1001 Albums Summary

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.

I came back to this one after a few months, because I thought it needed another listen, and I like it a lot more the second time round. It was fine the first time, but I'm appreciating it musically more the second time around.

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.

This is a hard one to rate. I'm a relatively new rap fan, and don't have as much knowledge as most of the other genres. Of the artists I do like, it's a lot of Midwest and West Coast, and I can't think of a New York rapper I'm actually a fan of. After listening to this, I'm not really inclined to go further in that direction. The beats just felt kind samey. The lyricism is good, no doubt, but it's just not my style.

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.

I gave this one two passes, a few months apart. I enjoyed it more musically the second time, but it never really caught me. It was still a good listen.

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 generally liked it. It' smooth and enjoyable

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.

This is not what I expected the Stones to sound like, but it fits with most of the pop of the time. I'm glad they found their sound later, but this feels more like a generic band doing a bunch of covers. There's, I think, three originals, but they don't stand out either. I don't know if I'm missing something, but this isn't the band that would rival the Beatles in popularity. It seems more like a band that knew that covers of songs from another continent could give them some fresh material for British ears.

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.

It's fine. It can get a bit boring.

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.

This is great. It's a good flow, great lyricism, solid vibe, all around a great album. I don't have much else to say about it.

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.

It's interesting to hear a live album that has genuine flubs and mistakes. She forgot the words multiple times. It gives it a charm that is absent from most live albums. She's also a very good singer. Still, I'm not a fan of the crowd noise, and it overstayed its welcome.

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.

Not bad. It grew on me on the second listen. I'm still not a huge fan, but I could see myself finding something in her catalog I could really get into.

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.

It's more interesting than most rock from the era. I'm second guessing myself, because I think I like it more than my initial reaction. It's ultimately enough to make me want to listen to it again, so I guess it's on the higher end for this project.

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.

I think I liked it, but I'm not really a huge fan of this era of country. I respect Nelson, but I don't tend to like his music, which is interesting, because recently, he's been endorsing and elevating some of the best of country, like Kacey Musgraves, Brandi Carlile, and Orville Peck.

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 liked Une Année Sans Lumière, but the rest of it was pretty mediocre for me.

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.

Eh? I think I might be burning out a bit on this, because this sounds like a pretty normal album of the era. They try to be a bit Stonesy, a bit Queeny, a bit Bowie...y. The lyrics are all over the place, making me think that's why it's here. I listened to it again, and my opinion hasn't changed. It's fine. Just fine.

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.

So, this is a first. My usual method of listening to albums doesn't work on this one. I usually just paste album and artist into YouTube, and if it's got a title track, add "album" to the end. In private browsing, of course, because I don't want The Algorithm flooding my feed with music that I don't actually like (that's for defunct comedy channels and pop education that more makes you feel like learning than actually learning, thank you very much), but it's age restricted. I'm guessing, because it's every song, that the cover art is a problem. Which I get on YouTube's part, because it is a photograph of a person dying, but it means I need to find another source, and, at this point in my life, it's gonna take a lot more than this for me to make a Spotify account, and I'm not logging in, because I'm pretty sure I'm not going to like this very much. Okay, after listening to it, I don't like the sound of people screaming. It's okay occasionally, but I can't stand it. It's musically interesting, lyrically bold, and I don't care because I hate the way the guy chooses to sing. I can't get past it. I know, it's a personal failure, but I would not listen to this album for fun.

It's fine. I like What's Going On more.

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.

I enjoyed it. It's the kind of jazz I tend to like.

Better than most country from the 80's on. Good for an occasional listen, but I don't think I could enjoy this sound often, so it's not going in my rotation.

This record was first added to my list literally just after I returned from the Christmas holiday last year, and I was very much over Christmas music, which would have been unfair. So I ignored it for 11 months, and now I'm finally ready for Christmas music again. So, the record. It's secular Christmas standards performed by R&B acts signed to Spector, produced in his signature "Wall of Sound" style. Spector's production overall sounds very stale right now due to the previous couple decades beating any dynamics out of mainstream music. Spector was very much making music based on the "limitations" of the available recording formats and the speakers people would consume it through. I think it's important to remember that what what is now the limitations of the past was high fidelity at the time, and the "Wall of Sound" was a way to make it sound good on vinyl through a jukebox, not digitally through home speakers or quality headphones. Also, I'd argue that Spector was an early pioneer that better artists were able to use as a creative tool instead of a marketing tool. That noted, the recordings are pretty... fine. They're good singers, it's well produced, but we're at the point of anyone who is considered a "good singer" having a Christmas album. Outside the history, this blends into the background of Christmas music. The performances are fine, but they're, let's be honest, pretty boring songs that are mostly relevant because of the perpetual cycle of Boomer nostalgia. There's not anything to hate, but I really can't endorse this particular collection of secular Christmas standards over any other competent performance of the past half century.

I liked it, more than Zep 4. In general, I don't really want Led Zeppelin an album at a time, though.

I didn't hate this as much as I expected to! I don't know why, but every Oasis song I've heard up to now is usually aggravating. However, this album had a couple songs on it that were merely mostly annoying. Congratulations.

I liked Family Tree, the rest of it was fine, but not really memorable.

It's a great album, I love her voice, but it is a little too depressing for an everyday kind of listen.

I don't really like this sound. Plus, the lyrics can be hilariously bad at times. "I Want Your Sex" sounds like a parody of an 80's sex jam. It's very 80's, and not in a way I like.

It's the best, musically, of Dylan I've heard so far.

It's alright. Bitter Sweet Symphony is of course a big hit, but none of the rest of the album made me want to give it another listen. Nothing bad, it just didn't grab my attention.

It sounds like if David Bowie wrote and recorded an album while drunk.

It's fine for 70's country, I guess. It's nowhere near the great stuff of the era.

This sounds like every song from a turn-of-the-millennium movie scene in a European nightclub. It's okay, but I don't really feel like the work wants me to listen too closely.

Hey, it's these guys again! Why do they sound like they are whining about absolutely everything? I get the feeling that if I give them one star again, I will hear from their mom about how I'm bullying them. It's like Dudley Dursley the Band. Oasis makes the Battle of Britpop very easy. Blur all the way.

I tended to like it. It's folk rock, and I get how itfits in the evolution of rock, but I don't know how much it holds up on its own. A lot of this list is the "Citizen Kane" problem. Citizen Kane, today, by itself, is a pretty good film. It's not the best film of all time, because every good filmmaker has seen Citizen Kane, and learned from it, and iterated on it, so what makes Citizen Kane important is no longer unique. It's just how movies are. Anyway, I'm rating this how I am, but for a lot of albums from the40's to 70's, sometimes they matter more for how they affect the language of the medium.

I really enjoyed it. Special shutout to Pasttime Paradise, I loved it and can see why Coolio wanted to borrow the hook.

I liked the overall feel of the album more than the other Stones albums so far. It felt more like an album, rather than a bunch of songs they recorded.Even the down moments still held my attention. Still, I'm not a huge fan, and I don't think that anything other than the album opener is really worth going out and getting for me.

It's weird in a "noise" way at times, which I hated, but it was also weird in a chill way occasionally, so it's not full hate. I didn't get anything out of it, but maybe it matters to to the art rock crowd.

There's some solid songs on here, and overall no complaints, but not really anything that made me want to listen again.

It sounds like Madonna chasing trends. It's not bad, but it doesn't stand out at all from the generic pop landscape of the late 90's.

I think I'd rather listen to Coltrane or Davis. I'm not sure why, I didn't really dislike it, I just didn't groove with it.

I still don't get thrash.

Some of this was better than the title track. It mixed bright pop sounds with darker themes in an interesting way. It has some misses here and there, but I get it.

It was a little dull for me. I understand the praise for them lyrically and for the influence, but it was just too consistently gloomy for me to enjoy it for the music. I don't really like art when the artist themself seems bored by their own work. I guess I'd rather dance to "Let's Dance To Joy Division" than Joy Division itself.

I don't like feeling sad. I know, it's a hot take. This album is just dreary. It feels more like depression than sadness anyway, and that's not a mood I want to wallow in. As for the songs, they blend together to a point where I couldn't tell one from the other. Still, I can see why people like it, and it's not bad, per se, but I'm fine with never hearing this again.

It's a light, chill electronic album. I liked the sound, even if there wasn't too much to dig into.

This is the first album so far that features my instrument that I'm actually critical of the performance. That's not how I would play the sax for these songs. There's times for the squawk box, but this isn't it, both musically and thematically. This album also helped me more completely understand something that's been scratching at me for quite a bit with some artists. There are artists with personas that they curate to be bigger than their music. Prince, Beyonce, Madonna, actually most mononyms (with the exception of rappers, who have a separate culture around names). I think Bowie falls into this. He adopted personas, politics, sexualities, and styles constantly, and made it unclear if any were actually "him." As such, Bowie the public figure was more important than Bowie the musician. Which makes it hard to judge his music on its own merits, because he intentionally tied anything he did into broader projects and statements. And this album is part of that, in its own way. It's Bowie, the man, grappling with his impending death. This album is lyrically compelling, and feels like the most "honest" Bowie we have. Which makes it a shame to be pretty dull musically. It's trying, but it's ultimately interesting moments undercut by underwhelming writing and performances. I think it's going to be difficult to be able to look critically on this album for decades without viewing it from the lens of his death days after release. I was not following any music at the time, but both the album and his death were international news events. I don't know this album can be reviewed honestly knowing that, or, frankly, without knowing that. Maybe more time would change my opinion, but I wasn't particularly into it at the time, and I'm not particularly into it now, despite finding some of Bowie's work truly great, and among the best of his era.

Britpop always sounds whiny to me, and this is no exception. It's better than Oasis. They added a bit of early Beatles sound to it that I kinda liked.

I'd call myself a pretty big fan of this group, but I'm a bit underwhelmed by their debut. I'm a much bigger fan of Love Is Dead or Screen Violence. They haven't quite found their stride yet. Still, enjoyable.

I think I liked the previous Smiths album more. Either way, I didn't really connect to either of them.

To me, this sounds more like half finished ideas than a complete album. Maybe that's what they're going for. It's an album of song pitches.

I don't like the "garage" sound very much. This leans into it a lot. It's a sound that faded after the 90's, and I prefer what I would call its successor, "bedroom pop." I guess it says something about the last 30 years that home recordings went from a very lo-fi, aggressive sound to something a lot closer to a true studio. I guess it also says something about the the last 30 years that even garages are too fancy for a lot of artists now.

It moves through sounds throughout the album in a pretty interesting way. I don't know if watching the movie will help me understand it more. I didn't love it, but here were parts that were pretty good.

I like the groove of this group. The lyrics can get cheesy at times, but the lyricism is normally great.

I've heard this one before, of course. It's one of the greatest albums ever. I really don't have much more to say, it's such a great album.

He's a good lyricist. I'm less into the music, but it's not bad. I could see this one growing on me.

I like this more than a lot of other grunge, like Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, and Mudhoney. I could see another listen or two turning me around on this, but for now, it's just okay.

I like a few Linkin Park songs, but I don't think I've listened to a whole album before now. It's got a couple of the hits I know, and the rest of the songs aren't bad, but I don't know if I have it in me to appreciate an entire nu metal album. This isn't a hate on nu metal specifically, I've got a dozen songs that I paid money for, but it grates on me after a few songs in a row. Which I guess is part of the problem I have with thrash, too. It's relentlessly LOUD. It's got some good songs, like Papercut, In The End, Runaway, and A Place for My Head is trying things I haven't heard before, and succeeding more than it fails. Maybe I'll be proven wrong later in this project, but the last nu metal album they gave me was Limp Bizkit's Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water, which was, to be fair, fascinatingly terrible (it's the album for people whose parents could easily afford therapy, but don't trust it). This sounds more negative than I actually am on the songs here. They're mostly good, but it's less than the sum of its parts. I hate to say it, but maybe it could use a "Beth."

Not my kind of thing. Some of it just sounds bad. I get that they're experimenting, but I can't imagine having a good time listening to this. It's just unpleasant.

Queen was my favorite band for a long time. They still might be. So, I already have this album. I've listened to it many times. I already know how I feel about this one. The lows: I'm In Love With My Car. It's not bad, but kinda boring, and I think "car songs" should at least make me feel like I want to drive to it, and this one doesn't. The highs: the rest of the album. They've got some weird songs sprinkled throughout, but Lazing On A Sunday Afternoon and Seaside Rendezvous are fun and exactly as long as they should be. I want to give special mention of two songs. First, the too-long-for-radio religiously themed suite incorporating multiple genres and great harmonies and vocal layering, The Prophet's Song. It's Bohemian Rhapsody, but better, and I will die on this hill. Second, '39 is my favorite Queen song. It tells a powerful story in three and a half minutes. It's a great song that hides its emotional complexity behind an interesting story and a stripped back music production.

I was surprised by this one. I liked it a lot more than I expected. I assumed they were another britpop band, but it's got a brightness and bounce that UK groups seemed to be abandoning at the time.

I don't know why, but I don't like this album nearly as much as Let It Be. It's good, but not their best. Here Comes The Sun is fantastic, but the rest of the album doesn't live up to that high.

It's a solid jazz album. It plays with the Afrobeat, and pulls it off.

It starts with my favorite topic, "being super successful actually sucks though, and making money means you're a sellout." I'm exaggerating a bit, but the rest of the album didn't improve much for me. I don't really like the sound they are going for.

Yeah, this is great. She's the Queen of Soul for a reason. Respect is iconic, obviously, Good Times is fun, and her performance throughout is great.

I don't get live albums. I like Thin Lizzy, I am familiar with the hits. I like a few of them. I like all the songs on this album less, because they aren't miked well, they aren't mixed well, they aren't performing at their best. I know the studio is fake, it's only the best takes spliced together, with mixing and production that is impossible live. I get that. I also like live music. I like the crowd atmosphere, the vamping, the crowd play, the whole experience. I hate most live records. They feel like those podcasts that are just some trust fund kids talking about nothing. I don't want to have a parasocial relationship with you, I get no joy from hearing other people like you. I want the art you choose to release. I want my music like any other art form. I want you to diligently craft a work that I experience. I don't want to watch you paint, I don't want to watch you edit a film, I don't want to play half your game. I want the painting, I want the film, I want a finished game that I know you're not going to drastically change. I don't want to hear you create an album, I want the album. The album that you made, with thought behind the mixing, the production, the order of the songs. All those artistic choices are lost in a live album. They're replaced with FOMO and parasocial hype. It's the laugh track of music. Thin Lizzy is a good band. They play well for the most part. I don't want to hear this version of any of their songs, because they don't elevate any of them.

For the most part, I did not like this album. I found many of the vocal choices grating. Maps was actually pretty good, but I didn't care for the rest of the album.

If I am unfamiliar with an artist, I usually go in blind, not looking up anything, though the album art usually comes with. When writing this up, I occasionally go to the Wikipedia page, mostly to check the year a spelling, and that's when I learned this is a John Lydon project. My hate of the Sex Pistols is already documented here, so that surprised me quite a bit. This isn't too bad. It's doing some weird stuff, and I don't love it, but I never wanted to turn it off, and it was compelling at points. This just reinforces my opinion that Malcolm McLaren is the worst thing to happen to modern music.

Side one is great. It's overtly political, written in the middle of the Troubles, and is a direct criticism of the British government at the time. It makes a statement that is sincere but not preachy. It has a forceful anger that really sells the message. Side two is solid, but not nearly as strong. Still a great album.

It's different than I expected. I was under the impression that they were a pot-punk band, but this is a lot more new wave and pop than I was ready for. It's fun, but I don't see myself coming back to it.

What is this? It's pulling a lot from the 80's, both glam and disco. I don't know how to feel about it. I hated the Comfortably Numb cover, it sounds like bad dance from the dead zone of music, when the 80's got stale, but grunge, rap, and britpop hadn't yet become dominant. That cover is about 15 years out of date. Otherwise, this album just grooves. I'm not going to call it smart or pioneering or anything like that, but it's just good in a way that I can groove to.

I like it. I'd like a little more variety, which I think they do well on Viva La Vida, but this is solid work.

It's a bit dumb, but it's fun. It's packed with hits, and they're all fun. I'm not sure why it gets the Nickelback treatment.

I didn't mind this, but it didn't really rise above its peers for me.

This is another one in the "I don't get it" category. There were some cool parts, but it was mostly too scattered and experimental for my taste. I didn't hate it, at least, so that's a win.

I really like the first two songs, but side B is a little weak for me. Overall, though, pretty good.

I don't know why I don't like ABBA. I'm not opposed to 70's pop as a whole, not even disco, which they have taken a lot of influence from. Maybe I'm just not into Europop? I haven't really heard much from the continent (meaning the mainland, the islands are a different story) from that era, to be honest. I think it's because a lot of their songs have this uncanny musical theater feel. I can't put my finger on what it is. I asked a friend, who is a multi-instrumentalist and theater nerd, about what it might be, but he couldn't place it, either. He noted that Chess is one of the major musicals from the late 20th century that doesn't sound like "that," which makes this even more confusing. I would like to know what about this album, especially the middle of it, gives the feeling of filler songs in a forgettable-but-profitable musical. That aside, it has the traits of a forgettable-but-profitable musical album. The music is serviceable but forgettable, the lyrics are about deep emotions and also some random stuff, and despite it all, the instruments are bright and fun and ignoring what the actual song is trying to sell. As an addition from a quick Wikipedia read-through, maybe part of this is a "Rumours" thing? But I don't actually feel any of the emotion, creativity, and tension that makes that album great. Unrelated, but this is the second time in a week I've ended up on the Wikipedia page for "atelier." Does that matter? No. Not at all.

It's better than I expected it to be. I was familiar with Wild World, but didn't know much else about the artist, other than my dad hating him, so I didn't get much exposure in my youth, despite a lot of similar artists of the time being ubiquitous. As for this era, he's a better singer and performer than most of his peers, which is frankly not hard, because folk is filled with great songwriters who are bad singers. I don't know if he's "selling out/going pop," but I honestly like a lot of Bob Dylan covers, and almost no Bob Dylan songs, so I'm not one to judge. The songs are good lyrically and musically. I know the criticisms of Wild World at this point, and, yeah, but I like art from assholes, if the art is an honest perspective of being an asshole. It's an honest expression of being human. It's a guy being a bit of a dick about a breakup that didn't go his way, and that's a relatable feeling. It's not a good feeling, it's the "wrong" feeling, but it's still there, it still matters, and he expresses it in a realistic way. And the whole album feels like that. It's emotionally resonant. It's emotionally true to the artist, and more importantly, true to the art, which is what I really care about.

I'm a Millennial raised on classic rock and Christian music. I could finally listen to that "modern" music in college. So, Michael, or any of the Jacksons, have no nostalgia for me. His influence is also hard to pin down, because all of my knowledge of this era is retroactive and filtered through SO MANY hot takes, which is the only way we can talk about pop media from the late 70's on. So... I don't like it very much. Thriller was better. Bad was better. This may be "influential," but I'm not sure how much of that is from the artistry itself, the "popification" of disco and funk, or the effect it had on Jackson's next albums. Regardless, it's pretty samey, none of the songs really stand out, and outside of "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough," it didn't really cement a presence. It' so simultaneously diverse and noncommittal that I don't know when I would want this. Again, this is the exact era and genres of music that I have the least understanding of, but I'd rather listen to a lot of other disco, funk, and pop of the time than this. And that very much includes Thriller and Bad.

There's a big chunk of these albums that just kind of wash over me, not leaving much of an impact. This is one of those. There were a couple of moments that stood out, like Higher Ground. Maybe I just like funky Wonder the best (I love Superstition and Pastime Paradise). I liked most of it, but it didn't keep me engaged.

Here's my most positive thoughts while listening to this album: It's not Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water. Sometimes, they sound like they can almost pull off a cheap System of a Down cover band. It's encouraging that their homophobia has gone a complete 360, from being totally fine, to being a huge problem, to being just annoying, and now it's just quaint. It's good that this rage is directed at nothing in particular, otherwise I might have to care about it. Oh, hey, he can, in fact, sing competently enough to not be kicked out of middle school choir. It's unfortunate that he doesn't try to do that often. It's comforting that my grandpa's friend, who barely remembers which hole to blow in yet still played at his funeral, is not the worst use of bagpipes in my lifetime. Racist album skits are not just for rappers. Congratulations on bringing non-musical racism to a broader audience. The last two minutes of this album might be the best work they've done. I'd like to see it built out into a full song. By someone else. I'd like to make it clear that I have Linkin Park, Finger Eleven, and Evanescence CDs within reach while I write this. I don't hate nu metal. I hate this, though.

Green Onions might be the most well known song that most people don't know the name of. It's great, and I wish there was more of it. So I was pleasantly surprised by Mo' Onions, which is just what I wanted. Most of the rest of the album is instrumental covers of other big hits, and though they're good, those songs were written with lyrics, and they do feel like they're missing something. The other original, Behave Yourself, feels complete, so this seems inevitable if you're going to do instrumental covers. They're interesting and well performed covers, but I'd prefer a recording of more originals. They are clearly great musicians, and I'd love to hear them really embrace that.

She sells every song with raw emotion. It especially stands out in its era. Rock was dominated by hair and glam, pop was focused on big, bright ballads, and this stands out as a more intimate and directly emotional experience. I'm not trying to criticize fun here, but I'm always down for a shakeup. Whether it works or not, I respect the effort. Her lyricism and musical style really sells the emotion behind her work, and gives an important weight to small, intimate moments. Her explicitly political songs are disappointingly edgeless, with "Talkin Bout A Revolution" vaguely gesturing toward change, or "Why" listing talking points so rapidly that they don't have time to sink in. Most of the good political songs need to have a specific point, like Fortunate Son calling out the hypocrisy of the rich and politically connected, or Ohio narrowing in on one specific incident to highlight a broader issue, or Fight the Power focusing on multiple broad issues to focus on the people targeted. "Talkin Bout A Revolution" fails as a call to action because it doesn't really have a call to action, it's saying it's already started, you don't have to do anything. "Why" fails as a protest song in the same way that "We Didn't Start the Fire" does, it's more useful in a history classroom than a protest line.

It's fun, but I don't want an album of this. It's a side not an entree.

I could see this being fun at a rave. I don't know what I'm supposed to do when this pops up on a random Sunday. Take MDMA and let loose in my living room by myself? I liked some of the beats that hey made, but I can't really say I'm going pop this album in when I'm looking for something to listen to.

There's no way to honestly review this without admitting that, yes, I've played Fallout: New Vegas. Multiple times. With mods. With a lot of mods, including radio mods, that add more songs to the in-universe playlist. And despite playing most of the Fallout games (again, with radio mods), Big Iron in New Vegas is the best use of music in the franchise. The only other one that comes close is "I Don't Want to Set the World on Fire" by the Ink Spots. In fact, it might be the best use of existing, diagetic music in gaming. The rest of the album is more of the same. Solid ballads, good storytelling, over some 50's country music. It's got a lot of good ballads on it, but the ones I liked best were El Paso and Billy the Kid.

They get points for trying. Parts of this reminded me of the more experimental Beatles songs. It ultimately doesn't work for me, though. Also, it's tough writing anything while that album art is wiggling while I'm trying to focus.

This kind of album isn't really for me. I find them boring. It's fine, but at best this is background music.

What are these lyrics going for? I need to break down the lyrics on another listen. I'm all over on this one. Some of the songs are pretty good, others are fine with really strange lyrics, and some are just too eclectic for me to get. I'd Like That is messy, and the lyrics are either bad or confusing. "Make me grow up Really high, really high like a really high thing" feels lazy. On the other hand, I liked what Your Dictionary was trying to do, even if it felt a little stretched at points.

Rock was in a weird place in the 90's. Just to make sure, I read through the biggest albums up until Dookie. There were some last gaps of the hair scene, some big albums from established acts like REM, U2, Billy Joel, and Aerosmith, but it was mostly just grunge. It dominated rock for three years so solidly that the only new acts in the genre with a major album that I could find were the Red Hot Chili Peppers, 4 Non Blondes, the Cranberries and Melissa Etheridge. It seemed like the only answer to grunge was Lilith Fair. Which makes this album a big deal. It's apparently the biggest selling punk album ever, and helped to give an alternative to grunge in mainstream rock, to the point that the next decade was a clash of post-grunge and pop punk. Is it good, though? Yeah. There's three rock staples on the album, and the rest of the album is more of the same. It does grate on me after a while, and I wish it would mix the sound up a bit more, but this is definitely the punk album I've enjoyed the most. So far. I'm assuming London Calling is coming, and it's not American Idiot, but for now, this wins the punk crown so far. I also think this album, along with American Idiot, draws a line between punk and pop punk, so I'm not sure how I'm going to classify the "number bands" genre, if there are any on this list.

Not bad, but not interesting.

A lot of this album made me uncomfortable. I can't put my finger on it, but I found the music unsettling.

I haven't listened to enough reggae to "get it." I like a lot of what I've heard, but casually, and not in a way that I can tell it apart easily, and definitely not in a way that makes me want to dig deeper. This all seems fine, but none of it stood out musically as a notably song. Lyrically, well, I've lived my whole life in North America, and the vast majority of it has been less than 50 miles from the Pacific Ocean. We've all agreed for my adult life that weed is fine, and that's been the legal stance for over a decade. Even the Trump supporters (and I'm very much including the weird Canadian Trump supporters) think Mary Jane is not a big deal. "Legalize It" messaging was rampant in my high school and college years, and frankly most of it was just as disingenuous as the prohibitionists. Why did they glom onto glaucoma, of all things, when it's been pretty clear for decades that grass makes it worse? Anyway, this is still full of lies about pot, including saying it's good for asthma and tuberculosis? Just say you like getting high and it's not a public health crisis. It's waaaay easier to argue that marijuana is less damaging or addicting than alcohol and cigarettes, that's the real fight.

This is one of those "experimental" albums that actually pulls off some of its experiments. It's not often enough for me to like it, but it proves that there is a lot of room for fusion of "Western" music with specifically Asian music that I could like. This isn't it, but if I hear an artist claim this as an influential work for them, I would check it out immediately.

It's fun.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this was pretty boring. It's pretty musically stale, and it might be pretty scandalous lyrically, but half a century later, it's unremarkable.

It's pretty good. She's got a strong voice and the songs are not too bad.

It's pretty boring. The sax and trombone on Smile On are cool, and I could swear somebody sampled it, or it sampled somebody, but the internet is letting me down on this. Either way, grooved in my heart with that, but not the rest of it.

It's another Bob Dylan album, and my opinion hasn't changed. He's a great lyricist. He can tell good stories, he can sell a message well, he can add a bit of humor at the right times... But he's not a good singer, and he's not a good musician. And he clearly doesn't want to be. I'm open to simple folk songs, but there's a reason the majority of the versions that get play are covers.

This is another one to add to the pile of "interesting, but not very good." I liked it better than most in this category, but still not enough to give it a higher rating.

This was pretty good. It had a groove that I could sink into and vibe with, although I'm not sure how much of that is Danger Mouse, because he's been a pretty important part of a ton of great albums for about two decades now. I think he's aiming for the same target Teddy Swims is, and I have pretty much the same feeling for both artists. I like what they're doing, but I'd like to see them experiment a bit more. I have not listened to any other music by Kiwanuka, but he's on my radar now.

Lasers was a big part of my entry into rap, so Lupe Fiasco will always be an important artist to me personally. Listening to his debut, he has a lot of what I loved in Lasers here, but it hasn't quite come together yet. It's a little messy. He doesn't know how to get the best out of his featured artists yet, and his hooks are unremarkable, but the lyricism is great when he lets loose. It's a good debut, and now I think I need to give his later albums a listen. I haven't heard anything after Drogas Light yet, and I'm curious where he went from here.

Kashmir is fantastic. The rest of it is fine. There's a lot here, but I don't really care about most of it. It's still pretty good.

I should probably like this more. Maybe I would if I was alive then, but it doesn't really stand out. It's fine, Beck is a great guitarist, and I like blues rock quite a bit, but the music itself doesn't really hit home.

It's okay. The hits are pretty good, especially Peaceful Easy Feeling. The rest is pretty bland, even for album filler.

Until this project started, I don't think I'd heard a complete British rock album from the 60's by anybody but the Beatles. I was mostly familiar with the hits. And it's become increasingly clear how much of it was influenced by blues. For this album, My Generation seems to be the least blues song on it, the one that feels the most unique. I guess that's why it stuck around. It's an okay album, but there weren't any songs that had any staying power outside of the already iconic title track.

Lyrically interesting at times, but musically it was more of a dull Smashing Pumpkins. I can see the appeal, but not for me.

It's a lot more stripped back and folky than most of Springsteen's work. I mostly enjoyed it, but it's a little too dreary for a full album for me.

Part 2 was a surprise. The first half was just standard vapid pop. It's a sales pitch for a faulty product from someone who doesn't really care. For the back end of this, she at least believes in the songs, and I'll take that any day.

An organ-lead jazz album is pretty rare for me. He's got some great moments, and the improvisation was always good, even though I could never predict where it was going next.

The beats weren't bad. The vocals, however, were annoying most of the time, and Can U Keep A Secret was deeply upsetting. It made my skin crawl. And everything else is, at best, pretty lame.

I don't hate it, but I'm really not feeling ANY of this album. Honestly, to me, it sounds a lot like bands in teen movies from the early 2000's that were supposed to be kinda bad. As in, good enough to not annoy the audience, but bad enough for everyone to understand that the lead singer thinking he's going to become the next rock god is clearly a joke. But I guess that had to come from somewhere.

Fine, but not notable.

This era of rap seems to have become particularly dated. I personally don't care for the sound, although I didn't start listening to rap until the 2010's.

This one is fun. It never hooked me in, but it was enjoyable all the way through.

I should probably like this a lot less than I should. It's doing a lot of things that normally push my buttons, but I can't help but really like it.

It's a fun throwback sound, but it's a lot of hit and miss for me. I'm not a big fan of Rehab, so I expected to not like this, but by the middle of the album it was working well. The momentum couldn't hold, though, and I found the ending a bit weak.

Another one I was pleasantly surprised by. Androgynous feels about 40 years ahead of its time politically, and Answering Machine is cleverly constructed. I was skeptical early, but this won me over by the end.

It's Britpop, but it branches out at times. It's better than Oasis, but it hasn't sold me on the genre.

This seems like the kind of thing that could grow on me, but it really just makes me want to listen to Massive Attack.

It's got atmosphere, but it's otherwise boring.

It's hard to evaluate an album like this for a couple of reasons. One, it's a live album, and I honestly don't see the appeal of live albums. Why would I want to hear people making noise over the actual music I'm here for? Why would I want all of the problems that come with mixing live recordings? Why would I want a version where the artist has less control over the finished work? It's also hard to really listen to an album like this six decades later and really understand it. I know how important Muddy Waters is in music history. He's a major influence on blues, rock, and therefore R&B and rap. All of American music would sound different without him. But does the work stand up on its own? Yeah. It does. It's dated, and can get a bit repetitive, and I'm Your Hoochie Coochie Man sounds like the literal stereotypical blues parody, but it works. I love where music goes from here, but it still sounds good on its own.

Talking Heads has a pretty unique sound. I'm not much of an audiophile or music nerd, but I can pretty confidently recognize a David Byrne piece, even without him singing. I liked listening to this. It was always interesting. I didn't connect with it, however. It's not something I'm going to buy, but it is good. I don't know how to review something like this, as it's probably the most fun I've had with an album while having very little desire to listen again.

I don't know if it was the version I listened to or if this is an artistic choice, but it sounds like half the songs are cropped a few seconds short. They were as long as the tracks on the track listing on Wikipedia, so I think that's just what they wanted it to sound like. I don't care for it. Aside from that, I do like most of the album. It's fun, it's experimental, and it's pretty varied in sound.

I didn't really care for it. Ethereal pop is not really something I'm looking for. It's boring.

I really wish this was the direction country took in the 21st century. Maybe it could have, but 9/11 and the aftereffects really caused country music to fall into a rut that it still hasn't dug itself out of, over twenty years later. It's truly the biggest tragedy of that day. But, for this album specifically, I like it. I'll probably like it more after a few listens, as is pretty true of alt country for me right now. This is one of those artists that I "know" I'm supposed to not like, but the art can be good even if the artist is a bad person, as is true of so much art. We just kind of decide to ignore it most of the time, and only care when the Eye of Social Media turns on them. So as long as my generation celebrates Rumors, I'm not going to care about like art from assholes.

This guy just isn't for me. Musically, he's too boring. Yeah, maybe his lyrics are good, but I can't pay attention long enough to care.

It's fine as background music, but I'm not going to go out of my way to listen to it again. I liked the Man Machine more.

He's a great performer. I understand why he was huge, especially considering the era, and I have no problem with covers per se. But, it's an album of standards, and of the ones I know, his version of Blue Suede Shoes is the only one that is the first in my mind of all the versions of the era. It's good throughout, but I'd rather have Little Richard, Ray Charles, Jim Reeves, or either Sinatra or the Marcels in the case of Blue Moon. Also, this doesn't really matter, but ending the A side with "I Love You Because" followed by "Just Because" seems like something you'd want to rethink.

I like it. It's oddly gloomy and bright. I think it's the most I've liked synthpop so far.

This is what I want whenever people tell me to listen to Dropkick Murphys.

I think I would have loved this even more fifteen years ago. All four of the songs on the A side are classics. The B side is proggier, and it's full of experimentation and great solos throughout. I'm less of a die-hard rock listener than I was in my youth, but I still really like it. I have to admit that I'm American, but grew up a casual stroll away from Canada. Any broadcast signals were stronger from across the border than from the USA, so almost all of the music I was exposed to was affected by CanCon. This may color my opinion of Canadian artists, but Rush seems almost as popular in the US as Canada, so I still would have been exposed to them, as opposed to, say, the Tragically Hip.

He's a great lyricist and storyteller, but instrumentally, he's a bit stale. It's my problem with a lot of folk. I have a feeling that a lot of them are poets who figured out that putting it to music would give them a bigger reach, like Leonard Cohen, who was pretty honest about that. And, yeah, I'm assuming I'll get a Leonard Cohen record at some point, and I suspect I'll be saying the same thing. The lyricism is still great, and the consistency of the music makes it feel like a larger story, even when it isn't, and it's always good as a listen, even if it's not great.

The intro is great, probably the best song on the album. The rest is pretty good. this is one that I'd like to give a half star to, so I guess add that to the score.

This is perfectly fine. I didn't love it, and it doesn't seem to stand out from the contemporary works, but maybe I'm missing something. I admit that I'm not great on my music history of this period.

These are definitely not the lyrics I expect to accompany this music. He has a humorous bite that is part satire, part sincere disgust. I appreciate it, but I don't love it.

I was never really hooked. I could probably be discounting this a bit, but I didn't care enough to actually dig into the lyrics.

This just passed right through me.

The title track is by far the weakest song on the album by far. That being said... This is the soundtrack for a turn of the century hacker film, right? Because it would excel at that. If I was making a movie about westerners robbing an Indian target, or vice versa, I'd call this guy to do the music.

It's so musically boring that I can't care if the lyrics matter. Every single song has the music and flow of an improv group.

As always, Eminem has great flow, solid music behind him, and clever wordplay. Unfortunately, he's using it to just be a dick. A clever dick, but still just a dick. It's shock for its own sake, and I guess it's the crown jewel of shock rap albums, but shock rap mostly sucks. This mostly sucks. It's an interesting record in many respects, as a shock rap album, as an early album from an artist that will eventually become one of the defining voices in the genre, as a time capsule of the turn of the century, as a work that expanded the rap audience, and as an example of a white man succeeding in a black genre. Still, it mostly is just schoolyard bully insults at nobody in particular.

I don't know what it is about the 80's, and especially 80's soul. It just kinda washes over me. It's like a Thomas Kinkade painting, appropriately also very 80's. It's competent, comforting, and appealing, but ultimately manufactured and soulless. Huh. I just called soul soulless. I stand by it.

This is a pretty unique album, just on its concept. It's a double album, written as a full story that was almost immediately turned into a film (two and a half years from album to movie is absurdly fast). I know concept albums have become other works, notably with some Who albums, but none have been this closely tied to the derivative work while still being treated as a separate work. As an album, it works well song to song, and though it's pretty abstract, the emotion is always pointing you in the right direction. It's pretty long, so I don't know if I want to sit down and listen to it, especially because it can get a bit samey at times. As for the songs, yeah, there's a lot of great ones. Another Brick in the Wall, Hey You, Comfortably Numb, Run Like Hell, and Is There Anybody Out There? are all classic rock staples. Also, shout out to Mother, which I thought was at least as good as the "hits." And that Run Like Hell sting is great. I had to check whosampled.com, but it's apparently never been sampled. I can't believe nobody's tried to sample that part. My only real complaint is that it's too long. Oh no, give me less? But it does mean it's hard to treat as an album. Also, I should really watch the movie at some point.

The Iron Man cover is great. Not as a song I listen to regularly, but it's a fun play on the original. Lovefool is one of those minor hits that doesn't get radio play or cultural recognition, but it's also pretty good for what it is. The rest of the album is... more of that. A weird mix of bubblegum and serious that makes it a fascinating album, but is ultimately just a curiosity, unless it hits for you. It feels like they are courting a proto-Charli XCX fan base.

I don't know if I'm supposed to listen to the US or UK album for this list. I went with the UK, but the US version is definitely better. I replaces both the opening and final track, and Paint It Black is a classic. Goin' Home is fine, but better than what it's replacing, and much better end to the album. I know enough about the context of the album to ask, why were they the Beatles alternative? I get when the war was Beatles Vs. Beach Boys. The Beatles were innovating in genres on both sides of the Atlantic, but this is mostly stale, at least in the US rock scene. I'm going to be generous and rate this on the US album.

Scores are written for movies. It can be a great score, but a great album is completely different goal. This whole album is missing the context of the movie. There are still some good songs in there, but it's ultimately a soundtrack, and I'd much rather watch this film than listen to this album.

Steely Dan has a pretty unique sound. I had a good time. Overall, though, it doesn't have any standout songs for me. It never really bought me in, lyrically, musically, or structurally.

For some reason, before I had heard anything, I thought this group was older, early 90's or something. I don't know why. Anyway, it's got more punk than I expected. It's not bad. I'd be curious for more, but I'm not running out to buy this.

I can't hate on organ prog. It's a solid record. I liked listening to it. It's also very clearly influential. There's a lot here that we're going to see later, in both acid/psychedelia and metal. It's hugely influential. But I decided long ago that "influence" is not how I'm rating this. It's how much I want to experience this again. And while I appreciate what is happening here, later artists improved on it. It's still a solid listen (as opposed to some other influential albums that are the sonic equivalent of an impressively spiced and garnished turd sandwich), but I would rather listen to the students than the teacher.

I'd give this an additional half star if I could. I like it, it's great focus music, it's just not engaging enough.

This is, by a huge margin, the biggest album in history. It sold 10 million over the next closest release, and 20 million over the next closest record, as in, not a greatest hits album. It sold over 60% more copies than any of its competitors. Clearly, this record matters. But, that is an artifact of its era. The 80's saw a rise in global reach for American culture, and especially the record industry. It was also just before the internet facilitated the fragmentation of media, of which music would be hit first. The MP3 meant that listening to (or downloading) a song over the internet was viable, even though dial-up. Anyway, my point is, I don' think anything can be this big in the foreseeable future. This is the peak of the monoculture. As for the music, it's solid. I'm not a Jackson fan, but it has a bright feeling to it and a refreshingly robust range for the time and genre, at least in its subject matter. I probably won't come back to it, but I liked it.

Prince falls into a rare group of musicians, dating back to Franz Liszt, people who are more famous as people and performers than as musicians. Other notables are Bjork, the Grateful Dead, and Liberace. I could not name more than a song by any of them, but I know who they are and that people like them. Prince I at least know a few more songs by. Giving an album a real listen, I don't get it. I don't hate it, but it's not really working. Michael Jackson is boring to me in a similar way.

The music is pretty good, for the most part. The solos give me juuuuust enough to outweigh the crowd noise and shoddy mix, because, as a rule, I hate live records. So it balances out to a poorly structured compilation album. I'll probably think this was too generous when I look back on these reviews.

This is... experimental funk rock? Is avant-funk a thing? Also very samply. Also very afro-beat. This is a very strange album, and I like it more than most of the weirdos on this list. It still has the same basic problems, though, of having flashes of great ideas that could be whole songs, buried in a mess of other sounds that don't ultimately come together into something cohesive. It's interesting, and I think these two upstarts Brian Eno and David Byrne have a future in front of them, but it's ultimately a bit too messy for me.

Okay, the thrash Stockholm syndrome is starting. This got a few "huh?"s out of me. Maybe another dozen albums will make me appreciate this. Until then, I've done too much construction work to find power tools metal appealing.

Yeah, that's weird.

As "party vibe" music, this is great. It's pretty boring if you're trying to engage with it. I could see myself putting this on in the background of a lively get-together, but I don't really want to sit down with it. But art has its place. One of the guys from fun released an album for dogs, so...

I'm sure it must have been fun to be there.

I like what it's going for, and it's doing interesting things occasionally, but I got bored. I want a bit more variety, in tempo, in dynamics, in whatever.

I was definitely grooving to the beat of this. Dre can make great tracks. He can also pick the talent, as is evident by great contributions by Snoop, Kurupt, Lady of Rage, and Nate Dogg on this, and will become increasing clear when he signs Eminem. Lyrically, though, he's pretty stale. He's got a few good bars, but it's just "I'm cool, right?" I have sex, I do drugs, I do crimes. It's not providing insight or feeling into those aspects, it's just making sure you know he's checking the rap boxes. It's not until the last song that I get the feeling that Dre actually has any feelings for the actual subject. And it's the best performance by Dre the rapper. A not so quick aside: these skits are absolute trash. Raunchy humor is fine, but this isn't that. It's not a joke. It's just, again, I have sex. Also, no other man should have sex. Just Dr. Dre. The only sex allowed is with Dr. Dre. That's the only "joke." This might be the most disappointing album so far. I like when Dre produces for Eminem, I like a lot of Snoop, and I was going to say Nate Dogg deserved more support, but a quick Wikipedia search made it pretty clear why he didn't have the output you'd expect. It's got great production, but Dre doesn't actually have anything to say. He definitely belongs in the booth.

While there's a lot here that I like, the overly long songs, repetitiveness, and obtuse lyricism keeps me from really liking this album. It's like Muse with extra pretension.

It's a weird fusion of disco and R&B. I like weird fusion.

I don't think I listened to this album. It happened to play while I tried to listen to it.

Aerosmith is a weird band. Their biggest hit came 25 years after their most famous song, and it's a love ballad for a movie starring the lead singer's daughter, who wasn't even born when Dream On came out. This is an odd album choice, since it doesn't particularly stand out as Aerosmith's best, most interesting, most popular, or most acclaimed album. I guess you could call this the start of an upswing, but I'll take Get a Grip over this, even if it is a "sellout" album. I'd also go for their first two albums. Still, it's solid.

This might be the most boring Britpop album I've heard. So, props for beating Oasis.

It just trudges along. You know trudging? To trudge.

Not my favorite Neil Young record, but it's not bad.

Tom Waits is an unusual artist. I like a few of his songs, and can appreciate him in small doses, but a full album is a bit much.

It has the traditional prog problems of dragging on too long and beating its best ideas into dust. I like quite a few long songs (Queen's The Prophet's Song, Taylor Swift's full All Too Well, Elton John's Funeral for a Friend/Love Lies Bleeding, and Rush's 2112 come to mind), but those songs feel distinct moment to moment; they adapt both lyrically and musically as the piece progresses, while still feeling like one thing. This just feels like dragging out solos to give the vocalist a break. That's a shame, because there's a lot of good in the three grueling songs, especially Roundabout and South Side of the Sky. They even find a way to play out ideas in record time. We Have Heaven goes on too long at 100 seconds. It's a weird record to evaluate song to song as a commercial album, because there's three songs that are a "usual" length (which I'm GENEROUSLY saying is two to seven minutes), and two of those are just riffing. Still, despite being frustrating in its construction, there's a lot of good in this. Long Distance Runaround stands out as a hidden jem, South Side of the Sky works great when it focuses, and Roundabout has a LOT of moments that are aching to be fleshed out on their own. I wonder how much of what I'm critiquing here is affected by the industry, and the format that people consume music. First, it might sound samey because they didn't have access to the tools that later artists did. And not even new recording or processing equipment, it took advanced computing to even understand how and why certain instruments sounded the way they did. Less than a decade later, the available sounds from a single chord on an electric guitar grew rapidly. Also, these tracks can't be pressed for 45's, and radio hates long songs, too. TikTok and similar platforms have given rise to short songs in recent years. It will be interesting to see how popular music progresses in the era of... this. What will song length mean? What will albums mean? The longest number 1 song was broken a few years ago by an extended cut rerelease of a failed single, and three years previously, biggest song in the world was under two minutes. There's clearly a shift in music consumption that the industry has not figured out yet. I'm curious to see what will happen, because the music industry is usually the most interesting when technology creates new methods of either production or consumption, and we're at both. That barely related to this album, but it felt good to get it out. It's a bit of a chore, but there's a lot of good bits. I understand why it was influential, and I like a lot of what it influenced more than I like it.

Bad Company, the song, is great. Bad Company, the album, is fine. Bad Company, the band, is the unfortunate fate of most supergroups. The unique elements blend together in a way to smooth out the crevices and file off any rough edges. And so the many unique flavors become a palatable but boring soup. Bonus point for the title track, and that it made "Bad Company by Bad Company from Bad Company" a real song.

It's thrash again. I still don't get it.

A couple songs gave me "James Bond" vibes. I don't know exactly what makes me think that, but there's time where it feels like they were writing for a Bond title track. The last half felt a little undercooked, but there's something to enjoy in here.

It's a cover album, where Cash mostly strips back the original song. Sometimes, the simplistic, raw choice is an improvement, like with Hurt and I Hung My Head. Sometimes, it sounds like a barstool set by someone who brings his guitar to house parties, like with Desperado and Bridge Over Troubled Water. Hurt is a fantastic performance, and elevates a middling work to truly great, and it's one of the few songs where "radio" censorship actually improves the lyrics. As for the rest of it, it's fine. Some are good choices, some are more boring, most are not notably different. It's still mostly good songs covered by Johnny Cash, but there's only two I'd really like to hear over the originals, which is pretty consistent among the American sessions. Hurt is so good it's almost a four.

Prince, for me at least, is more famous as a performer than a musician. I know a lot about him as a personality, but the music doesn't seem to get as much play as I would expect. Maybe I'm not hearing it, but I don't really hear his songs in the wild. Other similar artists are Bjork, the Grateful Dead, and Lady Gaga is on her way there. I guess Franz Liszt would be the early example. And after hearing it, yeah, that makes sense. He's a great singer, he's got personality, but I really don't find the music that catchy. It's fine, but I JUST listened to it and probably could only hum 1999. The rest of it is glaringly 80's, and mostly forgettable outside of the sometimes bizarre lyrics.

This is the only Hendrix album that I couldn't name. It's not the Jimi I'm used to. It is, to me, more experimental and "out there" than the other two. It was fine, but I'm not sure if I was on the right drugs to really like it.

I don't know what this sounds like to the older generation. I just know that, to me, it sounds like sooooooo many white kids who think they're gonna gansta rap but trail off when one of the three black kids in school walk past. I know that they Matter, but it just sounds overprocessed and undercooked. I think it's one of the reasons it took me a while to actually like rap.

Are they ashamed of being metal? This album buries the lede, like they need to ease you into it. It has a few good moments, but I never felt inspired. I think I'm a bit harsher on this than I should be because I partially blame this album for Limp Bizkit.

First things first, this album is soooooooo long. I've seen shorter Ridley Scott Director's Cuts. And it's not that interesting. I don't hate any of it, but it's just crushingly long. This is a terrible album with quite a bit of good music in it. This is not a good format.

I don't like the sound of Brian Wilson songs. I don't know what it is. I appreciate the complexities and nuances in his work when I'm listening for it, but I don't like the sound he's going for. The Beach Boys songs without him are dumber and emptier, but I tend to like them more (although I'm still not big on them). I honestly don't know what it is. I can't hate this, but I can't like it, either.

It's... fine. It's nowhere close to Mothership Connection. It has some moments, but it's mostly letting someone solo for a while, and this is funk. I want jams, not solos. I also don't want people talking. We want the funk, give up the funk.

I like the beat, I like the flow, the singing style and accent is hard to make out sometimes, but I could see this growing on me.

I prefer later Queen to their first three albums, but it's still fun.

It does a good job of mixing in some prog and acid into a country rock album. The guitar and organ on Chest Fever are classic. It's a good debut, but the singer and vocal mixing has a hard time keeping my attention.

I'm not a huge fan of new wave, but I liked this throughout.

This is more on the prog side of Genesis. I know this is the "wrong" opinion, but I like Genesis better after Gabriel left. I also like Gabriel better after Gabriel left. They both experimented with actually trying to make hits while still having a unique sound, and it worked great for all of them. This is still good, but Gabriel and Collins both have even better music ahead of them.

Mother is weirder than I expected, but I liked this album. King of Pain might be my favorite on here.

This hopefully ends a full week of classic rock albums. I like classic rock, but I was hoping for more variety. I guess the random number generator can't win them all. As for the album, it's okay. I'd take either of the Doors' first two albums over this, but it was a fun listen.

I like some James Brown here and there, but he gets old after a whole album. Also, it kinda defends itself as a live album, but not enough.

Cee Lo has a solid flow and great beats backing him up. He's also a clever lyricist. And I believe him as angry, cool, and smooth, but he's unconvincing when he's trying to convince me to have sex with him.

This is a double album. The first album is one of the best albums I've ever heard. The second doesn't hold up, but it's still really good. There's so many great songs that I don't need to comment on the hits. I want to highlight This Song Has No Title, which is a fascinating poem that John brings to life. Roy Rogers was also an unexpected gem. This also made me actually focus on Bennie and The Jets, and I like it a lot more not that I understand it.

I liked a couple of the early songs, but I can't get past the singing choice. I just don't like the sound.

I thought it was fine. Some of the songs got a bit repetitive, but that's not unique among new wave. I always find it funny when Brits act like Reagan was the epitome of right wing terribleness while they're in the midst of the Thatcher government.

Another album with a controversial cover. I'm not a huge grunge fan, but this album is probably the best I've heard.

It's fun.

This is not the Bee Gees I'm familiar with. I had to look them up, because I only knew them as a disco act. It's surprising that Stayin' Alive, which might be THE most famous disco song, was recorded by a group that formed almost thirty years before. This isn't disco. It sounds like they're going for late Beatles, which makes sense. The Beatles are gone, somebody has to fill the role. After a read of their discography, they seem to be trend chasers. That's not really a problem, but it does lead to the fundamental problem with this album, that it just blends in. It's good, I think, but it's nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing fun. It's what remains when a genre moves on. It's doing it right, three years late.

I liked it. I'm familiar with the hits, and the rest of it keeps that same feel. I wasn't blown away, but I had a good time.

It's a bit punk, a bit glam, and the lead singer sounds like Mick Jagger. It's alright.

It was fine. Not my thing.

This is different from the Tom Waits I'm familiar with, but it makes sense. He's always been primarily jazz and blues, and secondarily weird, so a jazz/beat poetry album fits. It works, I guess, but there's nothing specifically to recommend musically here. There wasn't a single track that I perked up at.

I did not know This Flight Tonight was by Mitchell. I also did not know Nazareth was Scottish. I thought they were Canadian. I blame CanCon. Mitchell is a very emotional singer; she can sell a song that I would otherwise find boring. I would expect to like this more on subsequent listens (I love Brandi Carlile, and am getting a similar feeling), but nothing hooked me enough to really love it at this point.

It's a better album than most electronica. It's grating at times, but there is a bit there that I like. I just don't think I do the right drugs for this genre.

I listened to this album three times. Every time, I just didn't care. Which is why I listened to it three times. It's just nothing to me, like hold music or distant construction sounds.

This is a great album, but Petty hasn't quite hit his stride yet. He's got so many albums that edge this out. He really gets going by Damn the Torpedoes.

It's Woodie Guthrie's lyrics, sung by Bragg, music by Bragg and Wilco. Even Guthrie's half finished cast offs are pretty good, and Bragg and Wilco do a good job with a modern recording that is still rooted in early folk. Brgg was a great choice for this, but I'm not familiar enough with Wilco to know how much of them is in this. All in all, it's good for what it is, and I'll probably give this more credit if I give it another listen.

It grew on me. I guess I have more positive feelings overall than with any individual song. Also, it's weird to name your music group after an intentionally unpleasant sound.

I can't get past the whisper/mumble and gooey mixing on this. It just rubs me wrong.

Mostly enjoyable. The Love Hurts cover was interesting, and the Emmylou Harris song is pretty good, but it didn't blow me away.

This is another album that I think is not created for listening by yourself for this project. I don't rave, but this is more interesting than most rave music I've heard.

Meh? It seems weak for the Beach Boys. I'm not much of a Beach Boys fan, but this lacks the engineering and composition that makes them fun and engaging.

This kind of music gets stale for me pretty fast, but he's killing it lyrically. He's quite good at one narrow kind of performance. It also reminded me of how divisive Tipper Gore was, to the point that she's the only Second Lady that I can remember.

I keep listening to it, hoping I get it, but I don't. It's not bad, certainly. It's lyrically pretty interesting, but it rehashes the same themes, both musically and lyrically, enough to find it a bit boring. There's also no standout song I'm ready to throw down money for. It's got the big problem of a super group without being one: Pop and Bowie don't build on each other. It's fine, but I'd rather listen to a real Bowie song or a real Stooges song.

Something about this album is putting me in a worse mood, and I don't know what it is. It's just uncomfortable. And I gave it two listens. I think this is the first album I'm giving a one and can't tell you why I hate it.

I liked it musically. Lyrically, I don't know the language, so I can't judge.

What am I supposed to do to this? It's not enough to dance to, but it's definitely not enough to think about. Maybe the boots and cats works, but it doesn't believe in it. I'm not sure it believes in anything.

This list has made me numb to 90's Britrock. I guess this is technically the 80's, but still. It's not bad, but I couldn't pull this out of the post-new wave milieu.

This was a lot better than I expected. The previous Getz record I listened to was Getz/Gilberto, which was an occasionally compelling album undermined by the proto-ASMR singer. This is significantly better, but I don't know how to rate jazz. Getz is a great saxophonist. He makes a tenor sound warm and fluid. It's a good listen, but I don't really have the urge to listen to most jazz pieces again. I could definitely learn something from this, and I guess I will give it another listen or two, but this isn't hitting the spot for me.