She's definitely a great singer. And she knows it. But I don't think that necessarily translates to good music, in the same way that I don't think Joe Satriani's music is a good listen, or why I'd rather watch Cordarelle Patterson run a return than watch Usain Bolt run a 100 m. Bolt is obviously the better sprinter, and one of the greatest athletes ever. But the context matters. The way it works with other elements. And Carey shows off "range" technically, but artistically and conceptually, this is a very limited album. I never wanted to just turn it off, but I never really engaged with it either. It's a high floor, low ceiling work, and I would love to hear her push outside the rhythm & pop genre.

Okay, Dead Memories kind of works for me. But it's also more alt than metal. I didn't hate Snuff, either, but, again, that's way more post-grunge than metal. I'd honestly think Snuff was by a completely different artist, probably one with a number in their name, if I didn't know what album it was from. I could pick out some good lyrics from other tracks, but, yeah, this is still not selling metal if the only high points were not metal. Given how out of place they feel, I wonder if those were label mandates, or "Beth" style letting one guy do what he really wants. I'm giving it a bonus point for Snuff, which I do like. The rest of the album is just not for me.

A LOT about how drug sellers are bad. It's weird to hear from a future perspective the lyrics paired with a laid back feel. These lyrics would be over more angry or melancholy music even a decade later.

Pretty good. The kind of Britpop I like. It can get pretty cheesy, but they clearly have an interesting perspective. I can't think of other artists at the time quite like them.

Lot of songs that still get steady play on the radio. The deeper cuts don't do anything for me. I don't think it's their best work, musically or lyrically, and I'm not much of a fan to start.

1977 feels way too early for this. This is 80's arena/prog/concept definitely. It's A Night At The Opera turned up a notch. I can understand how influential this was on the sound of rock, or at the very least portentous. It's also interesting that it was so popular in the era of rock stars as songwriters when the entire album is written by a single person, who is credited on the album cover. I wish it was more acceptable to just have a writer.

It's pretty good. I found it easy to get distracted while listening to it. I'd take IV over it.

I don't think I really registered any part of that. It was background noise. Admittedly, it was a weird day. I'm getting the feeling that Paul Simon is over-represented on this list. Is Graceland on here? This and Zep 2 make me think that the author felt like they "had to" put some of the big names on here multiple times, and that anybody on classic rock radio playlists gets bonus points. But I also get that I'm rating good and culturally important albums, so one star is the worst of the best. Two stars.

Meh? From how I've heard of Roxy Music, this is probably very influential, but it's probably been surpassed by its students.

This list is old enough to vote. This list is showing its age. This album would be dropped for Only By The Night if you updated this, or even Because Of The Times if you're one of those "sellout" people. This wasn't even their best album THEN. This feels like a "give one to the youths" without understanding the actual music of the generation. I'm not mad at the album, it's fine, but I don't understand what calling this one of the most important works in the genre of MUSIC, when this band was clearly finding their footing, is supposed to mean, other than throwing a bone to those dumb kids by picking a recent album, even if it's not really that good. It ended up calling the shot, so maybe I'm missing something, but this is very much a niche album by a band who would become much better than their debut.

I don't care for The Offspring's sound, but his was listenable, mostly, and I respect it. I understand why this was one of the hardcore punk groups that had radio play. 2

Chill. The name makes sense, it seems like a good album to put on in the background if you want to get high and chill with friends. Not something I would want to devote my full attention to, but it's smooth enough to be good background music to something. I could definitely see myself coming back to this.

I really like this one. Nearly every song is a great listen. 4 at least.

It's fine. I'd rather go for a Sara Bareilles of Missy Higgins album instead, if I'm in this mood.

I knew she was from NYC before looking her up. I don't even know what I picked up on, but for some reason this screams NYC to me. It's not boring, but it's not really my thing. I don't really care for "be impressed by how long I can hold this note" music.

It has the same problem of most supergroups. When you combine individual voices like this, most of the time, it just feels hollow. The character gets sanded out, which is what makes artists like this great. Better than the Highwomen, at least. More like the Traveling Willburys. Interesting occasionally, but not nearly as good as the average album from any of them.

Not my genre. It's like britpop-punk, which is a combo that might work for me, but this doesn't.

An interesting one. He's definitely an eclectic songwriter. didn't know this is where "Coconut" came from.

Pretty good, but it didn't grab me.

It sounds unpleasant. I don't get it.

No.

I enjoyed it. I can see where these guys fit in music history.

Not bad. I can't say I love the whole album, but it's got some good parts.

It feels a lot more sincere than a lot of the similar rap in the last few years. Definitely a good album to represent 90's rap.

Had few standout spots.

Fine, I guess? UK house usually seems too disorganized for me.

Not bad. Never really listened to Prince before. 3 or 4

Cool, smooth, experimental. Great album.

I like it. definitely on the weirder end of pop of the time, but what it tries mostly works. I don't know if I was supposed to listen to Two too, but I did. I think I like it a bit more, but both of them lean too heavily on that period of media (90's to mid 00's) where a normal, stable life is somehow the most dehumanizing thing in the world.

Definitely pretty weird, especially for the time. I can see how better ideas came out of this, but it's more a history lesson than a work on its own. I don't hate it, but I don't know how to judge it now, because if this charted in 2024, the conversation would be waaaaaaaaaaaaay more "Discourse" than substance. 3 i think? The music itself is not particularly appealing.

Gives me Sugar Hill vibes. I get the feeling that this list has made choices based on what seemed like the cool choice. I just checked, and yeah, this list came out around when Pitchfork peaked in relevance, and it shows. This isn't to hate on this album, just that this inclusion definitely feels like a "what's popular in one of... you know... those genres, but cool."

As someone who is very much not fan of live albums, this one at least has an argument for why it should exist. And the Johnny Cash Prison Album definitely has earned its place in history. Outside of all that, if you're going to make a live album, it has to mean something as a live performance, include improvisation, or be arranged and performed so that a live version on record still sounds good. This clearly hits two of those, so I'm putting it in the group of live albums that "work." I don't think any of the individual recordings can supplant his studio records, though. Which makes it pretty difficult to score.

This feels a lot like listening to a Something Corporate album. It's more interesting as an example of an early work before the artist became something more for me. As a Britpop album, it is on the better end.

I like the horns. It's very British. Overall, it was a fine listen.

This list definitely likes its "experimental" stuff. And, honestly, most experiments fail. It's still good to do them, because that's how we learn what works and what doesn't. We wouldn't have most things, in art, science, technology, if it wasn't for an astounding amount of failed experiments. For this album, though, a lot of it works, if imperfectly. "Where It's At" is a pretty good example. It's mixing a lot of stuff, and most of it works. It's also got some parts of its mix that just sounds... bad. Like the incessant smoke alarm over the chorus. And its lyrics seem as much of a hodgepodge as the music, making it hard to discern if there is even anything to take from it to begin with, let alone what that might be. This is definitely one of the harder ones to judge. Part of me wants to give it a 4, and another part wants me to give it a 2. Ultimately, it's too frustrating to have any of it as a casual listen.

I think listening to this sober at home is really the wrong environment for this record. It's fine.

It was fine.

I love Eleanor Rigby, but the rest of the album is not that great by Beatles standards.

This is my first real experience with Radiohead, other than having heard Creep and Karma Police around. This is generally fine, but I don't love it. Maybe I'll figure them out when I get to OK Computer. (That's got to be on this list, right? Also, this has to be one of the few artists where the name of an album comes to mind waaaay before the name of a song. I had to dig in my brain for Creep.)

I actually enjoyed this. Not usually one for this genre.

This is going to take a few more listens before I finalize my views on it. I'm going with 4 for now, but that could go up or down a bit.

The first thing I noticed was how short it is. It's total length is more like an EP, but it's got a lot of short songs. In the 202o's, the short song is definitely making a comeback, but those mostly feel like they couldn't be assed for a third verse. This feels more like the songs are complete, if intentionally brisk. They are very fast paced, in general. I'm curious how fast paced this is compared to the average album from the last 70 years. I can see why it's considered an important album in the development of rock. It was actually a delight to listen to. With modern ears it sounds a bit samey, but it clearly doesn't overstay its welcome.

This is my first experience with Limp Bizkit. And, wow. I didn't know what I was supposed to expect, but Hot Dog is... just... a fascinating way to start an album. It honestly does a good job of encapsulating teenagers from the turn of the millennium, in that it is as awful and unpleasant as many of them were. My Generation gave me a glimpse of hope, in that it's not complete ass and uses the anger and hard dweeb energy in a way that has a semblance of a point, but it squanders it. And then the album keeps going. Full Nelson is mean and cliched, Rollin is a failed attempt at a hype rap, Boiler is at least disjointed enough to break the monotony, and then it ends in retreads of crap we have already slogged through. Livin It Up might be the most enjoyable song, just because it's a hilariously bad attempt at going hard. Getcha Groove On might be the *best* song here, merely because Xzibit doesn't suck. He's got a couple great lines, but then the song undercuts itself by introducing him after he already had two verses. This album punches itself in the face about as often as a younger brother in the year it was released. The album in general is just full of "suburban middle class white boys who think they're gangster" energy. As a cultural relic, it's an important album. It is a record for angsty teens who who want to like rap for aesthetics, in the cultural island that is the decade between the collapse of the USSR and 9/11. As music, god I hate this.

All else aside, I just don't think I can get past his voice. There was a lot here that I enjoyed, but that's always going to be a barrier.

It's fine. Nothing really stood out. It's not bad, it's just not that interesting. I'm trying to figure out what's notable about this album, and I think it's only the pay what you want release. Which makes it culturally notable, but does the release and marketing affect the experience of a work of art? Should it? Should it over a decade later? I don't know. I support the model, but the work is meh.

Almost 60 years later, it's definitely more disconnected than most albums are today, especially critically acclaimed ones. Innovation is harder to appreciate when it was so well received that doesn't sound fresh, it just sounds normal. There's also a matter that I'm sure I will come across in future albums by members of the Beatles, among others. The Word feels painfully naive now. There's a certain politics of the era that sounds insultingly smug yet proven incredibly wrong over time. I don't know how to treat that, but it does make me roll my eyes. It's at least more sincere than stuff like Imagine, but it's still out of place in 2024. Also, screw the Beatles' label, what's the actual album? Is one of them supposed to be the "canon" track listing, in this age where obtaining every song is easier than knowing what album it was on? In the end, as a Beatles album, I'd take Let It Be, Sgt. Pepper, and even Help! over this, but as always, the floor is high with these guys.

This isn't really helping me enjoy metal more, especially not thrash metal.

As someone who grew up on classic rock, which included a ton of psychedelia and prog, these guys were never on the radio. i knew the name, but not the music. And after this, yeah, I get it. Both why they are influential, and why they weren't played. There's not a great single here, or even a solid deep cut that stood out, but they are definitely experimenting in the scene, and other, more popular groups took what they had and expanded on it. All in all, good, but I'd rather listen to the works that it inspired than this.

I like it, I think. With fresh ears, this era and genre can feel a bit corny, but under that is a pretty solid album. Still, not a huge fan.

Being a soundtrack, it does have an odd pace to it as an album, but it has definitely sparked my interest in the artist. I liked the atmosphere it gave, but I think being a soundtrack weakens it as an album.

This is strongly in the category of "I don't get it." Not that it's bad, like some stuff on this list (cough Sex Pistols cough), not that I just don't care for it, like other things... I just don't get why they are so praised. It's fine. I'm not hearing anything new here, just that kind of generic "popular indie" sound. Not even in a way that feels unique, more defined, more developed, or even particularly better than their contemporaries. What about them is so good? Why is THIS the group that so many different people I know seem to be so into? I get things like Glass Animals, even if I don't like them. Same with Halsey, Greta van Fleet, Foo Fighters, even the damn Sex Pistols. I usually "get" why most of these albums are here. But this?

Well, that's a weird one.

I really enjoyed this record. All three have a good flow, and together it works great. Hill especially is both a great singer and great rapper. It's got a laid back cool that I really like. However, there's SO MANY fecal puns. And they all take me out of the groove, because they don't fit at all. It's by far my biggest problem with the album.

I didn't really expect much from a band called The Flying Burrito Brothers, but it works. It feels like a precursor to what country music would become, and it's closer to the kind of country I like than current country radio.

It was fine. Had some good early alt rock in it, but got a bit too noise for my taste toward the end.

It's not something I want to listen to all the time, but I like it in general. Someday especially I think works pretty well. I do think When It Started is musically better than New York City Cops, and works well in the album, even if I think a sudden news event causing a change in a piece of art is usually worse for the work. And 9/11 especially caused a LOT of changes in popular art that was largely created in the previous year or two.

Liked the vibes, but it was pretty repetitive. It also felt simultaneously preachy and shallow.

It's an interesting album. I had to look it up, but apparently it's a mix of live songs overdubbed in the studio and a few pure studio tracks. I could tell that there was some live recordings in there, but it felt simultaneously authentic and polished. live is tough. Right now, the only live albums I appreciate are Peter Frampton, Adele, and, of course, live jazz, assuming it is miked, mixed, and mastered well (and Frampton Comes Alive passed because it is basically the rock version of a live jazz set). This is a unique choice for a "live" album, that I think works well. Musically? The first and last tracks are classics for a reason, the middle is pretty normal album filer for young, so it's solid at worst.

I don't hate it, but I'm not really that into the garage style.

I expected more "hits" off an album title as well known from a band as big as the Stones, but I don't think I've heard any of these songs before. It feels different than the Stones I'm familiar with.

She's definitely a great singer. And she knows it. But I don't think that necessarily translates to good music, in the same way that I don't think Joe Satriani's music is a good listen, or why I'd rather watch Cordarelle Patterson run a return than watch Usain Bolt run a 100 m. Bolt is obviously the better sprinter, and one of the greatest athletes ever. But the context matters. The way it works with other elements. And Carey shows off "range" technically, but artistically and conceptually, this is a very limited album. I never wanted to just turn it off, but I never really engaged with it either. It's a high floor, low ceiling work, and I would love to hear her push outside the rhythm & pop genre.

It's got some classics on it, and it's a pretty good listen.

The singer's voice was frustratingly familiar, and it took the entire album before I placed it as the band that did "Back on the Chain Gang." Overall, a unique combo of punk and new wave, with some 50's vibes. Given the retro movement today, with Stephen Sanchez, Bruno Mars, and others charting well, it sounds like it could fit in even if it came out today.

This one is full of classic rock staples, so I was familiar with many of the songs on it. And it's a pretty good, cohesive record. But I've never been a huge fan of ZZ Top's style. All in all, I enjoyed it, but didn't love it.

My first experience with Hot Chip was in college when a friend showed me a music video of Cancer Jesus Godzilla blasting a boy band and reanimating them, only to be defeated by a floating head with laser eyes. I don't remember if the song was any good. So my expectations were low. But I actually really grooved with this album. I don't love it, but the music is good, and the singing is surprisingly not bad, repetitive, over processed, or shallow, which is rare for the genre, at least what I've heard.

This one is complex. The music is solid, and seems like a good background groove album, but the lyrics seem to demand focus. It seems to be doing what it's doing well, but I'd prefer something on either edge of what it's going for. H2OGate Blues specifically stands out as a track that lyrically wants me to pay attention, but the music was given a different prompt.

I'll always like Smooth Criminal, but the rest of Jackson's stuff has never really hooked me. It's a fine listen, but it never really drew me in.

I enjoyed it, for the most part. It did have a surprising number of songs specifically about the ethics of having sex with white women.

The opening track, If You All Get to Heaven, hooked me immediately. I love the sound. I should definitely get that song at least. The rest of the album never reaches that high, but it's still good. It's a blend of funk and soul, with some blues influence in there.

It was fine. Mostly good vibes, a couple songs that I didn't like the sound of.

Still trying to like black and thrash metal, still not.

Oh, hey, look at that, it's a rootsy throwback from an established artist. Of course it made this list.

It sounds like they want to be the Cold War Kids, but with bad synth. This is their comeback? I really need someone to explain to me why LCD Soundsystem is SO good. I haven't heard anything from them that isn't done better by Chvrches, Glass Animals, Cold War Kids, or Animal Collective. And that's just the OTHER critical or Pitchfork darlings. They sound like another generic synth alt band to me. It's fine.

It's pretty repetitive.

I like how light it is. It's enjoyable. I didn't really get "into" it, but I liked the listen

This is another category of live albums that "work" (other options are heavy improvisation, a simplistic style and great performance chops, and incorporating the live audience with the work). this one "works" because Dylan's voice and performance is just as bad live as in the studio. I want to like Dylan, his lyricism is legitimately great. When I can understand what he's saying. But he's not a good musician. He can't sing well, he's not a good guitarist. he's not even very good at writing music. I get why people like bob Dylan, but I have yet to find a work of his that I like as a piece of music.

Eh? Not really my thing, but I get Cure fans, at least. They seem to represent the transition of punk from the early 80's into the pop-punk/emo era. I think I could grow to like them. There's a lot there. This is definitely an album I want to give another listen to in a month or so.

This album is pulling from multiple genres. Obviously rock and folk, but there's also a lot of country, soul, and blues in there, too. And yet it flows well from song to song, so none of it feels out of place. It works well, even if I would prefer a bit more in certain places.

Half the time I'm really grooving with this, and half the time she sounds like Annie Edison's sexy Christmas song. Time After Time is a huge song, and it's clearly the best song here, both in writing and performance. It's truly jarring to hear here sing legitimately well in multiple songs, and then sound like a drunk Towie in just as many. This might be a four if I didn't hate her singing choices most of the time. And this is clearly a choice, because she can be a good vocalist, she would just rather sound like a drunk mom taking her divorce out on the karaoke mic.

Okay, Dead Memories kind of works for me. But it's also more alt than metal. I didn't hate Snuff, either, but, again, that's way more post-grunge than metal. I'd honestly think Snuff was by a completely different artist, probably one with a number in their name, if I didn't know what album it was from. I could pick out some good lyrics from other tracks, but, yeah, this is still not selling metal if the only high points were not metal. Given how out of place they feel, I wonder if those were label mandates, or "Beth" style letting one guy do what he really wants. I'm giving it a bonus point for Snuff, which I do like. The rest of the album is just not for me.

It was fine. It started stronger than it finished.

Fine, I guess, but I didn't really care for it.

It's fine, but I'm not really feeling it. I don't know if it's not for me, or if I need to be on the right drugs for this.

As someone who played jazz for years, I'm not really sure how to "rate" jazz. Especially big band. It's not the kind of jazz I gravitate toward. This was fine, I guess, but even in its era it's a bit of a relic. Popular music had already moved to rock and roll, and jazz had mostly abandoned big band for more experimental music with smaller groups, or fusion. It's still good listen, but it's kind of like going to U2 at the Vegas orb. It's not bad, but it's definitely not the cutting edge.

If it's rock with some blues in it, I will admit that I'm a pretty easy target. And half this album either gets consistent radio play on classic rock stations, or was a cover of a blues standard. So I was familiar with a lot of this. I tend to enjoy it, but as an "album listen," I was getting kind of bored toward the end.

This album sounds exactly like the average of every "critics loved it, but nobody bought it" of the last 30 ish years.

I like Coltrane, and this is a pretty good example of his work. Enjoyable.

Not my favorite of Elvis Costello. It's still fine, and not a bad debut, but in my opinion, he gets better in the 80's.

I liked it better than the other Public enemy album. it still jumps back and for between good and corny. And not the fun corny.

Nothing really stood out to me. It sounded like pretty normal Europop, but maybe I'm missing something.

I just cannot get past her affect. I hate the way she chooses to sing. I've heard her sing great, but the choice she makes here just grates on me so much. I can't stand it, and I can't really put that aside and rate the album outside of it. It's just nails on a chalkboard to me.

I swear I was paying attention. But there's not a single piece of the album I remember. I listened to it half an hour ago, and I couldn't hum any of it, or recite a lyric, or anything. This album went right through me.

It's fine. Smooth, good groove, lyrics were good. Nothing to elevate it for me, though.

Hey, a couple hits I recognize! It was fine. It got a bit samey, but it was an enjoyable listen. The sound is pretty unique, though, so I'll forgive a bit of samieness. I could see myself coming around on this if I give it a few more listens, but I don't have much of a drive to right now.

This was not a name I was familiar with, but after listening, it's pretty good. He's also a great singer. I think he's up there with Ben E King, Sam Cooke, and Wilson Pickett as a singer. Also Otis Redding and Marvin Gaye, but I don't think his songs quite compete there. 60' soul is not something I have a deep understanding and appreciation of, but I don't see why this guy is not up there with the other great soul singers of the era.

I liked it. I probably need to give it another listen or two, but I could see myself getting into this. Of note, I liked the sound of the opening track and Elegia the best.

It's nice to hear some cool jazz on this list, and this is a solid example of it. It makes great background music, where you can zone in and out from what you are working on when you need some cool music or a song catches you for a minute or two before you go back to something more active.

I think I liked this on first listen more than Dirty Computer. She's got a pretty unique sound here. It's a bold mix of prog, psychedelia, and rhythm and pop. Also, props to having your debut LP be a concept album. On the whole, I'm not sure it quiiiiiiite comes together, but it was a great experience.

Yeah, here's that indie music I wasn't cool enough to like in college. And I'm still not cool enough to like it today. It's a few good ideas and some solid lyricism buried in some boring music.

It sounds a bit Beatles-ey at times, but it's still Pink Floyd weird in certain places. It's interesting as a beginning point for a band that would ultimately create some truly great albums, but they are clearly not there yet.

Did they have any studio execs telling them to make it more "Beatles?" Because it sounds like if you told the Doors to make a Beatles album. Also, is that just the limit of the organ in the 1960's? It's a pretty boring album, because there's nothing to sell the organ after the hits. They aren't really trying to push the boundaries of the instrument that makes them unique. This makes me want to hear them in a couple of decades more than it makes me want to listen to this album again.

It feels like a lot of half ideas. It's okay, and I'm always going to like it if you throw a bit of jazz in there, but it doesn't really elevate itself.

This is a subgenre I've heard before, but it doesn't really have a plce in the current cultural landscape. I'm seeing it called "baroque pop," and it's a surprising number of big hits that just got forgotten in the success of rock and electronic music. The only song I can think of that sounds like this that I can name is "MacArthur Park," and I don't know how seriously people treat that. I do enjoy the sound. It's big, layered, dynamic, and complex, while still being approachable. I would like to hear a modern interpretation of this niche of 60's music.

It's fun rock and roll.

It's got some hits, and for good reason. But they're clearly not an album band. This one works better than most Stones albums, but I do get the distinct feeling of when they wrote a "song" and when they wrote an "album filler." I don't know how to judge projects like this, but the hits are good, so I guess a three?

I should have probably paid more attention to this record, but I never really wanted to.

I don't hate it, but it definitely fails the Vanilla ice test. Hard. I was more interested in what the original piece sounded like than actually listening through the song. It never felt like it was re-contextualizing or elevating any of its samples, just that they didn't really want to come up with much themselves. I am not against sampling, but if I'm either thinking about the original as I listen, or am only really engaging with the sample and not the new work, it's not a sample. It's a crutch. I'd rather listen to Super Grit. I'd also be open to someone sampling it and really exploring the musicality of the original, but this does neither. It's, at best, memberberries, but it comes off more as feeding on the roadkill of better artists. I don't hate it, but I don't really think it earns anything,

Let's get this out of the way early, I hate the title track. The album opens with, in my opinion, the worst "message" song in history. It's a man who has been incredibly wealthy and influential for almost a decade, in large part due to the colonialism of the UK extending his market, who called himself bigger than Jesus, calling for everyone else to ignore all that and just give good vibes, bro. If only people weren't greedy, or religious, or nationalist. And yet, he's always been greedy, and religious, and, at the most generous, became arguably the most famous artist in the world due to nationalism and colonialism. And yet he dreams that everyone can just get along and stop hoarding the wealth and power. And yet, in large part, his "philanthropic" works were primarily marketing, having less to due with actually donating any amount of his fortune and more on telling people who are already struggling that they should be ashamed for not giving more. It's also a pretty generic song musically, which I want to blame for the dredge that is charity singles that came after, but that might be too harsh. Anyway, there's nine more songs. Crippled Inside is interesting, but a pretty bland honky-tonk song. The Beatles made better, and this song is a decade behind the times, and not in a good way. In a boring way. Jealous Guy really sounds like a "sorry not sorry I beat you" song. I at least get the feeling that someone like Nate Ruess is legitimately trying to atone. This is more a, "You shouldn't do things that make me want to hurt you." So, fuck that, too. I Don't Wanna Be A Soldier Mama, I don't know what this song wants to say. It wants to say something. The most obvious message, I guess, is that being anything other than a successful artist is a misery that he truly can't actually comprehend. Hey, the next song says, "I'm sick and tired of hearing things From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics" so that's basically how I feel about this album. But Harrison does put down some great guitar here. "Money for dope, money for rope" is a good line, though. Oh My Love is a serviceable little song, but it's just that. I expect this level of songwriting from a Starbucks album. It also feels out of place on an album that otherwise wants to say nothing very loudly. How Do You Sleep is interesting. In 2024, gives the feeling of a rapper trying to start shit with Eminem and then getting treated as an afterthought with a solid fuck you song that's even better than what started it, and is still a throwaway. How and Oh Yoko are both just okay songs. Again, these are perfectly serviceable deep cuts on a coffee shop album. It's impressive how bad this album is. John Lennon is supposed to be the greatest songwriter of all time, and it's just high horse bullshit followed by petty grievances and his most boring songs yet.

This is probably the most "dated" album I've heard from this list so far. It feels very early 2000's, and doesn't really have any moments that feel like they have much power twenty years later. I honestly don't remember the last time one of these songs was either on the radio or in conversation, and I was the right age when this came out. I had multiple NSYNC albums at that point. It's not bad, but it's not really good, either, especially now. Also, the CD era made albums worse. This is clearly stretched a bit. I think there are quite a few albums that work as a longer experience, but most "mainstream" albums test my attention span if they cross the hour mark.

Brian Eno is a name that I know is "important" in music, but I've never listened to his work. And, after listening to it, it sounds like "important" music. It's comfortably experimental.

This is the first album from this project that I already bought, so, of course I like it. It's good. Swimming Pools (Drank) doesn't get enough credit. The words, the flow, the beat, the mix... it all reinforces the point of the song. I'm saying this now, half my life removed from high school partying, it really feels like a night where you went too far. The insecurities, the peer pressure, the second guessing, the alcohol making decisions for you, it is one of those great songs that captures an experience, the level of drunk that is never fun, but feels like the right choice in the moment, and the peer pressure that gets you there. The album as a whole, in September of 2024, is hard to rate "historically." "Not Like Us" is still in the top 10, months later. I think the influence of Kendrick, and this album, is still growing, seven years later. This was a breakout album for a reason. I feel like I have to give it four as an album, because Kendrick has topped himself multiple times, to the point that this album looks merely great in comparison.

Well, it's as weird as its name implies. There's quite a few genres that I don't enjoy, but I "get" what it's doing, and I understand if it's doing it well. I don't know what this is, what it wants to be, what the audience is, or whether it's actually doing it. I wasn't hating it as much as that makes it sound, so I was inclined to give it a 2, but it just drags on way too long.

I enjoyed it.

It feels like it's holding back on how funky it really wants to be, like someone told them to dial back the funk by 30%. It's not bad, but it never really caught my attention, and it was a bit too long and samey for me to give it any leeway.

I enjoyed it. Superstition is obviously the standout, but there were parts where it got a bit boring for me.

I gave this two listens, about a week apart. Meh. I thought I would come back and appreciate it more, but I didn't really care the second time around.

It's ultimately a pretty boring album. I can understand why their shows were primarily enjoyed by people "enhancing" the experience.

This sounds like if ABBA went "scene." That's not a criticism. It's simultaneously polished and alt. It pulls off a vibe I don't really want in a way that works, but I'm not really going to seek this out in the future.

It's fine. Mid level turn of the century pop.

There were moments, but I still don't like metal. I KNOW I've been told I'm "wrong" by metal fans, but the genre sounds like it's completely disregarded musical dynamics, only using ffff except as a "gimmick." It just sounds like a wall of unpleasant noise.

This is a band I had heard of, but had never actually listened to. This is probably the widest gap I've had so far between how much I thought I would like something and how much I actually did. For some reason, I thought they were an industrial act. I blame German stereotypes a bit. Specifically American German stereotypes, because damn, they're specific and revisionist, and it all depends on the year it is now and the year their grandparents (or parents) told them they moved. That aside, I liked it. It's a record that is trying to experiment with new tools, and it succeeds, for the most part. They're messing with instrumentation in a way that is still trying to connect with listeners. It seems like the target audience for most "experimental" albums is an academic board, musicians, or engineers. This is the first one that feels like it still wants a regular person to have the chance to like it.

This reminds me of Beyonce's newest album, in a way. An icon of Black music branching out to country, and it feels like they are trying to fight the genre rather than incorporate it. The opening song is a prime example. It really abandons the emotion of the original, and replaces it with... some R&B arrangements. It's an admirable project, and it's impossible to really evaluate a work like this a lifetime later, but I think the end result doesn't really stand on its own anymore. It's another casualty in the fight against the stranglehold that a small number of producers have had over country since forever, and I respect it for that, but I don't feel a need to return to this when both Ray Charles and country fusion have done better.

I enjoyed it, although I don' think I will come back to it after two listens. She's got a good voice, but something feels missing. I'd really like this if it had a bit more bite. I don't want to say that every artist needs to write their own songs to be great, but with this kind of music, I think a bit of the emotion is lost.

This album doesn't really offer anything more than the three classics that still get play. Sweet Child and Jungle are great songs on their own, but the deep cuts just don't have a hook, so it just feels like a lesser version of the good stuff.

I thought it was going to be another weird one once it started, but it wasn't pushing it that much. It sounds like someone who is flailing a bit after the grunge movement, and then I looked up the album, and yeah, it's a member of the Pixies going solo in the early 90's. The first song is literally a guy baffled by the fact that art has *gasp* moved on. He made a perfect metaphor between himself and a game dev who doesn't understand that pixels have colors now. It's not bad, but why is it here? It's not that influential, considering where rock went in the following years (unless I'm missing something, I'm not an expert), it's not that popular, and it's not that relevant. I'm not calling it bad, but I just don't get the argument for it being on this list. This list has a lot of albums that I don't like, genres I'm not a fan of, popular albums I can't stand, weird stuff that pushed the limits of music, or underground works that influenced the mainstream. I can't really see why this is here.

Obviously, lyrically I can't comment. Musically, I enjoy African music now and then, but I don't know enough, or experience enough, to know if this is a good representation or not. To my ears, it sounds roughly the same as most other African music I've come across. I think rating this is a bit dishonest, as I don't have the nuance to really have a strong opinion of any aspect of the work. I would be curious to hear music in this style, or even fusion genres, with lyrics in English or French, so I could engage deeper. Even so, to me, it was a bit repetitive, and a bit long. More broadly, I think the current pop space is a bit stagnant, and the introduction of broader influences would help (taking the most boring aspects of country and rap DO NOT count). I'm pretty neutral on MIA overall, but I appreciate the fusion with non-Western/First World/Developed World/Anglosphere/other euphemism for rich genres. I hope we get more artists like experiment in that way.

This is now the third album I've already listened to, and the second I own. And it's hard to rate, because I love the Killers, but I don't think this album is nearly as good as Sam's Town, Battle Born, or even Imploding The Mirage. The next albums are going to have better deep cuts. Some of these, like Midnight Show, feel like scrapped bit of other songs on the album. It's ultimately a fine debut, with one huge hit, that will lead to much better work down the line.

I am impressed by Fatboy Slim, but I don't like it. It's a unique skill to make music the way he does. Still, he doesn't make music I like. It's also weird to hear albums like this here. I don't think the proper way to experience this music is by yourself, listening to it on a schedule. Maybe I would like it if I went to a show with other people. By itself, it's just repetitive.

I can see its place in psychedelic rock. Piece of My Heart is a classic for a reason. It's wasn't bad, but I don't think the album really has enough variety to stand out. It was short enough to not overstay its welcome, but I would have liked if they had pushed a bit wider.

I didn't like this at all. I just don't really care for her voice or style. The arrangements were too similar, making an otherwise diverse selections of songs into a pretty monotonous album.

Wilco is one of those bands that I know I'm supposed to like, but haven't ever actually listened to. That said, it's fine. It sounds like it's recorded on a cheap mic set a bit too far away, which I don't really enjoy aesthetically. Still, there's a song or two in there that's not bad.

I don't know what to do with albums like this. I can't actively listen to this kind of music. If this was, say, a video game or movie soundtrack? Sure, I would probably think it was pretty good (assuming it, you know, complimented the rest of the work). As background music, it's absolutely fine. It's hard to rate this as "good," but I could see this record doing a great job of setting a mood.

Another album I've heard before! It's kinda dull, even for Lana Del Rey, who rarely ventures beyond her comfort zone. She does give a halfhearted effort a couple of times, but it doesn't go anywhere. And that's ignoring the general annoying rich girl vibes that permeate her music. I don't hat it, but I'm not far away.

It's a classic, full of good songs. I'm not as big a Zepp fan as I probably "should" be, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.

McLaren is such a weird person in terms of pop culture. I guess the closest modern comparison is Simon Cowell. He's a great bellwether, though. You know a scene is just about to get lame once he shows up. And this album is... yeah, pretty lame. I'll give it credit for playing with multiple different genres and sounds, but it's incredibly cynical about it. It just takes the broad sounds of a few genres and mashes them together. It's a giant pool that's an inch deep. I'm finding it hard to give it a number, because I tend to save 1's for music that I just find deeply unpleasant. This isn't that, it's too tame to really sink its teeth into the suck like some McLaren proxies can. Still, I don't want to give it even that much credit. At least it gave us one of the weirder Shady samples, which, by the way, is also a pretty lame song, but Eminem is great at being simultaneously lame and cool.

It's honestly not bad, but there's something about it I can't shake. The crying child put me off it a bit. There's an air of cruel cynicism to it that I just don't care for.

I never know what to expect with prog rock, and this was no exception. It was weird, and flirted with a lot of different influences and styles. I thought parts of it were great, but it also got a bit too indulgent for my taste. It has a "jam band" feel at times, and I think they didn't really care if I was actually listening for long stretches. Ultimately, I respect it more than I like it. It plays around with new tools and styles available, and I could almost place some more mainstream works that this inspired. One more note, I'm glad this popped up before that Kanye album did. I really like that this list is randomized, because it keeps genres and eras unpredictable and fresh, but I think a minor tweak so that albums that are heavily sampling or riffing from another are biased to come after would be helpful, at least for people like me who are using this to explore music history.

Another I've heard before, but it has been years since I've given it a complete listen. Stan is a truly great song, and one of the best of Em's career. The rest is... a bit of a mixed bag. He's an edgelord with multiple grudges, and it can be mean, insulting, bigoted, and dorky. But it also feels true to the person making it. He's also, as always, a solid wordsmith, making a good line out of even the worst parts of it. It doesn't have the introspection required to elevate the whole album, like, say, My Beautiful dark Twisted Fantasy, or even later Eminem albums, but it gives a glimpse into a real person and shows how he became this way. Purely on its own, it's a fine album, with some great singles and a some unfulfilling filler tracks, but the arc of Eminem's career as a whole is very interesting, and this gives a ton of insight into a great writer as he evolves. Also, skits in rap albums. Have they ever been good? Were they fun at the time? All I can say, in retrospect, is that they almost always take me out of the flow of the album, are usually, at best, cheesy and dumb, and absolutely ruin my shuffle whenever I buy a rap album.

I liked parts of it. A full symphony backing a metal band is a cool idea, but for a lot of the songs, the orchestra is drowned out, which loses a lot of the value it could have. The orchestra also doesn't sound "full" so much as "muddy" quite often, and Metallica seems to have an even narrower dynamic range than usual. This adds up to an unrelenting wave of... noise. Just noise. It also has all the usual live album problems of crowd bleed, boring layout, awkward timing, and inconsistent sound. I was very curious about this album going in, and it at least has a good argument to be a live album, as it's a project that is not suited for a studio. Still, it did little to mitigate my bias against both thrash metal and live albums.

It's pretty British. They sound a lot like Oasis, or I guess Oasis sounds a lot like them, since this is their third album, and was released about two weeks after Oasis's first song. I liked listening to this more than any Oasis music, at least, since I didn't get the feeling of pretentious egomania that oozes out of that band. I'm still not sure about the genre as a whole. Outside a couple of Pulp songs, my opinion at best for the hits is, eh, fine. I did tend to like this album, although there were some parts that I'm pretty sure are written specifically for the early 90's UK audience, and a mere colonist like myself can't truly understand the complexities of the metropole. I didn't find anything to add to my catalog, but I'd be open to another Blur album. Also, I have now learned about "The Battle of Britpop," so I guess you can ignore the Oasis comparisons.

It's a solid soul record. I was grooving with it for the most part, but nothing really hooked me. It's well made, but not very memorable.

Peter Frampton is the only artist I can think of that has multiple major hits that still get consistent radio play today, and all of them are live recordings. I double checked against Wikipedia, and I don't recall ever hearing "I'm In You" before, so I think all the songs with staying power are not just on this album, but specifically from this album. I don't think I've ever heard the studio versions. So, how is it? Well, comparing the studio versions of the three big hits,* "Show Me the Way" sounds looser, and Frampton gives a much better vocal performance, which is surprising, because you could just do another take in the studio. "Baby I Love Your Way" is also better in the live version, though not as notably. This is definitely more the backing band and the vamping working a lot better, although, again, the vocals seem mixed wrong. And "Do You Feel Like We Do" is just a song that inherently works live, as it can play off the audience, in a similar way that Jackson Browne's "Stay" doesn't really have much of a point on a studio album. *Asterisk just to say I grew up on classic rock radio, as it was the only thing other than Christian music that wouldn't make my mom clutch her pearls, so I'm probably biased toward the version I know. It is quite a good live recording, and I can see why it took off. In addition to just Frampton and the band sounding like they are actually enjoying playing music, the vamping and talk box work have become iconic to Frampton, for good reason. Still, it has that thing I hate most about live recordings, I don't want to hear people screaming over the music I actually want to hear. Is that something people like? Ultimately, it's fine. I couldn't really recommend any tracks outside the hits, but I do think a close listen (along with looking up about half the songs to compare the studio versions) has given me a bit more of an understanding of the live album supporters. It's one of the few times that I believe the live environment made a better work than the studio. That's rare outside of pieces that rely on improvisation or a large arrangement.

This one's a lot of fun. The beats are fun, the flow is for the most part smooth, and some of the songs lyrically are pretty solid. There's a few too many generic brag raps that are underwhelming and not particularly clever, and I would have preferred a bit more tempo and dynamic variation song to song, as it got a bit stale toward the end, but I liked it more than I expected to.

It was a pretty fun album, but it kind of blended together to me into just generic rock and roll. The iconic version of many of these songs were performed by a different artist, and I don't really get the feeling that he is adding much to, say, Hound Dog or What'd I Say.

I really liked this one. It's got a lot of songs I'm already familiar with, but they hold up. Eddie Van Halen is phenomenal, and shows it throughout the album, and it's got a driving energy that carries through the album, even into the ballads.

It's funky, it's fun, it's silly. It's everything I want funk to be.

I didn't really care about this one. It was just kinda boring background music.

It's fine. Punk is a weird genre for me, I really like the Clash, the Stooges, and a song here or there by the Ramones or the Offspring. I HATE a lot of punk, though, most notably the Sex Pistols. I honestly can't tell you why. This, though, this is fine. It sounded like punk, it never annoyed me, but I don't really think I would listen to it again, and I was over it toward the end. Maybe I just can't handle a whole punk album? This ill probably make sense only to me, but I really enjoy a half of a peanut butter and pickle sandwich. It's weird, but it works. But I don't like that second half. It's just gross. By that point, the ways it doesn't work are now more prominent than the ways it does. That might be me and punk. I just can't do a whole sandwich. I think I'm going to go with a three, but I'm in a pretty good mood, this might score a two on another day.

It was pleasant. Reggae hits the same as funk or jazz for me, in that it's all about the feel, and lyrics kind of fall to the background. It's not Marley's best work, but it's still a good groove.

This is at the same time niche and four quadrant Chainsmokers, indie-(something) in an inoffensively cool way. It will be interesting to see how the later albums hold up, because I can't really tell when this list is okay with popular works, or for the critics. This seems like the most boring middle ground, praising the most popular album from a respected mid-tier artist, like the flipside of Youth & Young Manhood. I'm curious to see how the later additions hold up a decade or two down the line. As for the album itself, I like it more than I should. It hits in kinda the same way Chvrches does. It's either a high three or a low four.

U2 is in an interesting place. For the longest time, it felt like Achtung Baby was the last "classic rock album," because any later songs by other classic rock acts couldn't get airplay for even big hits on the format (looking at you, Aeorsmith). But did this album also open up the format again? Beautiful Day got so much play I just thought that it was from an earlier album, but especially after hearing How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb getting hype on stations (because classic rock radio does not hype new releases), and then hearing other new artists like Coldplay, the Goo Goo Dolls and Green Day in the rotation, U2 may be a significant factor in the broadening of the genre. I'm not a music academic, so this might be incredibly wrong, accepted fact, or something that people have written theses over. Either way, it's a band that gets a lot of hate in the "general discourse," most of which, it's pretty clear by now, is unrelated to the actual music (Bono's a bit of a prick, Apple sucks, everybody's got An Opinion on the Troubles). Anyway, none of that is about the actual album. I would actually rate it a bit below the two albums that follow it, and it's no where near their highs, but it's okay. It felt like it was just trailing off for the last half of the album. I can definitely feel the Brian Eno here, and I don't think they complement each other. I could be argued into a three on another day, but...

I learned about this band after AM came out. I think I did a listen of their back catalog, but I can't be sure. This is a good debut. They have a different rhythm than other bands in the genre, and that's noticeable here. In my opinion, they needed some time to develop, but it's an admirable start, and it still holds up, but it's still missing something. It's got all the bits, they just don't quite have them in the right places. They will figure that out in the next few albums. Overall, a solid debut with promises that they follow through with.

Good old acid rock. Half jazzy noodling, half legit commercial music. They're almost always talented musicians and songwriters, they just mostly don't care enough to write. This alnbum feels like that. It's a couple of classics, a few ideas that have enough life they could be their own songs, and mostly just filler. It's hard to recommend as an album because I find it hard to know why you would want both Oye Como Va and Samba Pa Ti together. It's just a bit too discontinuous. I can't trash any part though. The individual works are definitely stronger than the whole.

I think this might the punk album I like the most so far.

Another one I've heard before! This is an odd album, because it's basically two solo albums combined into a double album, with each member taking creative control of one half. It's not bad. I tend to prefer the Andre 3000 half, especially musically, but Big Boi has some good lyricism and beats on his end, too.

Better than most punk albums so far, but I don't think I'm going to rush out and buy it. I'm okay sticking with London Calling.

Meh. I didn't hate it, but it was not very appealing to me. I don't really have much to say on this one, it wasn't very interesting.

I don't know why I like this so much more than a lot of other prog/art rock on this list. Maybe nostalgia? Maybe the format? Their most "art" song is split in two to open and close the album. It's a slow introduction, which builds to a more complex piece, then mirrors that on the second half. In the middle are songs that are a bit more "radio friendly," but they are still experimental. overall, I really enjoy this, it's got a couple great songs, and the album as a whole is quite well realized.

On the plus side, it's 15 minutes.

There's a lot of punk here, but there's also a lot of early shoegaze. The middle ground is interesting, but not pleasant.

It's samey, annoying and shallow, but it's not grating, at least. This is the fifth punk album of the last six. Please give me something else.

It's not punk! This may be rated a bit higher because it's just something new from a project is supposed to give me something new, but hasn't been for the last couple weeks. She's a good singer, doing mostly covers. They aren't better than the originals, but they are whiter. The individual recordings are good, but they are mostly a worse version of the originals, and I don't want to paint all covers from this era as whitewashing, this is just that.

I was surprised to learn of the year after I listened to this, since it sounds a lot later in the hard rock scene than I thought. Also, they debuted with this? A live album? I suspect this is extremely influential, since it's not a name I've heard before, but it fits right in to the era of heavy metal that would explode a few years later. Still, I want more than this is giving me. Musically, dynamically, lyrically, it's not really trying for a lot. Plus, it has all the problems of live albums without much to justify a live recording.

This is probably the most I've liked an 80's metal album (depending on your definition of metal, I'm not going to dip even a toe into the argument about hair, I dealt with enough of those arguments in college about things that mattered way more than this). It's not thrash! I thought this was more varied and interesting than most metal albums, but I still don't think I'd play this on a whim, nor could I pick out a song that I may add to my rotation. It may be weird to rate this higher than Slipknot, because I have come back to Snuff a couple of times, but I never hated listening to this. Maybe I've just gotten used to metal at this point.

This was just kind of boring. Not even notably bad in the way punk can be. Is punk opposed to hooks? I know, sell out or whatever, but I need at least a bit from the artist for me to want to keep listening.

I already own this album. It's great. The title track and Dancing in the Dark are truly great songs, Glory Days, Cover Me, and I'm on Fire are also very good. The album is also well made, and the deep cuts are better than most album's signature songs.

Another album I already own. I have complicated feelings about this one. Shake It Off is impressively annoying, and Bad Blood is one of the worst hit songs from an artist of her stature that I've ever heard. It's ugly, poorly mixed, and lyrically awkward. I hate its two biggest hits. It's got other misses for me, too, like How You Get the Girl and Welcome to New York. But even at its worst, it's not boring, and it has some good songs mixed in. Blank Space and Out of the Woods are fun, and Clean, Wonderland, and New Romantics are at least interesting. Style, however, is one of her best songs. It's hard to recommend, since it's got a lot of bad in there. Like I said, I have this album, but almost half the songs aren't on my playlist. I feel like I should give this a two, but I like the highs enough to ignore the lows.

My knowledge of this band began and ended with the Breakfast Club song. And, yeah, this is a full album from the people who made that song. It's good, if you like it, but there is not too much variety here. Maybe there's more to unpack on a second listen, but I think it's solidly fine.

It's fine. I like it less than the previous albums from this project, "It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back" and "Fear of a Black Planet," both musically and lyrically. It's pretty grating moment to moment, which was easier to overlook on their earlier albums, but here it feel like adding noise. This might be the softest two I've given thus far.

I've never listened to this before, but I knew it's considered the first metal album. I'm familiar with Black Sabbath, but I also don't like most metal, so I've not put it high on my list. To clarify, metal is a lot like anime to me. I have friends who will tell me that I'm just being prejudiced, I'm not giving the culture the respect it deserves, and then they tell me that, because they know me, I will actually really like THIS one, because it's different. And then I sit down with them and watch an episode. And then, the main character is a special magical boy who tells you what attack he's going to do, the art quality changes wildly multiple times, and, most egregiously, a child's shirt disappears for plot reasons (no, she's not a child, she just looks like a child). And so I'm out. That's metal, too. "You'll like this," followed by a wall of guitars that sound like wood chippers and singers that sound like a chain smoker getting in a screaming match with a banshee. That said, yeah, I like this quite a bit. It's powerful while still having dynamics, I can tell when the singer is trying to portray different feelings, and it's mixed by somebody who realized that those sliders on their board are gradual settings, and not just an on/off switch. I understand why this created a genre. This is one of the most important albums ever, and helped me understand metal a lot more. But I looked up their next album, and, wow. I know almost half that album before even listening to it, and they never even came close to those highs on their debut. I think I got more value from this album as cultural appreciation than from finding some music to buy. I don't know if there's much here that Paranoid couldn't surpass. Is Paranoid on this list?

It makes sense that Sabotage is the hit off this, because it's the only song that I could find a clear purpose in. It's also a good representation of the album as a whole, since, other than a few solid guitar riffs, it's just irritating. I like a lot of grunge. I like a lot of alt rock. I like a lot of rap. I can even find a place in my heart for some hardcore punk. But every single second of this record feels like punishment for the crime of searching for a sound outside the pop mainstream. It hates the idea that music can be pleasant. It's mad I even like music. It's construction equipment distorted to something approaching a beat. I don't even have anything to say about this lyrically, because I couldn't follow the lyrics with the sound of what I can only imagine is an electric guitar they found in a dumpster distorted to the point of being psychological torture interrupting me any time I try to really focus on a song.

It's a pretty wide range of songwriters essentially writing songs for musicals. You can hear their influence, from the weird lyricism of Nick Cave, the blues influence of Waits, and the traditional jazz of Costello. And then it gets flattened out and pushed into that sound that every late 20th century musical sounds. It's an interesting project, but it does show the arbitrary limits placed on musical theater. It seems like every non-jukebox musical either has this sound or that rock opera sound.

I don't know if there's a term for this kind of album. It's not quite a concept album. Persona album? Anyway, they're a good idea, an artist letting you know they are trying something different for a period of time. It seems to have died with some notably failures, like Chris Gaines and Sasha Fierce, and with artists opting to either move between acts or just embrace it without changing personas. Maybe we're in the Eras era. On the album level, it works great. It's cohesive, but not repetitive. The songs aren't his best, but they're not bad. It's the kind of album I'd vibe to, but will probably not come back to.

I don't actually like Nirvana past Nevermind, I guess. The hits are the hits, and I can't separate them from nostalgia, but I didn't really care for any of the deep cuts. I guess I'm a fan of the outcome of grunge, in that it pushed rock in a direction that I prefer over the hair and glam of the 80's, but I can't help to think that it also pushed the transition of rock to what it is now, disparate sub-genres that are working hard to isolate themselves both from mainstream music and themselves. I'm not blaming Nirvana or grunge, but it does seem to be the beginning of the end of rock as a top 40 genre, and it seems to have fractured into ever smaller subcultures that will criticize an indie act for mixing in some pop, or a funk band for adding in some guitar fuzz, or even a death metal band moving toward prog metal. This is a whole lot to put on one album, and it's definitely not the cause of it, but I can't help to think that the "myth" of Nirvana has been detrimental to music. It's obviously not the beginning of the "only tortured souls make good art" phenomenon, but it's the cornerstone of the modern meme, especially solidifying the 27 Club, and the general consensus that your music is automatically a masterpiece if you died young (the credit given to posthumous releases by XXXTentacion, Pop Smoke, and Juice WRLD by critics who previously despised them is hard to ignore). I don't know if this is really relevant to this album, but I'm sure I will have more on-topic things to say when Nevermind eventually comes up. (Nevermind is on this list, right? If not, this album's inclusion deserves a whole lot of criticism.) Ultimately, it's a serviceable, if a bit disappointing, followup to arguably the most important album of the 90's. I'll keep All Apologies, but I don't think I'd notice if I never heard the rest of this album again.

I REALLY don't get the hype around Radiohead. Maybe I'm missing something, maybe they've become less impressive because they've been influential. Either way, I don't really have any desire to keep listening to them.

I don't have strong feelings on this one. I guess it would be fine as background music, but I didn't really care enough about it after a few songs.

It's pretty good. I didn't find a deep cut to add to my collection, but it was solid. Most of it sounded a lot closer to the Beatles-ey sound of the time than what I expected from the hits I knew.

Today, this feels like a weird mix. It's mostly traditional British folk songs, but they had an interesting jazz feel occasionally on the first side. The second seems to trade that out entirely for either a straightforward interpretation, or what feels like making them "churchy," and I mean European churchy, with sustained tones, drones, and any fun beaten out of it by nuns, despite the fact that it's Protestant. I didn't hate it, but I think I only had a slight moment of interest once early on. I very much appreciate music history and preservation, but I rarely got the impression that this was adding to the work, as opposed to merely performing it. That doesn't make it bad, it just means I don't really care about it, especially in relation to this project.

It's more interesting than some of the bigger name punk acts I've seen, but it's still not selling me on this period of the genre.

It's more varied than Sage, Rosemary, and Thyme. I think I like it more, but not by much.

I still don't know what to think about these guys. I SHOULD like them, they're alt rock with a mix of funk and a bit of jazz, which sounds like a cool fusion. But they're mostly just too noisy. It doesn't help that, lyrically, they are usually pretty bad. This album did not change my opinion of them. It's got one song that I really like (the one you expect, given my taste, the slow-building single with great composition, good mixing, and believable, emotional lyrics), a few that seem close to good, but rub me the wrong way, and a LOT that are just unpleasant to listen to, despite having bits and pieces that are pretty great on their own. I could give this anywhere between a one and a three depending on how much I'm giving promise vs. delivery, but I've heard enough of this band to know that they never really deliver on that promise. Maybe hey finally got there with Stadium Arcadium (I haven't heard that yet, but at least I don't hate Snow), but I'm fine with the two songs I bought back in the iPod era. Let me know if they ever come close to Under the Bridge or Otherside.

I like the rhythm and flow of this more than most East Coast hip hop. I'm still not a huge fan, but I get it.

The music is relatively simple, but the lyricism is great. It mixes humor with seriousness well, and has a lot of clever wordplay. I thought Your Flag Decal Won't Get You into Heaven Anymore was especially a good listen, since the message hasn't really changed in the last fifty years.

I don't have much to say about this. It's pretty representative of a lot of folk rock of the era, but better than the usual stuff.

This one is significantly better than the last Stones album on here. Gimme Shelter is a classic, and the album has a blues influence throughout that works well for the most part, although a couple of the songs don't need to be as long as they are.