I can imagine this album being exciting at the time, particularly as Tom Sawyer kicks off with some impactful power chords and exciting drumming fills. However, the instrumentation is incredibly dated and the singer’s voice reminds me of the guy from Zebra, but not in a good way. Overall, very hard to listen to for someone who wasn’t a 13-15yo North American when it was released.
Absorbing. Achieves a number of things at once - ambient chill for drifting off to sleep; commentary on life; intense moods. Rewards long-term attention.
Oh geez. How is this on the list? I don't like jazz at the best of times, but this is the pits! The singer reminds me of a Nigerian James Brown without access to songwriters. So, the inclusion of Ginger Baker's name appears to be nothing but marketing. Honestly, the number of drummers worth writing about or specifically listening for can be counted on one hand. Let's see: Peter Criss for Beth and a pretty cool solo in 100,000 Years; The singer from The Romantics; Scott Travis in Painkiller and every Priest release after that; Mick Tucker for being exactly 25% of The Sweet. Even the really important drummer in ABBA generally goes unknown.
Bottom line - this is rubbish, and won't grace my lovely digital record player (Vinyl Fetish by Argentinian developer, German Buela) again.
Postscript - playing bass in these types of bands must be the most dissatisfying experience ever. This guy is playing the same pattern over and over and over and over again!
What can be written about the Beatles that hasn’t already been made public? I’m not a fan, yet I know so much of their catalog. That said, their early stuff just sounds quaint these days, albeit with better than expected production values. The Beatles invented album-based, commercial rock, so you have to give them the credit they deserve.
This album is beyond derivative, but I guess that describes 95% of the Stones catalog. I can’t stand Jagger’s whiny, fake southern American accent. I can’t listen to jangly, generic, loose American southern blues rock for more than a couple of minutes.
I can’t see what the fuss is about The Rolling Stones. They recorded barely a handful of almost-great songs (Sympathy for the Devil being the pinnacle), but none of them are on this album. I’d much rather listen to Jet, Cold Chisel or ZZ Top when I want rough, bluesy rock, and early Elton John, Alice Cooper or Dire Straits when I want piano and strat-based boogie and story telling.
“Hurt” is extraordinary. I think everybody knows that. I found it hard to take the rest of the album seriously after that peak. It’s like your grandpa with the cool, smoky voice got a karaoke CD recording session gift for Xmas and nailed it. I was thinking that this CD belongs in the memento cabinet along with tennis trophies and photos of the grandkids. Then, I applied a little patience and began to hear the quiet magnificence of this rough and tumbled old man. It will be a few more years before I need to listen to this again, but I will listen to it again.
A difficult band to listen to, in general, this album being no exception. The problem is the genre. For the most part, I hate the alt-rock / rap scene, or whatever it is I’m listening to here. But every now and then they throw in a decent rock song that is deserving of a second listen. I can’t sit through an album of junk to get to the diamonds, though. So, RHCP will always be a singles band for me.
Who came first? Duran Duran or Japan? Planet Earth or Quiet Life? I suppose I could simply Google it, but the music on this album isn’t good enough to care. My gut feeling is that Duran Duran took what Japan started and polished it into something worth shouting about. I can certainly understand why Japan has fans, but not why this album is in the 1001 list. What makes this better than the hundreds or thousands of other albums made by garage bands given access to tech and a recording studio? The synth atmospheres are kind of interesting, but the song-writing, production and singing simply aren’t good enough to be lauded worldwide. Don’t get me wrong, this is not an awful album, especially compared to so much of the dross released then and now. However, maybe you had to be a member of the miserable, unemployment, disenchanted youth in the UK to give this album a place in your heart.
Note after further reflection: it’s the saxophone and singing that ruins this album. Replace both and maybe you’ve got something that matches the best pop-rock of that era.
Starting an album with jangly acoustic guitar doesn’t immediately ingratiate an artist to me. Following that with awkward lyrics performed by a lad of limited vocal ability, set to quirky arrangements, continues the downward spiral. String quartets and harmonica solos push this album to the bottom of the abyss. Certainly, there are a couple of hidden hooks and satisfactory choruses that catch you unawares, plus one successful single that might be holding onto Paul Kelly’s coat-tails, but these are nowhere near not enough to pull me into the Go-Betweens arc.
Thought: Did they not have enough cash to pay for electricity in their share house, or did it not occur to them to steal some amps like so many other budding musicians did.
Kicks off with a cacophony of noisy street talk, random samples and high-pitched baby-doll vocals. I hate it. It’s never good when the you have to skip the lead track. However, I will persevere…
Beats? Is this simply a DJ set? In the 1001 list? This is no Moby or even Fatboy Slim (not a high bar, either). What am I missing?
Oh, I get it. It’s a house party soundtrack. I’m not supposed to be placing a platter of black vinyl onto my turntable then sitting back on a comfortable sofa to absorb it. I am, in fact, supposed to be at a party already, where layers of noise placed loosely over a solid kick drum / rolling bass arpeggiation keeps me tapping my toes, swaying my hips, sipping my margarita whilst shouting into the ear of whomever happens to be nearby, mirroring my own behaviour.
No thanks. Side 2 isn’t getting a look in. Sides 3 & 4 will stay permanently inside their plastic sleeve.
What a horrible saxophone song to lead off. Let's be honest, saxophone does not belong in rock songs. Of course, every rule requires exceptions to prove it. On this point, we have Baker Street, Harden My Heart and Still Sane (Carolyn Mas). OK, I kid about the third.
After track 2, I'm at a loss - I feel that even Bryan Ferry's dulcet tones and heavy vibrato can't save this album. Of all the Roxy Music albums, this is the one you insist I must listen to before I die? Come on. This is rubbish.
But wait, it gets better... or does it? Three tracks in a row that might get better with age, followed by three filler tracks that get progressively worse as I listen, and more yucky saxophone.
Some judicious editing should have reduced this to a half-decent Maxi-Single containing "Strictly Confidential" and "Editions of You" on Side A, and "In Every Dream Home A Heartache" on Side B. This is a band that was crying out for an editor.
It's Bjork. You either love her or hate her. I fall in the latter camp. I see why this is on the Must Listen to list, though. It is to ensure we get exposure to the best of every kind of genre, or non-genre, out there. Bjork is a non-genre, which means I need to be completely out of my mind to enjoy her. I'm not, so she gets a three for being really good at what she does. (She's probably the only one doing what she does).
Another album (artist?) who made this list because of a group of people who decide what is good or not, based on what drugs they were on when they heard these albums. I don't take drugs. It's the music itself which turns me on, and so many of the albums on this list do nothing to my body. VA gets a 3 for playing real instruments on their album and sticking to a recognizable formula when song-writing.
Whilst Alice hits his highest mark in terms of songwriting and musical arrangements on this album, and I do enjoy listening to it, I feel that the busy, almost live, production quality hasn't passed the test of time well. To compare with others of a similar era and style, listen to what Bob Ezrin did for KISS on Destroyer, Dark Side of the Moon (obviously), and any Brian Connolly era Sweet.
Yeah nah.
“Fight for your right…” is a fun curiosity, but the rest is just yelling over beats and the occasional riff. I’d much rather listen to the original songs from which some of these samples came from.
Sorry, gotta go swallow a Panadol or two.
I'm not a fan of jangly guitars, hence disliking a great deal of what hit UK charts from the late 80's, but The Cure use them here in a more atmospheric, moody way, which works. They also keep arrangements and instrumentation sparse, which intensifies each song's message. That said, it is often difficult for me to enjoy Robert Smith's voice. Sure, I have gotten used to it over time, so much so that I think of it as just another Cure instrument (in a similar way to how Tom Yorke's voice is actually another Radiohead instrument), but just imagine how good this band could have been if the singer had real pipes!
Side 1 is a warm-up, whilst Side 2 kicks it up a notch, with A Forest being miles better than everything else. I’d give this album 3.5 if only the rating system would allow it.
It took me until I was about 45 before I finally made the (significant) effort required to listen to all the Led Zeppelin albums. Prior to that I wouldn’t give them the time of day, with Kashmir, Stairway and maybe Immigrant Song being the only tunes I could stomach. I felt then, and maintain now, that Jimmy Page is an average guitarist at best, and most of their music is too derivative to put them on the silver platter on which most rock fans see them. Yes, Plant has a unique voice and the strong frontman charisma needed in his role. Yes, JPJ clearly has genius musical sensibilities, and yes, Bonham is a monster behind the kit. However… Led Zeppelin is just NOT THAT GOOD! I can only assume they became rock royalty because there wasn’t anything else like them at the time. They upgraded heavy folk into the next era at a time when Sabbath was doing the same for metal and Purple for prog rock.
Now, this first album - it’s way more than derivative. It is simply copying what was already on the airwaves,) with an additional injection of testosterone and arena-ready production. People say you needed to be a toker to listen to Pink Floyd. I think Led Zeppelin deserves that label more.
Quite possibly the most accessible music from this era. I feel that, with this album, Buddy Holly informed the Beach Boys and created higher quality, better-produced early pop-rock than the Beatles’ early releases later on. He’s possibly the only artist that doesn’t turn me off with the nasally country twang that verges on a yodel. If you asked me to pick between Holly and Presley to slip into a desert island backpack, Buddy wins hands down.
That said, the 40’s barbershop quartet tones of the background vocals are a slight distraction; there’s nothing “chirping” about those crickets, but I suppose it is a sign of the times. Thankfully, the slight distortion on the rhythm guitar helps make up for that. Finally, I hate weepy pop ballads, but those on this album are bearable due to Holly’s charismatic vocals. Some of these songs are crying out for a guitar solo, though.
How good could Buddy Holly have been through the electric sixties and seventies decades had he not taken that fateful flight?
Let’s begin by not discussing the two big hits. They stand alone, and are too big for me to see them in the context of an entire album. They also sound like they might be the work of a “singles” band, although past research tells me that’s not really the case.
Anyway, I’m going to judge this album based on the other 6 tracks. Yes, 6!!! These songs are long, but for an album released in the CD era, I expected there to be maybe 12 tracks. Perhaps that’s a sign that there’s no filler? Let’s see…
Oh geez! This is cheese! I mean that the FM synthesis is all over it. The same goes for the rhythms. They’re really enjoying themselves playing with programmed South American inspired beats, that’s for sure. I wonder what part of England these two Pommies lived in? Was it a mecca for West Indians?
Then we have the smoky bar-room jazz (ish) “I Believe”. Not bad, but not my style. If they’d sold this song to a diva of the times, it might have found a lucrative home.
Finally! “Broken” is fire! I love the production and there’s an actual guitar front and centre, leading to, oh… I know this song! I didn’t realise from the name that “Head Over Heels” was also a big hit. OK, I guess the album as a whole can be judged with the inclusion of the hits, as they make up over a third of the album. But… that pesky DX7 is back, along with some random samples, covering for the fact that “Listen” is an incomplete song.
A decent album, but I’d rather play their “Best of”.
An absolute classic that can’t be faulted if viewed within the microscope that is 1970. I’m a huge fan of this band, particularly from their inception through to the closure of Dio’s first stint as their singer. However, I rarely play any of their first four albums, as they are just too dated. They are, and this is, a very important part of our musical history. They invented stuff on this album, and 5 of the tracks were regular inclusions in my tribute band’s set list. This album is symbolic of rock creation and evolution.
This is as big, meaning worldwide, cross-demographic popular, that Metallica ever got, but it also paved the way for their entry into actual pop culture. Anything Metallica has done since this album has automatically been shoved to the front of the media so that they continue to remain relevant today.
It doesn’t matter if “true” metalheads decry this album as being the beginning of the end, as their earlier albums were simply not as polished, well-written or replayable as their Black Album. Those earlier albums were simply very special moments in time, as well as windows into the development of the band we all know today.
What do I think of this album, then? Well, I never actually play it, but I suppose I would compare it to the Pyramids of Egypt. They are iconic, you want to visit them, but you rarely go back. Instead, you wax lyrical to others about how great they are.
This should be 5 stars, and may well be in the eyes of many, but I have to remove a star for the fact that I never play it.
I’m so glad I found this album again during my mature years, as it flew way over my head when it came out. I now get the hype. It’s an album of two halves, the first being the most well-known, containing the monster tracks I’ve been most exposed to. The title track was played night after night by my favourite Filipino covers band at 17 Saloon in Saigon, back when that was my second home. They performed it authentically every single time, and it never got boring. As a younger metal fan, I got into Metallica through one of the Garage Days Revisited albums, which somehow led me to Sanitarium, so I also have a soft spot for that track.
Today was the first time I listened to Master of Puppets in its entirety, so Side 2 is brand new to me. Whilst those tracks don’t jump off the platter in the way Side 1 does, they offer an effective mechanism for comprehending the power of Hetfield’s storytelling, creative riffing and musical arrangements. To me, it has become clear that JH is Metallica - the guy is a bona fide artist, with the other three simply play metal’s other three necessary instruments well enough to pass muster.
Good album, this!
Occasionally, I need to remind myself that the list from which these albums are drawn is full of suggestions only, not demands. Furthermore, it lists 1001 albums it wants you to HEAR before you die. Thank goodness the author doesn't consider the contents to be the 1001 definitive albums ever released, otherwise sales would be difficult to achieve.
I've never heard of Wire, and after my first and only listen of Pink Flag, I can see why. I can also see why I needed to listen to it - this album appears to emanate from a time, place and human condition that I have given very little thought to. I can hear that it's British punk, but I would never have thought it was worthy of being included in conversations about the likes of Sex Pistols, Clash, Siouxie & The Banshees, or even New York Dolls! To my ears, the lyrics are not poetic or even important, the vocalist does not sing in a tuneful or particularly unique manner, and the general musicianship cannot match even the low standards of those aforementioned bands. In parts, I hear something of a bridge into the 90's British style plied by the likes of Blur and Suede, so that makes them different from the punk scene I already knew of until today.
So, I've listened once to Pink Flag by Wire. Box ticked. Next!
I think my Uncle Ian introduced me to this album many years ago, but I seem to have lost the tape and never got the chance to hear it until today. At first, Ry Cooder's name caught my attention, as I know him from the soundtrack to Crossroads, and something else cool he released at about the same time.
Still, Cuban music isn't really in my wheelhouse, so I approach this with trepidation. Will it be, as I suspect, suitable as background music in cafes, Mexican restaurants, or other inconsequential locations? Is it going to be what those four entertaining owls played to Rango in the desert?
The answers are: Yes and Yes. But it is also well played, dynamically recorded, and quite fun to listen to at home while doing the dishes or other boring chores.
As an aside, some of the repetitive choruses seem to have a touchpoint in African tribal music.
Not bad.
How do you expect to attract new listeners when you're practically an unknown and the opening track of your album is basically filler? "Gasoline Alley" should have been hidden away in the middle of Side 2, or better still, languishing right at the very end where it doesn't matter what is playing because your bottle of wine is nearing empty by then.
So, the album truly gets started with a reasonable honky-tonk cover of "It's All Over Now", if you like that sort of thing. This is still wrong, because a safe cover should be placed in Track 4, Side 1, or Track 1, Side 2, not presented as the lead-off faster tempo "wake up and listen to me" track.
Now, at this point I want to state that proper electric guitar was already present in many great albums of 1970 and even earlier, so why are my ears being assaulted primarily by bar-room piano and insipid Telecaster (possibly) noodling? Use a Les Paul and turn up the gain!!! Give it some oomph!
"Only a Hobo" is an early example of trying to Americanise music that is clearly Scottish folk at heart (Stewart is English but clearly WANTS to be Scottish). I prefer "vagabond" here, as "jaikey" is just too regional and Rod might not have actually known that word at the ripe old age of only 25.
"My Way of Giving" is closer to what I was expecting from this LP. Whilst not game-changing in any way, the Hammond mixes well with busy drumming to deliver a strong pub tune for robust men.
Let's see what Side 2 brings...
"Country Comfort" is more of the same, but plays on Rod the Lad's gentle side. I know that title from somewhere, but the melody is not familiar. Perhaps it's one of those songs that is famous just for being famous. Whatever the case, it seems a bit to wizened a message for a boy not long out of his teens to be delivering. A little saturation in the guitar solo is nice, but that's still not enough to save the overall production.
I have no idea what "Cut Across Shorty" means, and I'm pretty sure neither does Rod. Some good-old boy, rollicking, banjo-picking (with no banjo in sight), fiddle-fiddling, southern rock 'n' roll at work here, which will please bearded men.
Consistency is key on this album, so "Lady Day" and "Jo's Lament" are more of the same, but "You're My Girl" steps firmly into Rolling Stones album filler territory without the Jagger/Richards song-writing skills and their usual crassness, but sung by a much better singer than Mick.
On that note, it's obvious that Rod's got a great voice for heavy rock and 'crying in your beer' ballads; I'll give him that. It's just that a whiskyfied voice is enough to make a rock album great, so Gasoline Alley won't be permanently entering my record collection.
Oh dear. No. I can't do this. Yuck.
I may be of distant Irish descent, but I can't take this album seriously. Is it a parody?
Even if I was on vacation in Dublin in the 70's and Phil Lynott happened to buy me a pint or two, I couldn't handle this as the background track.
Who wrote this book!
I'm 4 minutes in and still wondering when the first song begins. Seems like just one long introduction. So, without further ado, I'll categorically state that jazz musicians can't write actual songs. Fast forward a few times to see if anything changes - nope. It's the most boring form of jazz on the market. Why do people like this stuff?
