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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.