible choice for a band name. The music was great though. Reminds me a bit of the Velvet Underground. I put it on whilst doing something else and looked up at the playlist wondering if I was on maybe the third or fourth track and the songs were just very long; lo and behold, I was on the last track and the album was almost over instead of just hitting its stride as I expected. Also, the only year I saw when putting it on was 2017 (the year of remaster), so I didn't actually know what year this was from until after I listened to it. I was surprised to see 1977; I would've thought later by a decade at least.

I dig the heavy R&B garage sound, but the band does drift into silliness and/or tedium at times: a sign of what was to come on subsequent albums. I have to give the Captain et al credit for taking a risk though. The rock world was evolving very quickly at this time and to do an album of straight-ahead 1964-style burners wouldn't have been very innovative in 1967 — especially for anyone who anyone who had been there for Screamin' Jay Hawkins, Howlin' Wolf, Rufus Thomas, Little Richard, etc.

I really don't care for this at all. Their rise-to-fame timeline is kind of amazing though: Form a band in 1996. Record a demo and play your first show (at a legendary venue) in 1997. Sign to a major label in 1999. Release your first album, as a fully formed band, in 2000 and then immediately sell millions and millions of records. Wild.

Arcade Fire was lucky enough to ride the hype wave of an indie rock renaissance. The Pitchfork Era. The Ironic Hipster Era. The George W. Bush Era. It was a simpler time. Anyway, I don't think they're that good. The music is fine here but the lead vocals are terrible. I've heard The Suburbs and it's worse.

Unremarkable.

I found the mix to be a little distracting. It sounds very pre- loudness wars. Ultimately, I don't think this album is anything special, but I'm glad I listened to it.

When I first heard Cohen's music, I thought it was great, but for some reason I've never really felt the need to re-listen to the albums I have in my library. This album has some great moments for sure, but there is also some stuff that is like, what? Why? Also, I'm here for the music and don't particularly care about the "poetry."

I really don't like Bowie's voice and the songs are just meh, with the obvious exceptions of Ziggy Stardust and Suffragette City. Hard to believe this album is so beloved.

I'm not a hip-hop guy, but this was okay. The beats were strong, the samples not overly annoying, and the "flow" was good, even if I don't care what he's saying. I'll be surprised if I give any hip-hop album higher than a three, so top marks here.

One of the best live albums I've ever heard. You've got Muddy, who is obviously a legend, but you also have Otis Spann and James Cotton, who might not be household names, but are two of the best ever to do what they do. Four stars only because there are better studio albums (and I prefer studio albums over live albums any day of the week).

Very nice to listen to. Amazing voice.

I was 13 when this album came out and the singles off this album were huge. At the time, it seems like their image was hard-edged and angry but not as dark and sludgy as grunge. For a mild-mannered midwestern-American kid, mainstream bands like Weezer and R.E.M. were much more palatable. In retrospect, given the rise of pop-punk (which became so popular later on), this just sounds like relatively harmless west-coast punk rock. Kinda cute really.

From a musicological standpoint, I have great respect for the 50s-era folk-revival musicians. From a pure musical-enjoyment perspective, there's a lot of other stuff I'd rather be listening to.

Is this the point when folk-rock jumps the shark? Maybe. It's just so cheesy. Closer to John Denver than the Byrds, but with an odd amount of crunchy rock riffs thrown in. It's like they purposely lean in to all the worst parts of the music that inspired them. A harbinger of so much dreadful soft-rock and slick LA schlock to come along in the 70s.

Enjoyable listen. Norah's voice is beautiful and emotive. The band lets her run with it. Just a timeless sound. This album would be just as successful if it came out today as it was 22 years ago.

I'm aware of this band's status as a paragon to indie rock nerds; however, the wider listening public seems to give mixed reviews. It wasn't as abrasive as I thought it would be. Do you get an extra star for that? Nah. Luckily it is short, concise, and to the point.

You can add "alternative dance" to the list of genres I have zero interest in.

Pretty good for a solo Beatle album. The first three songs, especially, are very good. The rest of the album, while not at the same level, is still either enjoyable or interesting. I think full credit is merited from an artistic point of view.

Much better than the earlier Bowie albums that have come up on this list. This is the first thing I've heard from him that sounds organic and shows a real sense of ownership. Some of the personae stripped away.

I imagine when the band made this they thought they really nailed it. I can almost picture them high-fiving each other every day when leaving the studio. Then they’d each have a nice dinner before hitting the hay.

Wasn’t sure what to expect on this one. It’s dark, raw, experimental, primitive at times, and… not at all unpleasant. Glad I heard it but not sure it quite rises to the level of a 4-star “keeper.”

I’m vaguely aware of this band from the 90s. It’s easy to see why they never broke through in any significant way. Mediocre songs from start to finish; although I did enjoy the little flares of alt-country.

One thing about this project is I’m always wondering if I’ve pegged some well-known artist completely wrong. Of course I’ve heard Petty’s singles a million times and grown sick of them long ago, but what if the albums were actually really good and I never knew? Well, guess what, this album is absolutely spirit-crushingly boring middle-brow rock just like you thought it would be!

I had my classic rock phase about 20 years ago and I rarely listen to stuff like this anymore, but it holds up. I don’t care what people say, Clapton (and that other guy) can rip. This album is way too long, but other than that I have no complaints.

Not bad, per se, but something about it is just off. Everything sounds really compressed, like a brick wall. Weird generic beats. Dream boy vocals.

NOT A BIG FAN OF BOWIE, BUTTTTT The second half of this album is great.

You won't usually catch me listening to 90s R&B and/or hip-hop, but this is actually pretty good. I wasn't really feeling it for the first four tracks, but by track eight I was sold. This is what a classic sounds like.

This album and XO caught a lot of shit when they came out for being too upbeat and overproduced. Looking back, 20-odd years later, it seems hard to justify such a complaint. Both albums are great. Of course at the time we didn't know that there wouldn't be any more records released in his lifetime, which makes each album so much more precious.

The truth is, I don't really listen to a lot of classic rock anymore. It just doesn't blow my hair back like it used to, but god damn, the Stones were just the best pure rock band ever and no amount of time seems to change that.

Maybe the worst shit I have ever heard. I guess parts of it were kind of funny?

The first track was great, but it kinda turns to mush after that.

Not much to say about this one. Didn't enjoy it.

I would put this album on to test out some hi-fi speakers, but ultimately it's not really my cup of tea. Two very good songs though: Enjoy the Silence and Policy of Truth.

Man, nobody makes records like this anymore... and there's a reason for that. This album is a patchwork of styles that doesn't feel cohesive at all. I guess the idea was to cast a wide net to bring disparate listeners in, but it falls flat for me.

I would rather listen to a concussed Frank Zappa perform the complete works of Weird Al Yankovic than listen to this again.

This wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it was going to be. Like other people on here, I was mostly familiar with 90s Aerosmith. But this is basically pretty low-stakes garage rock/bar band stuff. That doesn't mean it's good, it's just not terrible.

I like Sinatra in general, but this album is kind of a snooze fest.

Listening to this makes me wish I had never been born.

There are some good, accessible grooves on here and then there is some stuff that is a little out there (which you might expect if you're familiar with the band). If you can get acclimated, this is a pleasing trip.

If you’re in the mood for some kinda schmaltzy mid-century vocal pop, nothing hits quite like Sinatra. That being said, the songs are not always that great. Or if it is a great song, someone else has done it better. Anyway, I’m more of a September of My Years type of guy.

This doesn't feel like any kind of artistic statement by a talented creative duo, more like a pandering commercial endeavor by pop-music opportunists. I will give them a little credit for being on the bleeding edge in 1981, before this sound had really developed as it did later into the 80s.

I'm sure this blew some minds in 1966, but I found it to be kind of underwhelming. The 60s psych-rock scene was littered with bands that were probably a lot of fun live but couldn't really craft an enduring studio album. Love managed to overcome the odds a year later with Forever Changes, but this ain't it.

I don't really like the format of this album, which is overdubbed live tunes combined with a couple outtakes from the studio. It's also half acoustic and half electric, which makes it feel even more disjointed. There's good-to-excellent material here, but the execution was flawed.

Based on “Da Funk” and the fact that this duo maintained popularity for a fairly long time, I figured there was a chance that this album would be really good. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Maybe if I heard this in a left bank club in the 90s I would have more sympathy, but that’s not what happened.

Pretty good, especially the first 3 tracks. Gets a little same-y after that, but it's well crafted overall.

I'll be honest. I don't like Prince and I'm frankly sick of hearing about him. Still, I had to give this a fair listen and it's not all bad. The song Purple Rain kinda redeems the whole thing, even if it is 3 minutes too long.

I'm not really an electronic music guy. I'm usually too busy listening to non-electronic music. But I get it, it's cool. Synth bass can be very satisfying.

From an objective, critical point of view, this is a 4. The songs are well-written, well-played, well-sung, well-produced, etc., etc. For me, it is missing that certain quality that either resonates somewhere in my soul or that demands to be listened to repeatedly.

Okay background music maybe. The music is good but rap vocals are just not something I enjoy.

I don’t have much context for this album, but it feels like part of a larger whole— a contemporary high point between classic jazz and fusion.

Like if the Jayhawks made alt-pop instead of alt-country. Not great, not terrible.

It can be hard to digest an entire album when the group is so immemorially identified by their huge hits. This one was fairly listenable. But it’s a bit like Blind Melon: Sure that one song was great and the video was iconic, but do we really, 30 years later, need to know what else you did?

Feels a bit like a mash-up of a few bands and styles that were popular at the time. Not really my cup of tea.

Back when I was a little kid, there was a neighbor kid who described this album to me as "scary" and said that in his house you were considered brave if you could listen to it all the way through. Sometime after that, this album came up in conversation with someone else and I repeated what I had heard from the neighbor kid. The person I was talking to was like, what do you mean? And I didn't know how to respond. I think about that a lot. Now all these years later I'm listening to the album for the first time and it occurs to me that the kid was probably talking specifically about the song and not the album.

In my top 25 all time. Easy 5 stars.

Far out man.

There's some okay stuff on here, but I can't stand anything that screams EIGHTIES like this. I want to like Leonard Cohen, but — like Tom Waits — the more I listen the less I want to hear.

My only complaint about this album is that Aretha's voice can be overpowering. She swings for the fences on every track, which would be fine if she were the lead singer for Led Zeppelin, but too much of the material here is just softball stuff.

About 20 years ago, a good friend introduced me to the song "Into My Arms," which he was obsessed with. Great song, but now I'm saddled with the curse of forever keeping Cave on my radar even though I don't really like most of his stuff. This album put me off right away, but of course I kept listening and there are just enough positive elements to keep the pipe dream alive. Dammit, Nick, don't give me hope.

Sure, her voice is an acquired taste and yeah, this folky material isn't necessarily the best fit for her. She would immediately pivot away from this style on subsequent albums in favor of a stark, doomy, gothic, proto-slowcore sound, which is shocking and amazing. This album is still pretty good though and I think it has grown on me after multiple listens. There are no other records that are like this.

I didn't enjoy this at all. Britpop in general doesn't seem like a genre you can really sink your teeth into. This album is fast, cheap, and easily disposable.

Not gonna lie, this is pretty mid for me. The compositions, while pleasant, sound like anyone could have come up with them and I don't have much use for "biting satire" or really any kind of comedy in music. Still, it is a toe-tapper.

Fatiguing and paper thin, what a winning combo. Bowie's "Across the Universe" pretty well encapsulates everything I don't like about him.

I'll admit to being seduced by the aura dripping from this record. It's a warm summer evening in 1961 in a cozy little spot in the West Village. If you gave me a time machine, I wouldn't hesitate. Anyway, I think the best way to listen to this album is not the band as a whole, not as one cohesive sound, but instead keeping the three instruments separate in your mind. Each one painting in a different color. Close your eyes and it's a very visual album.

This is not a folk album. It's it's own thing.

This album was a real roadblock for me. I thought I would enjoy it, but I tried to listen to it a few times and I kept falling asleep. I didn't want to skip it, so the new albums kept coming in daily and stacking up. It was giving me anxiety. Finally after 20 days I put the whole project on pause, for three months. Well, I'm finally back and I put this album on and finally made it through to the end. It's just okay.

Kind of a trip if you can stick with it.

This is the best 80s-dance, synth-psych, neo-funk, crypto-soul, agit-pop album I've ever heard. Too bad I don't like any of those things. Ok, I take it back synth-psych sounds like it could be good.

There is a lot of music out there that I -get- but I still don't like— I understand its role in the musical universe, but it doesn't appeal to me personally. This band is the opposite. I like the music, but I don't get it. Maybe I lack the proper perspective, but even without reading up on the context, an album should be able to telegraph it's emotional or narrative purpose. Then again, maybe that inscrutability is an artistic choice in an of itself. But it could also be covering up for an ultimately hollow work.

I guess I was expecting an ambient album. Maybe a sort of sound-scapey, tuneless beast. No vocals. Layered crescendos of reverb and delay. Etc. That's not what this is at all. This grooves surprisingly hard for how far it leans into 70s/electro-experimentalism. Deeply creative and melodic through and through.

Good songs, well-recorded. Like a musical version of diner food. Nothing unexpected or brilliant but a solid, comforting meal if slightly boring.

Soft rock for squares.

Really good from start to finish.

Kinda goofy and annoying. The samples aren't particularly compelling. Not good.

I'd heard about this album for a long time. I first listened to it a few years ago. I kept my expectations low because so often these sort of lost-to-the-sands-of-time gems don't live up to the hype. Then I actually listened to it and I thought it was pretty good. Now for this project I listened to it a second time, and then a third time. The second time I was thinking: this isn't as good as I remembered it being. Then the third time I was like, okay, this is actually is pretty good. So, I guess I'm not completely decided between 3 and 4 stars. But I can tell you that "Coconut" sucks balls.

Low expectations because I really don't like the Sex Pistols, but this was actually kinda good. For this type of album you just have to accept that it's going to get tedious at times; that's just part of the deal.

First of all, "Son of a Preacher Man" is one of the greatest recordings of all time. Sadly, the rest of the album isn't near that standard. There are nice points and the band is great, but Dusty's voice is sometimes mildly unpleasant and the material veers sharply into schlock.

Although I respect James Brown, I rarely listen to his recordings because I'm almost never in the mood for up-tempo dance music and shouting. Surprisingly, there were some nice slow burners on here. The mix left something to be desired with vocals primarily in my right ear and random instruments occasionally jumping out too far. And of course crowd noise. Overall, though, I enjoyed it and feel it is a valuable piece of music history.

Just a devastating voice. Imagine walking into a dark theater on a cold night and hearing something like this in person. Imagine if you were the only listener in the room. Your soul would leave your body.

I could tell from the beginning that this was not going to be for me. I pretty much let it play in the background while I was working on something else and thinking about other things.

This album is about 10% psych/garage rock and 90% hard rock/proto-metal. The longer, trippier sequences I could tolerate. I can't stand the wanking and the riffing and the vocals.

They say you have your whole life to create your first album and only four years to create your second album. I guess the expectations for Lorde were probably unreasonably high after the absolute smash hit that was "Royals," but c'mon. I think people were really interested to see what she would have to say as she gained experience of the world and to see if she would create Great Art. Spoiler alert: she made a fairly limp and unimpressive pop album.

I was fully prepared to give this album a three-star and move on with my life, but I listened to it again with headphones on and the volume up and I have to give credit where credit is due— this album is actually pretty good. It's very 90s-alternative-but-what-is-it-the-alternative-to type of music. Mainstream and accessible, sure, but I don't necessarily think that means it's boring and middlebrow. And tbh, it takes a bit of adroitness to pull off a towering, anthemic song like "Bitter Sweet Symphony." Not many bands can do that.

I'm not going to get too deep into the weeds on this one, but it's not one of my favorite Stones albums. Beggars Banquet, on the other hand, is one of my favorite albums of all time. The highs here are just not as high and the lows drift into 70s-sleaze rock. I just can't do it anymore.

Great album, but a little uneven and some of the production touches have not aged well. When the formula works, it works.

The music is pretty good but the “punk” vocals are terrible.

Solid album. Love the low-key horns and the subtle guitar passages.

Back when I was growing up, The Doors were one of those bands that our Boomer parents told us was great. And classic rock was great. And we listened to these things and we bought the Morrison posters and put them up on on the walls next to the Bob Marley posters, in our dorms. Oliver Stone made a movie. That golden aura has faded and it's easier to see the Doors at face value now. This album really isn't anything special. Off to the dustbin of history then.

One of my favorite Neil Young albums. This is just right in my wheelhouse. Downtempo folk rock with stretched out psych-ish jams. I can listen to this one over and over again.

I hate to be a Grinch, but I'm going to go against the prevailing wisdom: the Wall of Sound kinda sucks. Especially for background music, which Christmas music almost always is. It sounds like a Wall of Mush. The performances were good, but as for listenability it's a bit disappointing.

This falls under the category of objectively damn good, but subjectively I'd rather be listening to something else. I will give extra credit for being a live performance though; those don't always translate on record.

I think I'm becoming immune to hard rock riffage, pounding drums, aggressive guitar onslaughts, wild solos, etc. from doing this project. But I cannot forgive the ridiculous vocals and lyrics.

Some decent grooves, but not much of a Wow factor to be found. The hit track Super Rich Kids is pretty good, but not much else on the album is memorable, (or it is memorable for the wrong reasons). They tried it with the sparse production, but they just couldn't help themselves. Just barely three stars.

Very abrasive. It's like shaving in the dark with a crusty old razor and a grotesque, sweaty man keeps accidentally bumping your elbow.

Not great. Not terrible.

The only compelling thing about this album is the harmonized vocals and that’s only because they make Staley’s vocal affectations slightly less annoying. Hard to believe this stuff was so mainstream in the 90s. If this were released today it would be a niche thing wallowing in obscurity.

Pure camp. I hated it.

The playing is pretty tight and it seems like they had a vision. Good for them.

I like that Radiohead continued in a progressive direction after OK Computer. This is an important album for the band and for popular music at the turn of the millennium. It’s a little uneven with several songs obviously standing out among the others, but you have to take the album as a whole and not track by track.

It can be hard to rate the Beatles because their best songs set the bar incredibly high, and at the same time they had no qualms about including throwaway songs on their albums either (mostly due to the very short timeframes they were working with). And then of course there is the practice of not including the singles on the album. Replace Run For Your Life with Daytripper and that might be your fifth star. So, yes, it is a classic, but not a stone cold killer album.

I find this fairly interesting as a work of conceptual sonic art, but it's not doing anything for me in the context of music. In a way, it kinda sounds like Jacob Collier if he were an Icelandic hipster.

Cookie Monster throws a bag of pennies down the garbage disposal.

Huh? I don’t understand the rave reviews. Did we listen to the same album?

This is interesting to listen to as a document from the time between the height of 80s punk/hardcore and the emergence of 90s grunge/alternative. I don't particularly care for the actual music. Where Is My Mind? is a great song, though.

I don't reach for this album as often as OK Computer or In Rainbows, but it is of the same caliber.

This one didn't do much for me. I can sort of appreciate the guitar parts, but I don't like the shouty vocals and there's just no way around that. You have to like shouty vocals to like this album. Still, this is better than most punk and punk-adjacent stuff I've heard.

It sounds like some dudes were sitting around and decided to form a corporation in order to manufacture tubes of overly-saccharine rock-music goo to feed into the hot, grubby maw of the radio-listening public.

Pretty middle-of-the-road stuff. It's well made but nothing really blows my hair back.

I don't really have any strong feelings on this one way or the other.

Rock music had been struggling a little bit when this album came out and breathed new life into the genre. It's raw and unapologetic and leaves you wanting more.

Pretty much crushing it on every level.

Kind of intense, like being given sketchy stimulants at a party and then later you can’t tell if you’re having acid reflux or you’re about to blow a coronary.

Back when I was a kid in the 80s and early 90s and I was first becoming aware of music, this was type of this is just what I thought all adults listened to and that some day I would probably also listen to it and like, wear a shirt with blocks of different colors on it. Well, thankfully that never happened because this blows.

Pretty cool album. A few absolute stunners in there, including maybe the most powerful 2:33 in 60s rock history in White Rabbit. You want to hear more from these guys (and gal) but unfortunately this is really their only good album.

It's not bad. Cohen's voice sounds great, the songs are fine. The whole album is a mood, but there’s nothing on here that screams “Masterpiece” or even “Remember Me Twenty Years From Now.”

After the first two tracks, I'm thinking this is going to be a hot mess. By the end of track five I'm starting to dig the groove at least. By about track eight I'm ready for this to start wrapping up... and then it just keeps going... and going... for 30 more minutes. It's a decent vibe overall though; three stars.

This is okay from a pop music perspective. The songwriting and vocals are there. But rock music requires more than that. We need big drums. We need better guitar parts. We need a little swagger.

Big nostalgia trip. I was 14 when this came out and it sounds EXACTLY like 1995 to me. I don't think I ever owned this album, and I lost track of the Foo Fighters after The Color and the Shape, but I knew most of these songs. I have not heard them in 25 years and I probably won't hear them again for another 25, but this album just rips. It's great. Great job guys.

I liked the little solo acoustic guitar bit. I'd have listened to an entire album of that.

This is a tough one. I don't like it. I haven't really found any hip-hop that I like. But I recognize that this album and a few others launched an almost-entirely-new genre that is still pretty dominant in the popular music of today. For me, the best I can do is nod my head to the beat.

I like Johnny Cash. He's earned his place in the pantheon of great Country artists. His performances at Folsom and San Quentin are legendary. But on a fundamental level these recordings are only mildly enjoyable as a listener in 2025.

From what I know of the Beastie Boys, I was prepared to hate this album, but I get why people like this. I don't know who the Dust Brothers are, but they do good work. I still don't like the group. The album as a whole isn't entirely unlistenable, and that's really the highest praise I can give.

I am pretty familiar with the album Dummy from back in the 90s. That was a good album and it had a strong sense of self, but I this is really something else entirely. I'm glad they were able to regroup and generate some new original music. This feels complete.

The Doors make sense in context, but I imagine a lot of people who have never heard them before are thinking What The Fuck Is This Shit. In the 60s you could eat this stuff with a spoon. Anyway, for me, I'm left wondering why a band that was capable of making cool stuff like The End would waste their time making third-rate crap like the Alabama Song.

The UK rock scene must have been pretty bleak in 1994 for this record to come out and hit it big and sell millions of copies. This feels like very lowest-common-denominator, generic, arena-style rock. Somehow the band has maintained relevance well into this century.

That one sort of dreamy psychedelic song was pretty good. The straight-ahead rock songs, which is most of them, are not very good. In my humble opinion.

About the most fun you can have listening to an album you don't like and hope to never hear again.

If there is a standout element here, it's Bernard Butler's guitar playing. The rest of it is pretty forgettable. Including the overly-British-sounding vocals.

Yeah, sorry, background music.

Well, I guess it’s time for me to admit I don’t really like this album very much. It’s overproduced, overorchestrated, and most of the songs kind of float around and don’t go anywhere. The sociopolitical messaging is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Yep. Pretty good. Not quite mind-blowing in 2025 although I bet it was pretty progressive for the time.

I don’t really know what this is, but I didn’t like it.

Just had this band five albums ago. Still don't like this guy's voice. The whole thing sounds regressive for 1994, a time when rock bands in general were innovating pretty fearlessly.

Two things stand out to me listening to this album now: First, you can tell it was recorded to tape in someone's basement in the 90s— probably the golden age of basement recording. (It wouldn't be long before computers and digital recording would change a lot of things.) Second, it's an historically great album with an understated and unique kind of beauty.

Stalwart classic rock band. Pretty good album. It's pretty easy to say "pass" on two minutes of standard R&B ravings-up (Ooby Dooby, etc.), but the payoff of the 11-minute "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" is so worth it.

I don't like her free-flowing songwriting style at all. The jazz and pop inflections just make worse, IMO. Not a good listen.

A bit narcoleptic and theatrical, but there are too many good songs here to simply launch the album into the endless sea of three-star albums.

Good, original art-rock is hard to come by. You can feel this band has some heat behind them. Williamsburg hipsters in post-9/11 NYC, the last vestiges of Old Weird New York disappearing. The stage was set, but ultimately I think their range is pretty narrow and if this doesn't hit you straight-on, it doesn't hit you.

The trend continues of 90s alternative albums where the only good songs are the ones you heard as singles.

Pretty fun listen except for that ridiculous instrument.

It must be nice to have so many musical ideas rolling around in your head that you feel you must put them all out into the world. At first I thought this was a little too straight-ahead, but the weirder and trippier it gets, the better it is.

You know it’s a three-star when you like it but absolutely can’t be bothered to write a review.

A little corny around the edges, but all in all an excellent album. There’s a lot of stuff on here that hadn’t really been done before, even considering the way-paving done by the Byrds, Buffalo Springfield, the Hollies, and others.

Goofy dipshit music.

This is one of the albums they teach on the first day of Classic Rock 101. When you ask your dad, "hey dad, what was classic rock all about?" This is one of the albums that would be bestowed upon you like a crown and scepter. Listen, my son, and learn the ways of your great rock forebears. Truth be told, it's a bit corny in places. But still a 5 all day.

Not something I enjoyed listening to, nor did I appreciate it on any kind of non-enjoyment level.

Yeah, count me among those who had dismissed this band largely due to their reputation as 70s easy-listening soft-rock elevator music. This is actually pretty good although I'm sure it was all downhill from here!

Great album from top to bottom. A lot of British bands took their shot at it, but this is the best.

It starts out rough with the vocals gratingly off-pitch at times. Then I'm sitting here thinking about ways in which the production team failed, which means the songwriting wasn't good enough to hold my attention. I think the final nail in the coffin is me realizing this album is from 2000 and it just seems like this sound was passé by then.

Midcentury vocal pop is nice but not really essential listening for me.

I mean, what are we even doing here guys? What's the point of it all? What is our collective higher purpose?

I figured I might need to crank this one to fully appreciate it. I turned it down.

Cut-and-paste rock-inflected pop music manufactured for the purpose of selling as many units as possible. Pure commercialism.

I do like the Allman Brothers, but to be honest the only album of theirs I really listen to regularly is Eat a Peach, which feels more magical than this one. Live albums can be difficult to pull off, but the Allmans style of music works well for the format. It is kind of amazing that they could just... keep going forever if they wanted to.

If you asked me yesterday if I liked this album I would’ve said yes, absolutely; but to be honest I probably haven’t listened to this album in full since high school— 25 years ago. So it was good to be reacquainted with fond memories of the past. Anyway it’s intense and beautiful and Billy makes the best of what is not the world’s most pleasant voice.

Well folks, I'm not going to sugarcoat this one. It's two legendary hits and a bunch of stuff I'd really rather not get involved with.

I wasn't expecting much. But this wasn't bad.

Maybe I'm just feeling generous today, but damn, this was kinda great? Not really my kind of music, but I'm impressed.

There are bits and pieces here and there that I thought were somewhat cool, but overall it's a real piece of shit. Like I feel like vomiting up my throat.

There's only a few songs on here that really turn my head, but baseline Bob Marley is so good that I can't help but give this one a four-star rating.

This album takes some twists and turns creatively and if you can find it within yourself to think of the 80s as a medium rather than a genre or a style, you may be rewarded.

This is a four-star album for me in the same way Mariah Carey's Butterfly was a four-star. Not music I'm interested in or really care to hear again, but expertly crafted to the point of being enjoyable.

It's not bad, it's just that I've hit my lifetime quota of Tom Waits songs. Everyone has their own personal limit. There's nothing more to do here.

This album has somewhat of a cult following. I am not one of those people, but I get it. With the exception of Lily, Rosemary, and the Jack of Hearts, this is a great album. You know there's a bunch of old dudes sitting around saying, "Blood on the Tracks really got me through some tough times." Must be good, right?

This one didn't really blow my hair back. I like that they took a few risks, but they don't always land.

Hey, I'm all in favor of a beloved band or artist making an album later in their career that is a bit dark, mysterious, or left-of-center. This ain't it though. It seems to me like they are grasping at straws to see what will work and none of it sounds genuine.

Pretty accessible for avant-garde music. I enjoyed it.

I figure I'm in the minority on this, but I just don't like her voice. I guess it was kind of a novelty to have a British woman singing American R&B and soul music and belting wildly in 1964, but it sounds hacky as fuck to my ears.

Funk is the type of music that I enjoy when it happens to playing somewhere, but I just don't really feel the need to put it on for my own personal enjoyment. For me, it's dance/party music. I'd say there's three great tracks on this album and the rest is just kind of head-bobbing stuff.

I like a heavy blues freak-out as much as the next guy, but this album lacks personality. I also have a low tolerance for white dudes singing about picking cotton.

I'm not even bothered by the prog stuff. It's still an excellent album even if you only consider it in the context of psychedelia. There are layers and dimensions here. Sounds great on headphones.

Not really my thing, but probably more interesting to me now than if I had heard it when it came out. Now that this is "vintage" hip hop it has a bit more cachet.

I put off listening to this album for years because I had a sneaking suspicion that it was going to be bad, despite its vaunted reputation. My suspicions were unfortunately correct, as confirmed by this second (and last, hopefully) listen. It sounds like she was having trouble filling out all 43 minutes and was just milking it as much as possible.

I know this album sold like a billion copies, but as a kid at the time Green Day seemed like a second-rate, unserious band compared to the big-name grunge and alternative bands at the time. I imagine their schtick played better on the West Coast than in my hometown among the prairieland of Illinois. Which is fair; I'm sure they don't appreciate Midwest Emo like we do. Anyway, I have to give them credit for the big five singles off this album. The drums in particular are noteworthy, but overall this is not the type of thing I want to listen to.

I like the blues, but I lean more towards acoustic blues, folk-blues, and country-blues. I’ll admit, I find post-war Chicago-style blues to be kind of corny, clichéed, and conformist. I’ve never particularly liked BB King, and this album didn’t do anything to change my opinion.

An all-time classic.

Plenty of hum-dingers on here and only a couple of ho-hummers.

Not bad, sounds like ADHD hipster stuff.

Been a while since I got a solid jazz album. This makes me nostalgic for a time I never knew; I wasn't even born yet.

Gets a little wishy-washy in the middle, but brilliant and stunning otherwise.

I have to admit to being the kind of teenage boy in the 90s who avoided Tori Amos like the plague. But, you know what, this album isn't half bad. On the surface it seems kinda cheese ball, but in this case I think it's a byproduct of the era and not sincerely-held cheese, if that makes sense.

All of British blues-rock was just building up to this album. Once LZ got involved, well, it was going to be tough for anyone to top them. The genre would eventually wither and die.

Fairly noisy rock record. It has a nice energy and cohesiveness to it, but the bloody-raw edge is not really my thing. It sounds like a band's first record, before they ascended to major-label success or crashed and burned, whichever. I was surprised to see they were already long-time veterans when they put this out.

I like the indie folk stuff, but I could do without the baroque pop. John Wayne Gacy Jr. is such a sad, beautiful song. There are a few other tracks on the album that are pretty good, but there's a lot of filler as well.

This is basically a razor-sharp funk album with pop vocals. It works. Pretty slick.

This one was good but it sort of sunk into the couch cushions and had trouble getting up again.

The parts without vocals weren't so bad?

This is the worst blues album I have ever heard.

Tangerine is really the only standout track for me on this one. There are some interesting bits and pieces here and there but doesn't hold up.

It's either great or it sucks. Not sure.

Their 1996 album How I Quit Smoking was a bit of an indie touchstone— it's an album I attempted to get into several times. Eventually I decided it was just cluttering up my library and my mental capacity and I rid myself of it. This album is not much more enticing, I'm afraid.

I wasn't taken immediately. By the end of the cover of All Tomorrow's Parties something clicked and I thoroughly enjoyed it from that point forward.

I first became aware of this band probably twenty years ago. I have a couple of their albums in my library (not this one, though). And to be honest, I usually forget they exist and then, once in a great while (like every couple years), I'll put on an album. And you know what— it's always a good listen when I do.

Yes, absolutely. Play this shit at my funeral.

The first half of this record feels like reggae boilerplate. The second half cooks.

It sounds like a bunch of bros got together to make a bro band and perform in front of even more bros. Which is fine, just don't go in the studio and try to record it and then make me listen to it for an internet project.

Tracks range from annoying to somewhat tolerable.

I can appreciate the merging of several different styles of music, but the execution makes for a discombobulating experience. It's like pop-rock combined with smooth R&B, but with slightly bigger drums. It's like if you mixed two recipes: Beef Chili and Chicken Noodle Soup, and then topped it off with MSG-encrusted pork rinds.

One of the best albums I've ever heard.

I thought this was very good, which makes me think I need to go back and listen to Violator again, because I gave that one a three.

I have some respect for this type of music. For me, it evokes the image of some dude by himself in a dark basement, on a computer, strung out on insomnia and caffeine etc, just going wherever his crazed mind takes him (or her, whatever). Like, if I had created this, I think I would be somewhat proud of it. But I would probably not listen to this record again unless I really needed to just do some stimulants and speed-clean the house.

Abrasive. Plodding. No dynamics. No beauty.

Fun ride, but probably best that they didn't become a smash hit and then try to make a bunch more albums. Captivating, obscure "lost" garage-psych albums are my weakness.

It's such a cliché, but half the tracks could be removed from this double album and it would be top-tier. Sorry Jimi!

Critical analysis of Fleetwood Mac's work is always overwhelmed by the story of the band, the image of the band, and the inherent sensationalism of 70s rock. If we can bring ourselves to separate the art from the artists, then we can dispense with all the hand-wringing about this album. It's a totally harmless, middle-of-the road rock record. Next.

I listened to this album twice and I don't really have anything to say about it.

Bad Company are known as a hard rock band, but there's nothing particularly hard about this album. I'd much rather listen to this than Back in Black or whatever. This dude can sing.

Overall, I liked the electronic production although the tempos didn't vary much and there was a lack of dynamics and any sort of edge. Like most -pop music, a stiff breeze would blow it over, but there is a time and place for that.

Garage rock taken to the next level. There were plenty of bands around for the 2000s rock revival but none of them were capable of making something like this.

Summer Breeze was pretty good. That Lady kinda sucks. The rest was toe-tappable but not all that memorable.

Obviously some great players on this, particularly the rhythm section, but I just don't like the material that much. Also, why go to the trouble of finding all these hot shot studio musicians and then be like, yeah, but I'm going to do the [mediocre] vocals myself?

I feel bad about this because Mark Knopfler seems like a good dude and a good guitarist, but I really hated this album. Schlocky, shmaltzy, 80s pop. Ick.

I like the Byrds later stuff and I like folk rock in general, but this album feels undercooked to me. They needed to make this album to get a foot in the door, but I don't think they were ready for prime time yet. Three years later, different story.

I would give this two stars just for Geddy Lee's vocals, but it's worse than that. I find very little to like about this album. The drums are just silly and the kick and toms sound totally dead. The guitar is either braindead riffing or wanky solos. This was a miserable experience.

Arena rock is a tough sell for me, but this is actually fairly listenable. It gets a little draggy on the back half, but not enough to bring it down a star.

I didn't know what to make of this record at first: a little confusing, a little beguiling. So I listened to it again the next day. It's enjoyable. But even though it was likely a bit of a revelation in 1991, in present day it feels like a superfluous addition to the great stack of canonical albums that is ~life~.

I feel like Taylor Swift was put on this earth to pump out album after album of three-star-esque music.

If this album were a painting — okay, let's be honest, it wouldn't end up in the Louvre — but I'd hang it in my house. Every time I walk past it in the hallway, I'll nod to myself and say, "hmm, isn't that a nice painting?" And then I would go to the kitchen and look for snacks.

It's got groove, swagger. Production is good.

Maybe it’s unfair to pigeonhole an artist like this, but I think she should stick to the torch songs. The more uptempo and poppy songs don’t feel natural. The whole thing is a bit awkward, which makes sense in light of her age.

It's not bad, but it is the kind of album that you only bought because you needed one more slot to fill on your Columbia House record club deal, then you listened to it twice and then it sat in a Trapper Keeper-like binder full of CDs, untouched, until the end of time.

Maybe this is just outside the range of what I can absorb and comprehend as a listener and as a human being.

I don't like this type of music.

I like a mellow indie rock record, but I'm not a fan of Berman's vocals. And lyrically, I prefer a more impressionistic style rather than the bold-face type here.

I've heard this album many times, but probably not at all in the past 20 years or so. Yeah it's a little weird, but it's still a great, distinctive album.

It sort of plods on like a wooly mammoth on quaaludes, but other than that it's great.

A little off-kilter, a little deranged. I like it.

I don't particularly like most of Van Morrison's stuff, but this album is amazing. It picks you up and takes you away, then floats you through gauzy, melodic clouds and gently puts you back down again.

A colorful album, to be sure. I liked the indie-jangle tidbits more than the dance, pop, and metal(?) stuff.

At first I was impressed, despite the horrible 80s-ness of it. Then I started to get a bit bored, but by the end I was sort of impressed again. I think this guy is talented, but it's just not my kind of music and I would never listen to it again.

Bob firmly in his do-no-wrong phase. King Midas in fourth gear.

Stoned, blissed-out early 70s jams. Yes. Incredible album.

It stinks!

No, not at all, really.

I want to like the Byrds, but outside of The Notorious Byrd Brothers, I have a hard time really digging into many of their albums. I wish this album was more garage-y. Like, why would I listen to this when the 13th Floor Elevators exist?

It's like if you lobotomized Mick Jagger and removed the part of his brain that exclusively thinks about David Bowie then plugged the brain segment into a machine and then this is what come out the other end.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that this album doesn't totally suck.

I like Bert Jansch. This album for me is three five-star songs and a lot of other stuff that is merely good.

Nice!

She seems to have a pretty loose relationship with the key she is singing in. I guess it's supposed to sound jazzy but instead she sounds like a washed-up Broadway understudy pivoting to second-rate lounge singer.

Love the mood and the vibe of this album. I like the slower, doomier stuff more than the abrasive rock tracks, which means there are really only three great songs on this album for me, but it's still four stars overall.

Nice!

Probably the best pure rock album of the 90s, IMO. Unrelentingly good.

It's a shame that every song on the album isn't up to the level of Sin City, which is whatever the musical equivalent of "dank" is. Just a big ol' purple crystally bud, that song is. The rest of the album is still a good listen, though; catch me on a Saturday afternoon with this one.

This seems like the kind of music that is very oriented to its scene and aesthetic. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. It's just like... Welcome to the Lower East Side, we've pulled the tubes out of our amps and replaced them with tiny cheese graters and loose pinball machine parts. Have fun kids.

I just don't get on with these lads. "There Is a Light That Never Goes Out" is okay.

The songs were not good and it sounds like all the band members recorded their parts separately and then mailed them to the producer to stitch everything together, doesn't feel organic at all.

I almost never use the word boring when describing music, but I'll make an exception in this case. This album is lukewarm like a vodka tonic sitting on top of the urinal the men's room for an hour after the bar closes. And I'm the yellow-brown lime wedge floating listlessly on its surface.

A touchstone album in the history of rock music. If I have any qualms with this, it's Verlaine's warble, but at the same time I can't imagine like, Freddy Mercury singing on this either. Anyway, very good but not quite five stars.

Electronic pop rap. That's three strikes from me.

This is my third Sonic Youth album from the list and I think it's the best one yet (the others being Goo and Daydream Nation). This one is hypnotic in a way that the other two are not.

I was glad when it was over.

Sometimes it feels like they are just moving furniture around the room. On this song, the couch is over here and the chair is over here, and on the next song they've just switched places. It is a comfy couch though, maybe a little saggy in the middle.

I like the dense atmospheric sound and the dirge-like quality, but mostly it's the vocals that put me off.

Pleasant enough.

1973. All the good musical weed in the 60s had gone up in smoke and now we must scrape the resin-crusted bowl that is 70s rock. Those first couple hits are Zeppelin and Floyd and Neil Young and then the last couple hits, the ones that taste like ass and make you dizzy, are everybody else.

Landlord: Dude, you are such a goated tenant. Bill: Yo, thanks beast. Landlord: I'm lowering your rent because you are such a chiller. Bill: Dude, fuck yeah. Bill: By the way, there's a ton of mold underneath the sink in the kitchen.

Love this album. Brilliant.

Pretty generic rock music with really shitty vocals.

Beck had a nice arc going. He initially became known for "Loser" which was a radio-foisted throwaway song, a house made of straw. Then came Odelay (I have a soft spot for this album as part of my teenage years), which was well-received critically but also cemented his status as an aloof self-styled witticist type. A couple albums later we were given Sea Change, which was truly brilliant and was marketed as his transformation into a mature, serious artist— but! He immediately pivoted back to this kind of stuff, which, in retrospect, makes Sea Change feel insincere. I suppose Morning Phase was his attempt to relegitimize that persona, but... whatever, I can't be bothered with all this.

They were no Stabbing Westward.

Byrne's silly vocals spoil the party.

Crap from start to finish.

Quite the power trio.

Imagine spending all that time learning an instrument, forming a band, writing, practicing, going to the studio, agonizing over every effect, each mic placement, every slider on the mixing board, etc. and then you play the album for someone and they just nod their head and shrug and say: "sounds nice."

In one ear and out the other. I get what they were trying to do; it's not unartful necessarily, but it comes out lukewarm and gummy.

Pure shit. Normally I could just sit here in silence but I actually have to listen to something good now to cleanse my brain.

Back when I was still discovering "legendary" albums from the past, I listened to this album with high expectations. I thought it was garbage. Now, listening again probably 20 years later (with much lower expectations), I don't think it's that bad. Still not my kind of music, but not unlistenable. Anarchy in the UK is a great track.

I enjoyed this album. Psychedelic but not overwrought or abrasive, experimental but not demanding.

CCR is kind of a greatest hits band for me. Their most popular songs are all great, but none of their albums are really essential, IMO. Here we have 3 or 4 great songs and the rest is somewhat unremarkable.

The first track was kind of interesting but it shifted gears after that. The sixth track was more like the first, but by that time I had kinda lost interest and didn't really pay attention to the rest of it.

NGL, I forgot I was listening to music for a minute there. And I had headphones on. It's a little strange that anyone thinks this has anything to do with folk music. Just because there is a soft acoustic guitar in there somewhere does not make it folk!

I love the album If You're Feeling Sinister and for years I tried to like anything else by them and it never happens. On this record, the vibe is very poppy but it doesn't have the requisite hooks to pull it off.

One of my first favorite albums ever. I've loved it since I was 11 years old.

Not much to say about this, but after a second listen I felt I appreciated it more.

The first track is very enjoyable, but the returns seem to diminish as the album goes on.

Not as cool and louche as the Stones, not as finely-crafted as the Beatles. Pretty pedestrian affair aside from Sunny Afternoon.

The hottest of hot garbage.

The production, songwriting, and execution are all very well done. If I had to make a criticism, I would say it feels slightly performative. We all know what it sounds like when an artist cuts themselves open and bleeds all over the page; this ain't that, but it is still an excellent listen.

The background music was good and the vocals were easy to ignore.

This feels like an exercise in storytelling rather than attempt to make an album of good music. I'm here for the music; if I wanted a short story I'd read one.

I have to give Joni some credit for being an original. If you look up her supposed influences and contemporaries, none of them really sound like her (with the exception of CSN). There are also not a lot of singer-songwriter albums in this vein that are considered classics like this one without any standout tracks. I don’t mean that in a negative way, it’s just clearly meant to be a full, complete album and not just a compendium of songs that happened to be recorded at the same time. That said, I still don’t like her style as a lyricist and it sometimes feels like she is in a bubble and the rest of the band is [gestures] over there somewhere. I listened to this twice, and there were times I thought I could give is a two and times when I thought I could give it a four.

I'm not really a big Nirvana fan, but all the accolades for this set are deserved. There are a few tracks I could have done without, including 2 out of 3 of the Meat Puppets songs, but the rest is top notch.

I'm just gay enough to not care how gay this album is.

Perhaps I'm suffering from a bit of whiplash after going from Lou Reed to Joni Mitchell to Nirvana to Scissor Sisters, but I just could not absorb this one and frankly I'm not sure I would have devoted a spot on the list to an album like this. (It's not bad, per se, just not particularly notable.)

Aretha is obviously a total powerhouse. My issue is that because her voice is set to "blast" about 90% of the time, I find it fatiguing. I could listen to any one of these songs and say, hey, that's a good/great song, but it's hard for me to tolerate in an album-length format. Too much of a good thing, unfortunately.

Okay, okay, I admit it. A good album can indeed be too long.

Sometimes I wonder if the people who made the record ever look back on it and say, "yeah, we were young, having fun, doing drugs, messing about. This album we made really wasn't that good."

I like this more as an electronic/avant-garde project than I like it as a rock/new wave record. I'd be interesting to hear it redone without the rock drums and with perhaps an alternative vocal of some kind (maybe Annie Clark would be interested?).

At times it feels like the production is doing the heavy lifting and at other times it feels like the production can't get out of its own way. I guess it depends on how you look at it. But her talent is evident and I think her career seems to have borne that out.

Great album, but if we're being honest, the first half is better than the second half.

Like sandpaper to my ears. I’m surprised it was released like this, to be honest.

Pretty bad, not gonna lie.

The vibe of the album is like, it's 1999 and you're 16 and you're going to your girlfriend's house to meet her parents for the first time. At some point her turtleneck-wearing dad corners you in the living room and you make the mistake of casting a glance in the direction of his CD tower. Then he spends the next 20 minutes explaining why this album is so great and he's thinking he is coming across as cool and hip and you just want to get the hell out of there. Oh no, he's about to go off on a tangent about Van Morrison's "His Band and the Street Choir" when you are saved by the distraction of your girlfriend's whiny little brother shooting Nerf guns from behind the couch. Also, Natasha, if you're out there, I'm sorry your dad died of brain cancer.

Some ups and downs on this one. I like it more than some of the other Bowie albums I've had on here, but it makes me feel restless and untethered.

Absolutely dreadful album. Although even I can admit that, under the right circumstances (blind drunk and in a joyful mood)— You Shook Me All Night Long is sublime.

The music might be interesting, but the many layers of thick, murky fuzz ensure that the final product is nothing more than tolerable.

I think the songwriting is pretty good, but the execution is just okay— a better album could’ve been made with these songs.

I didn't like Funeral and I really didn't like The Suburbs, but this one is actually not bad. Go figure. I think they buried the vocal a bit, which works just fine for me.

I know I'm not the only one who feels like listening to this is like listening to a foreign language. My brain just doesn't process this the same way as it does, say, a guitar and vocal. I might as well be listening to a documentary recording of a city street at midday or a severe thunderstorm in Davenport, Iowa in 1998.

Mannish Boy and I Can't Be Satisfied are the obvious standouts. The rest is good, but pretty standard issue post-war blues. The mix favors the vocal, guitar, and harmonica; the rhythm section is practically inaudible, which is a shame. Still well worth listening to.

A nice shiny apple with a couple mushy spots.

This is the type of album that I will put on and be like, meh, but then I remember to turn the volume up just to the point it starts to get a little uncomfortable, and voila! it sounds great. I do think this album could have been made shorter and punchier without losing the chill aspect.

Well, what can I fucking say. I didn't much like it and it went on and on and on and on and on.

I wasn't pulled in immediately, but by the end I felt I understood what he was trying to do. I like his approach to songwriting and the way the quality of his voice suits the songs. I think Old Man is really the gem, but some of the other tracks could grow on me with further listening.

I have a vivid memory of my high school girlfriend loving this album and me loving her loving it. The only problem is this album came out in 2002 and I graduated from high school in 1999.

She had such an outsized cultural influence for someone who was only known for a couple years. She sang at Monterey in June of '67, her debut album with her band came out in August of '68, and then she died in October of 1970. Very sad. She did leave behind a small catalogue of songs and this was a nice send off. Rest in peace.

This is the type of band that is inspired by stuff that I like, and may have influenced other stuff that I like, but I'm just not into it. The last two tracks were actually pretty good; it's a shame the whole album doesn't sound like that.

Starts out with a bang, finishes with a great rendition of a classic, with a few gems in between.

Tedious and lame.

Honestly, not as bad as I thought it would be. Still bad though.

The music isn't objectionable but the mix seems off and frankly I was a little bored by it.

Hey, it's me, your friendly neighborhood not-a-hip-hop-guy. I have to give this album some credit because it's absolutely archetypal. If someone were to ask me to conjure up the idea of hip-hop in my brain, this is what it would sound like. This is Elvis, this is Hank Williams, this is Sgt. Pepper's. But when you boil it down, it's still not something I would reach for when I want to listen to music.

I almost gave this a two because I tired of it quickly, but the musicianship is just too good. I'm just not into uptempo jazz.

Next.

I guess this is power pop? I don't know. I don't really see the connection to punk nor do I have enough of an understanding of new wave to see how this fits in. The songs are mostly okay— I like the fruity little organ but I don't really care for EC's exaggerated vocal stylings.

Kinda surprised Tiny Dancer was the leadoff track. Seems more like a track 5 or 6. Indian Sunset is a real clunker. The whole album is a bit too grandiose and overwrought. If I wanted that, I would listen to Mickey Newbury's 'Frisco Mabel Joy from the same year.

Ryan Adams is a scumbag, but this album is good. Fourteen songs, two of which are top-tier and maybe six more that are well worthwhile, IMO.

Like most of the electronica albums I've heard on here, it starts out okay but by the end I've had quite enough.

The marriage of indie rock and dance music is an unholy one. This album kind of reminds me of the worst parts of both. Someone Great is a good song, but the rest of this I would actively avoid listening to again.

I wanted to listen to this album at work, but unfortunately I had forgotten my headphones at home. Then I remembered I had a set of cheap wireless earbuds that I pretty much only use for traveling. I was seriously about to give this album a one because of how terrible it sounded. Like a bunch of drunk assholes playing on kids instruments from Walmart. Well, the earbuds ran out of batteries about two thirds of the way through so I just gave up. When I got home, I played it through my good headphones and it's like listening to a completely different album. So, let that be a lesson to everyone: LISTEN TO MUSIC ON GOOD EQUIPMENT! P.S. I threw the earbuds in the trash P.P.S. I still don't particularly like punk music

Honestly, I could just listen to Black Steel twelve times in a row.

This album is about half okay stuff that hasn't aged well and half classic Stones. Very much a transitional album for them. I don't take the "misogyny" stuff too seriously given the time period and the fact that they were certainly heavily inspired by the attitudes of the American blues and soul records that they listened to and learned from. Also, not every songwriter is writing from the perspective of their own personal beliefs and experiences. Was Mick also literally the devil in Sympathy for the Devil?

Waiter, there's a fly in my soup.

If they are 100% serious about this, it’s a one. If they’re taking the piss, then it’s a two.

Mellow and jammy, but that's not enough for me. If I walked by someone's garage and heard a few minutes of some dudes playing this stuff I'd think good for them but they're not going to make it as a band.

It's impossible to separate this album from its historical importance; however, historical importance is not something I generally think about when judging whether or not an album is enjoyable to listen to. So, I take this exactly as I would any other album, at face value. The next thing I have to say is that although I love the Beatles and many of their songs, I'm not sure any of their albums would be in my top 100. Although I've never broken it down to "John" songs and "Paul" songs (and George songs and Ringo songs), I suspect it's because I don't like the unabashedly poppy songwriting of Paul McCartney (although he is a great player). I don't take any joy in pitting the members against each other; after all, it takes all four to make the final product and they all ostensibly agreed as to what the band's output would sound like. But it must be said. Now, with all of that out of the way, the album. I don't normally go song by song, but— in my opinion, the following songs are good but nothing special: Getting Better, Fixing a Hole, She's Leaving Home, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!, and Lovely Rita. The rest of the songs are all great (good job, lads) and Within You Without You is easily my favorite track on the album. Cheers and good night.

The first time I heard this type of music, I was fascinated and entranced (it was Boubacar Traore). I haven't found lasting appeal, though. It was a nice listen, but I can't quite grant four stars.

Eh, this doesn't strike me as either good or bad.

Kinda wish the whole thing was instrumental.

Session pianist Paul Griffin is really doing a lot of heavy lifting on the title track. The rest of the album feels unrelated to that first song. It's well-produced but (and I had to scroll through the reviews to find the word I was looking for) a bit mawkish. McLean lacks the cachet of even a relatively minor figure like Duster Bennett or John Sebastian.

When I was a senior in high school I started dating possibly the most beautiful and smartest girl in the entire school. Her favorite artist was Alanis Morissette. One day she wanted to hang out after school, like we usually did, and I told her I couldn't because I had to go visit my grandparents. She was very disappointed; I'm not sure why — as I mentioned, we hung out almost every day, young and in love. The thing is, I lied. I wasn't going to see my grandparents. What I *was* doing was taking the train into the city to purchase concert tickets from a store-front scalping operation, for the Alanis Morrissette concert. I don't think I had ever even been into the city by myself. The round-trip must have been at least 3 hours. I probably printed out directions from the train station to the store on MapQuest and I'm pretty sure I paid with a written check. On the way back, my heart was aflutter, as I felt like I had just climbed a mountain in the name of love. My girlfriend moped around for a couple days after that, still sore about me leaving her boyfriendless that afternoon. I don't remember when I gave her the tickets, maybe for her birthday. I didn't really want to go to the concert myself. It was just assumed that she would go with her best friend, Lizzie. On the night of the concert, I drove them down there and if I recall correctly, I took them to the McDonalds drive-thru to get food before the show. I dropped them off at the venue and picked them up again when it was over. I have no memory of what I did while the show was going on. They were so happy. I was so happy. The curse of middle-age is that nothing remotely like this will ever happen to me again.

It's been a while since I listened to this one, but what more could you possibly want from a roots-rock record? Eight tracks, nothing too flashy, just make it count.

I like the idea of this album more than the actual album, but it's still pretty good. And I like the Apple Jam part at the end.

As the kids like to say, this album SLAPS.

The first half was relatively harmless but then wow, look out, because the back half was terrible. I don't really know who Paul Weller is and at this point I'm afraid to ask.

Papa Was a Rolling Stone is, IMO, one of the greatest recordings ever. The other track that stands out is The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face. It’s a fine rendition, but mostly I just have a soft spot for the song itself. The rest of the album is not super memorable, but good enough.

Is jazz my favorite genre? Not really. Do I pull this album out very often? No. But it's beautiful and clearly the work of a master.

Yeah, this was pretty great. Never heard of the band, but I enjoyed that. Listened twice. Urban beardos weren't making this kind of music stateside in 2008.

T. Rex is one of those bands that has always seemed to be just outside the periphery of the pool of music I listen to. I've probably come across their name or read about Marc Bolan's guitar playing hundreds of times. But each time I thought maybe I should check them out, I would see that their hit song was Bang A Gong and I was like nope, I'm good. Fortunately, it's probably the worst song on the album? The rest sounds like unused John Lennon solo tracks with a bit more swagger and a bit less eccentricity. Which is good, actually.

I think I prefer Detroit Jack to Nashville Jack. There's something about the production on this album that doesn't feel right and I wish I had the technical knowledge to arcticulate why. Something to do with compressors or mic placement or EQ, right? The effect is stifling as opposed to the unbridled sound of the best White Stripes songs.

This is an album I've never heard, which I have now enjoyed, and I thought it was pretty good.

I've been listening to Billy Bragg for a long time. I discovered him through the Mermaid Avenue project. I also love the album he did with Joe Henry. His solo albums are little more obscure for me. I tend to think he has a few gems on each album and a lot of stuff that kinda runs together. Really sitting down with this one is a rewarding experience, however. Billy, or whoever he was working with, was able to flesh it out a bit and keep it interesting.