I'm reminded once again (this is my 2nd Wonder album from the list) how good a musician Stevie Wonder is. Some stunning songs on this album including one of my favourites, Higher Ground. Unfortunately there are a few I like a bit less because too poppy for me (Don't you worry about a thing) or tooo smooooth and romcom outro-like. But that's being picky, this album absolutely needs to be on the list esp. given how well it aged.

I have always liked PIL but only knew a few songs. Listening to this album was great. Johnny's voice is marmite, but musically this album surprised me. Yes there is punk but not quite the Sex Pistols, there is Prog Rock but not quite Can, and there is hard edge funk bass but not quite TC Matic. Interesting rather than enjoyable, but worth a place on the list.

This has definitely been the discovery for me so far (25 albums in). I thought I kind-of knew EWF and classified them with with commercial '70 kitsch disco (think Boney M) which I hate with a passion. How wrong was I! This is an amazing sounding, soulful, funky and at times jazzy album. Excellent musicianship and most songs are just top class, groovy, can't-sit-still tracks. Even the ones I like the least (the ballads like All About Love) are good. But Africano, what a stonker of a funk track (as are several others)! It's a 4 or a 5 but I'll give it a 5 because it made my day, and I can't really find anything wrong with it. Note to self: buy the album.

I was looking forward to this album... Skunk Anansie was part of life when I was a student and I saw them live, and liked it them. However I didn't enjoy this album. I was actually really happy when it was over, musically not bad but not genius either, a bit monotonous and I found Skin's vocals (which I used to find interesting, and I like Skin as a person and role model) quite tiring and shouty. They have even thrown in an operatic voice at some point, which was lost on me. This has unfortunately not aged well for me.

Of course I know Björk but not this album. I never was a true fan (for some reason I viscerally hate "It' Oh So Quiet"), mostly because of the Marmite vocals that can border on vocal acrobatics to my ears. BUT I not so in this album, which I liked. All songs are good (I like the last one best I think), atmospheric, and this album definitely has a place among the 1001.

Nice, some songs surprisingly Beatles like. Entwistle's bass is interesting. Did not move me very much emotionally but a pleasant listen with no bad songs on the album.

Sounds very familiar of course. Great songwriting, great vocal harmonies. Just not for me. Too goody-goody and too reminiscent of priests.

Not a connoisseur of the Kinks but I like some of their songs, so had fairly high expectations of this album. I was quite disappointed, and would have skipped several songs of I hadn't committed to listening to the entire album. I was quite bored. There is a nice Englishness about the album and I'm sure it was influential, but not really for me. Not a fan of Ray Davies' vocals and most songs did not move me at all. Melodically the songs are good/ very good but lacking in other aspects of musicality for me (I like songs like You Really Got Me better, but it's not on this album).

Great that I "had to" listen to this album again since a long time. One of the more intimate REM ones, and I love it (I also love their earlier work). Lots of fabulous songs and the opening track (Drive)... superb as are Night Swimming, Everybody Hurts and pretty much the entire album.

It works for me. Sort of heavy bluesy metal. Doesn't get a five because it's musically quite simple, based on a good guitar groove, usually picked up by the bass too. Ozzy's recognisable vocals. Songs are all quite similar; I like this sound but tire of it quite quickly. But, it does what it does, very well.

I liked this more than I thought I would! I only knew one song but I think the whole album could grow on me (even if not 100% my cup of tea). There is some seriously good musicianship and the songs sound fresh even 50 years later. No bad songs on the album (and there are some SW songs I really don't like like Cherie Amour). A chilled, quite poppy album, nothing offensive or overly cheesy here.

Even though I am a Neil Young fan, I didn't know this album. I enjoyed it! Not quite like Harvest or After The Gold Rush but the songs are very good, just maybe a bit less "wow", but great all the same.

Great album, it rocks, has nice grooves, excellent vocals, there's an element of fun too. Would be even better live than recorded I'd think.

Bob Dylan fan here so what can I say... a great record and reminds me of my student years (not that I studied in the '70s). Beautiful melodies, great storytelling.

I was looking forward to this album... Skunk Anansie was part of life when I was a student and I saw them live, and liked it them. However I didn't enjoy this album. I was actually really happy when it was over, musically not bad but not genius either, a bit monotonous and I found Skin's vocals (which I used to find interesting, and I like Skin as a person and role model) quite tiring and shouty. They have even thrown in an operatic voice at some point, which was lost on me. This has unfortunately not aged well for me.

I went back and forth between mild enjoyment and boredom. This album has elements of hip-hop, rock and pop; I normally like cross-over but in this case it didn't really work for me. The lyrics did not save the day. OK for a few songs but not an entire album for me. Not sure if this is a must-hear album.

This is really well made punk, maybe it sounds even " too good"? After all, punk is not supposed to be about clever musicality, it is about raw expression of emotion (usually anger). So maybe I like the Sex Pistols better, or laer punk crossovers. But, this is a very good album and Simonon is a great and a bit of a musician's bassist.

Of course I know Björk but not this album. I never was a true fan (for some reason I viscerally hate "It' Oh So Quiet"), mostly because of the Marmite vocals that can border on vocal acrobatics to my ears. BUT I not so in this album, which I liked. All songs are good (I like the last one best I think), atmospheric, and this album definitely has a place among the 1001.

An interesting discovery! In a way, I'm not sure what to think of it, it is an eclectic mish-mash. There's 60s, surf, glam rock, a bit of grunge,... but it's really well done. I need to listen to this more and see how it develops. Extra stars for creativity and musicianship, and it's made within miles from where I live!

Like most Beatles albums, it has some songs I really like (Come Together, Here Comes The Sun) but also some songs that I can't stand, on this album for example Maxwell's Silver Hammer (on other albums songs like Yellow Submarine and Hey Jude). But overall, one can't ignore that this is a very creative and influential album... for these reasons I should certainly give it a 5 and it is absolutely a "must hear" album. But 4 it will be for me just because I don't really enjoy it as a full album.

An album full of greats songs. I love Dusty's recognisable voice and the music/orchestration is great too. Listening to this album I feel like it sounds just right. There are no bad songs. Is it a 4 or a 5? Go on then, a 5.

You could say the songs are a bit samey but I'd call it consistency which is a good thing when in the mood for this album. I love it; no bad songs and a few really good ones. This is early synth pop (?) and, with Kraftwerk, sounds like it but it stays fresh even today.

Does not sound unpleasant, it is cheerful and could be good for parties. Musically it is very simple/ a bit boring though; bog standard pop time measures and chord changes. I wouldn't "listen" to this album, it would be background at best. So, can't give it more than 2* even though it sounds alright (like a million other pop albums).

I have this album and I always come back to it. I'll give it 5* because it's perfect (for me) in what it does. Very atmospheric, creative, and it just sounds great. Acoustic and electronic instruments well mixed.

This is a five for me. A genius guitarist who does not "show off" but always prioritises musicality. Very recognisable style yet varied and never boring. I'm not that much into latin styles but this is fantastic. I knew several songs from the album but never listened to it in its entirety. Every song is good. For all these reasons and because Santana is really influential, a decent five.

A very sensual, smooth album. Sade has a great voice but the musicians (esp. the rhythm section) are great too. Great to chill.

Very funky, I love it! I only wished it wasn't as full on the whole time, a bit more dynamics (quieter sections) would have been easier on the ears. But, fabulous musicianship and so much fun.

Atmospheric and I generally love the sound but none of the songs moves me. It is really mostly about the soundscape and I wouldn't play this for a proper listen, it's (good) background music for me. I like better find this a very hard album to score... on a good day I could give it a 4 and on a bad day a 2. A three then.

Another hard one to score. Lo-fi, sometimes folky, sometimes rocky and Pixies reminiscent, even a bit of disco. I like the sound but it doesn't really move me. Not sure if this is a "must hear" album. On a good day it's a 3.

I was really looking forward to this album... I like Otis Redding and this is supposedly his best album (I must admit I had never listen to a full Redding album before). I still like Otis Redding but this album is only a 3 for me. The reasons are that I find it hart to give a very high score for a (mostly) cover album. Redding only wrote three of the songs. And for the music, he could count on the Stax session musicians (which are amazing), it's not "his" band. Also, the songs sound great, but a bit same-ish.

I saw the film on a plane and bought the CD soon after. People say a lot about political (in)correctness of the Gangsta Rap album (first of its kind?) but I think that's missing the point. This is definitely an album where it's not just about the tunes, but also about the context. I find this a very authentic album and culturally very important. Just for that it is definitely a Must Hear album. Does it sound good too? To me, yes (and I'm not a real rap fan).

Phew, glad this is over. It started alright... interesting voice, the courage to make long (about 10') songs anno 2024. But I got tired of it really quickly and it was a struggle to finish the album. If you have a very characteristic voice it helps to vary the actual songs, ore use your voice differently, but she doesn't. All songs are long and sound the same (actually, in that sense an album of fifty 1' songs would not have sounded much different). Folky, same singing style, same sprinkle of harp (it doesn't help I'm nor really into folk any more and don't like harp). I'll give it a 2 because it is not without merit. Bur definitely not a must-hear album for me.

Totally not my thing, but being "forced" to listen to the album I must say it is really well made and the vocals are great (Beyoncé and the others, and their harmonies). Musically not daft either. I got a bit tired of it towards the end but I feel for its legacy it deserves a place among the 1001. Great album if you're into slick, well (overly?) produced commercial, poppy soul I suppose. Not my taste. But well made.

This has definitely been the discovery for me so far (25 albums in). I thought I kind-of knew EWF and classified them with with commercial '70 kitsch disco (think Boney M) which I hate with a passion. How wrong was I! This is an amazing sounding, soulful, funky and at times jazzy album. Excellent musicianship and most songs are just top class, groovy, can't-sit-still tracks. Even the ones I like the least (the ballads like All About Love) are good. But Africano, what a stonker of a funk track (as are several others)! It's a 4 or a 5 but I'll give it a 5 because it made my day, and I can't really find anything wrong with it. Note to self: buy the album.

Sounds very nice with excellent vocal harmonies and that recognisable guitar sound. Great songs too but (because) most of them are covers incl. Bob Dylan's. Their own material is a bit limited and (I've done some background reading) some of the songs (incl. Tambourine Man) are played by session musicians rather than the band themselves. So, even though I liked listening to this album, I can't give it a very high score. If they had composed and played all of the songs themselves it would have been a 4 or a 5.

I have (and love) Licence to ill, student days and all that. One of the first albums that got me interested in hip-hop too. But I didn't know Paul's Boutique. I loved it. It doesn't have the hits of Licence to Ill but is more coherent and just sounds great (I love the basslines too). The use of samples is very clever. My only slight gripe is that the vocals are a bit too omnipresent for me (and quite samey). A more restrained use of vocals and a greater emphasis on the music would have been a 5* for me. Still a great album and worthy of the 1001 list.

A collection of excellent songs completely messed up. A covers album is never going to get a very high rating by me, but this is an especially bad one. On the plus side, Ute Lemper can sing (technically - I personally don't like her cabaret style at all). She seems to go for a different sound for every song, sometimes going for a classical sauce (\"let's thrown in some violins and some harp, oh but we have a drumkit lying around too\"), sometimes more poppy or acoustic... I have disliked all the arrangements, and there is no vision on the album. I initially wanted to give it a 2 because at least she has a good (my :-)) taste for composers, and she can sing, but then most buskers I have recently heard can sing, too, so a 1 it will be. Bad. No idea why this is in the list.

Really pleasant sounding country/ alternative. More background than 'listening' music for me I think.

OMG I so can't stand this album. 100% NOT my thing, which makes it really hard to give it a rating. She can obviously sing, technically speaking. But it's OK to sing... a... note. You don't need to convert every single note into a piece of two-octave acrobatics containing the full Mixolydian scale. Despite (because of?) this it's all a bit samey and lacks the soul that soul (I believe that's what this is?) is supposed to have. I listened to all songs but could not sit through any in full. Life is too short. I'll give it two starts rather than one because singing like this must be hard and she made me appreciate other music more. Maybe she deserves to be in the list because after all she's famous.

I love Moby and have this album but I like the other two I have (Animal Right and 18) more. I like the sound of it and some songs are great with clever use of samples. But it's not very varied. I'd give it 4* just because I like it, but I think in a list like this, it only deserves a 3*.

I really love this tango inspired album, sometimes a bit more jazzy, sometimes almost trip-hop (think Portishead). Sensual cover too. One of those albums I can listen to, or have it as background. It never gets in the way but isn't dull at all either. I saw them live 20 years (?) ago and it was really good.

I'm glad I discovered this album, it sounds good and inoffensive (for a rap album). Which is also my gripe - I like my rap with a rougher edge. This sounds a bit too mainstream/poppy almost. But it's a good album. Some funky touches. The lyrics are meaningful (and I believe the whole album is, from a cultural and black identity perspective) but IMO not especially cleverly written. So, for me, a fine album but a bit "meh".

I'm reminded once again (this is my 2nd Wonder album from the list) how good a musician Stevie Wonder is. Some stunning songs on this album including one of my favourites, Higher Ground. Unfortunately there are a few I like a bit less because too poppy for me (Don't you worry about a thing) or tooo smooooth and romcom outro-like. But that's being picky, this album absolutely needs to be on the list esp. given how well it aged.

This rock album has a lot to go for it. Tyler's vocals are instantly recogniseable, the musicians are good and the songs are catchy. For me personally it is an 'almost' on most scores and therefore it sits in the... what do you call the opposite of a 'sweet spot'? Despite the (well cultivated?) rowdy looks and behaviour of the band, I find the songs quite soft, a bit cliché, and commercial sounding. I can see the appeal and many songs are quite fun, I'm sure it's good on parties. Apparently, this album (and Aerosmith in general) has had a great influence on other musicians, some of which I do like, and I agree that this album deserves to be in the list of 1001. In terms of musical creativity and emotional appeal it's a bit lacking for me.

This album sounds nice. But maybe that's all I can say about it. Definitely wallpaper music for me (but very good wallpaper music) - I expected more based on my vague memories from hearing The XX on the radio. Some songs are very reminiscent of Ozark Henry, which I find better.

Not a huge country fan bit this sounded very good. But there is absolutely nothing surpising in most of the songs, they are quite 'cliché' for lack of a better word. Of course that is also why some people will dig it. Not sure why this is on the list because I hear nothing groundbreaking in it, it could have been written 50 years ago. But - perfect country voice, good songswriting and the album just sounds 'cozy'.

One of my favourite albums, ever, period. Jeff Buckley manages to do more with less, just his amazing voice and a well written song does the job. His own compositions are really good (and are the majority of songs on the album) but his interpretation of the classics Hallelujah and (my personal favourite) Lilac Wine is otherworldly. I never tire of those songs and this 54 year old bloke rarely keeps it dry listening to those songs. Not only is this an amazing album, it is a real legacy album by an artist who died way too young. Very sad. A very easy 5* for me.

A mixed bag for me. I thought I'd like this more, based on the New Order songs I know - but I had never listened to a full album. It is a good album, but not very coherent. Some songs are just too much like run-off-the-mill electro-pop songs. This album sounds quite cheerful which I can't blame the band for, but I like a bit darker, heavier, more atmospheric sound. I feel this should be on the list when seen in its late 1980's context, though.

Nothing wrong with this album at all. Rock with some punk influences but also poppy. The songs are quite varied but Chrissy Hynde's vocals are - however excellent her voice is - too monotonous or me. Almost every phrase ends with the exact same signature vibrato. This album leaves me a bit wanting even though some individual songs are really good.

I used to listen to blues quite a lot but never much to BB King, always found him a bit boring compared to my favourites (JL Hooker, Johnny Winter, Howlin' Wolf, Roland Van Campenhout, etc.). This feeling was confirmed with this album. It's all typical (cliché?) 12-bar blues with each taking turns for quite predicable solos. I hadn't heard any of the songs, yet I felt like I heard them 100 times before already. On the plus side, I can see that IF this is your thing, this album does it very well. BB King's singing and guitar playing are good and there is a nice live vibe. But I think the status of this album probably relies on its legacy more than the music itself. So "must hear before you die"? Probably yes. "More than once?", for me a no.

Pixies, one of my favourite bands! They were hot when I was in uni and I remember when this album came out. I have always loved their quirky mix of punk, rock and grunge. Very recognisable sound. Lyrics don't make much sense which makes them at least much better than bad lyrics. Simple but highly effective bass lines from Kin Deal, and aggressive yet musical guitar by Black Francis. Only giving it a 4 because I don't think this is their best album, a bit too poppy at times, but a great band.

Great album, I used to listen to it a lot in the late eighties and early nineties. Radio Free Europe was the first REM song I heard and I loved the sound. I like the fairly basic (in a good way) rocky sound whilst it is also melodic and Michael Stipe's voice contributes a lot to the quality of the songs. Crisp guitars and a very functional rhythm session complete the picture. Maybe not their very best album but excellent still! And it has aged well.

I hadn't heard of Gene Clark, ex Byrd apparently, but this album was a good listen. Most songs (not all, e.g. the title song) sound very Neil Young like, just not quite as good. The main difference being the voice... I know Neil Young "can't sing" but his voice is 100x more musical and interesting. Gene Clark "can sing" but his voice is a bit dull. Good songs, not amazing, but as my wife said "pleasant while reading a book".

I'm glad I forced myself to listen to this album in its entirety because it was off or a bad start. Your typical 12-bar blues I've heard too many times. But it gest better after the first two songs and is a nice rocky album, I think. With even some walking bass lines outside of a jazz setting but it works. I'll give it another listen. Not the most amazing or groundbreaking album, also I don't like the fact that they have cobbled together this album, it is not a true live album of one gig. But some songs are great.

I loved this album! Perfect flower power, perfect chill music. Quite varied too and Zilch was a pleasant surprise.

I found this utterly boring but I also recognise it's well made. This might even grow on me but I'll never know. Too much other, better music to listen to. It is quite varied, with interesting quirks but then he usually falls back to the R&B I just don't like. Still a 3. Not sure if this is a Must Hear album.

Yawn. This is really predictable 1960s soul even though to me it's lacking the latter. I read he is a preacher, I'm not surprised. Give me James Brown or Otis Redding any time, but this album is historical interest only (I think). A 2* because he sings OK and I suppose it's not bad 'in its genre'.

This is a great, atmospheric album. The superb vocals runs smoothly and pleasantly like a river and are complemented by the minimalistic snappy electronic accompaniment. Yes it's very same-ish but in a good way - you could almost see this as one very long, great song. So it works great as a genuine "album" and I'll happily listen to this many times again. I like the smooth trip-hop sound.

Trypical 1990's grunge, which I like but this is just not the best. Not bad either, just a bit 'meh'.

Yes it's boring monotonic electronic music if you "listen" to it, but that's not what it's meant for. I can imagine it works really well on the dance floor. And the Chemical Brothers are influential, so I understand this is in the list. 1-2* for musical quality, 4-5* it its genre, a 3* it will be then.

A mixed bag, this one. Some nice songs (incl. the opening track) but half of the songs are quite boring 12-bar blues or classical Rock and Roll, which survive mostly because because of John Fogerty's recognisable voice which is the main asset of the album for me.

There is a lot to like, but this just isn't for me. Too soft and poppy to be metal, I always think of this as teenage girls' "heavy music". (nothing wrong with that) Axl's vocals are very good but a bit same'ish. Slash certainly can play the guitar. I'll still give it a 4* because I'm in a good mood, it's an influential album, and it certainly has its qualities. Won't switch if off when it's on the radio but won't get the album either.

Less boring than what I was expecting for a house/ dance album. Some clever tunes and nice bass lines. D.A.N.C.E. is very catchy.

What an album! Every song is fantastically creative and this is 1967 - a very influential album that sounds very "period" but still fresh at the same time. A very easy 5*.

How come I didn't know this, as a Pixies fan! It's great, has enough punk vibe but also much more clever than what came before in terms of musicality. The songs are varied and I'll definitely listen to this again. 5* because it's so good and fresh after all those years.

Very good, well made but unspectacular pop. I like their first albums better.

This album weas, in one word, great fun! I only knew (and loved) This Town Ain't Big Enough for the Both of Us but didn't know the band name, let alone I listened to an album. The album is eclectic, often combining many genres even within one song... there is punk, glam rock (lots), symphonic elements. In some way, it works together well. Good musicianship and great vocals; no bad songs but they're not all of "This Town (...)" level. This album has aged well, after 50 years it sounds fresh. I'm sure The Darkness have listened to this. I will definitely listen again.

That's what you get when you own a "best of" album. You get to completely re-discover aspects of an artist when listening to full albums. That was very much the case here. I love Bowie but only knew one song from this album. Loved all of it though, more instrumental than I expected, and esp. the "B side" was unexpected (Brian Eno, good job). Sometimes, as with most art, it's difficult to explain WHY you love it, but I do. A true album that just works, the songs follow each other beautifully.

I always liked Billy Bragg and own a few albums (not this one). However I also have to admit I don't put them on. So do I WANT to like him more than I actually do? Like other albums, I love the songs but an entire album tends to be a bit much. Likes: excellent melodic songs with some punk influences which I like, a socially engaged artist. Dislikes: given that the lyrics are so important, they are not that poetic - it's all a bit straightforward (non layered). His voice I find hard for an entire album. It's not very musical and a bit shouty (fits the lyrics though). It doesn't help that it's produced quite echo'y as if it was recorded live in a tube station. Which again, fits the content of the songs, but it's just a but much for an entire album. So I'm only giving it a 3* but they are the best 3* ever! Would be 4* or 5* if I just enjoyed listening to it more.

I knew very little from this band, it's not really my thing. But I have to say it's well made and well mastered - the album sounds great. It has dance aspects (and the repetitiveness that goes with it which is good on a dance floor but less so in a living room), but it's more/ better than daft dance music. Some groovy lines in there. A 3* because it's not really my thing and it doesn't sound that novel to me. Still a fine album.

Typical 1950's Rock & Roll that, to me, sounds very dated and predictable in 2024, but I appreciate it was probably trendsetting back then. From that era, I feel there was much better music around in the jazz scene. But if good ole' R&R is your thing then I suppose this is a perfect album. Doesn't move me at all though.

What a discovery! I had never heard of Can, how is that possible? I truly enjoyed this album. Fantastic soundscapes, never a dull moment, an eclectic mix of styles (there isn't a genre not mentioned on the Wikipedia page) but is fits together coherently. Some nice grooves too. Cleverly made but not in a show-off way. I will definitely listen to this again, buy it, explore the band. Thank you 1001 Albums, this is why I do it.

Atmospheric electronic music with (probably Marmite) vocals. I quite like the sound of it, but it's nothing groundbreaking... if this was made in the 1970s, yes, but not in 2009. The album sounds pleasant enough, almost like one long song, but I'm not sure if it is "must hear before you die".

This album sounds great. Catchy poppy songs 'with added value', good vocal harmonies, some nice rhythms too. Has a Beach Boys and Beatles ring to it. Sounds very American for some reason but they're British. A 3 or a 4, but because they started in 1961 I think the band must have been innovative, and the songs, although clearly testament to the 60s, still sound fresh.

Catchy, uncomplicated, happy and very well made songs with elements of ska and punk. No bad song on the album - and it's their debut! I don't believe the band intended to make Art Music with this but if they wanted to make "fun" music they have certainly succeeded. Not a super high start rating for me because it's pretty simple, just not very novel and it's not something that triggers more than one listen to me (well some songs I've hear 100 x on the radio). But really good at what it does!

If you're going to call yourself a genius, your album better be half decent. But oh my, what a pain listening through all of this. The first half is mostly plain bluesy songs, given a Big Band make-over. I hate it with a passion (I'd actively switch this off if it was on the radio) but I appreciate it's a matter of taste, if this is your thing, fine, enjoy! Songwriting skills isn't Charles' saving grace - he didn't write any! He is basically an OK singer and piano player, like many others. The second half initially got on my nerves much less and there are some fine songs (again, not his'), if only that omnipresent background choir had gone for a drink during the recordings. Less can be more, if you have a decent song as a starting point. I can imagine they would actually be quite good if e.g. Elvis Costello would sing them. I'll round it up to a 2* for historical reasons. Phew, I hope it's not Frank Sinatra or so tomorrow!

I really wanted to like this album. I like at least some hip-hop (I gave NWA a 5*), because I like the music or (very often) for its significance, or both. And Kendrick Lamar is supposed to be "the man" currently when it comes to quality hip-hop. Wins all the awards. Unfortunately, and I tried hard, I don't see it. It doesn't appeal to me musically as much as some other hip-hop and the lyrics, while meaningful, are not very poetic and still full of "nigga", "dick" and "pussy". OK in the 1980's but by now I hoped people had moved on. I'm going to listen to some more Lamar albums and hope I "get it" one day but for now, I don't.

This is an easy one as it tick all the boxes for me. Influential album? Tick. Innovative sound? Tick. Just plain amazing music? Tick. Bluesy Rock with a great rhythm section and amazing vocals by Robert Plant. Always functional and the album sounds fresh, all instruments can be heard individually, it's not a "soup of sound". My only minor issue, as with some other older stereo albums (Beatles very guilty of this) the sound for individual instruments sometimes sits completely on one side or moves wildly from left to right and back - a bit nauseous esp. with headphones. Still, if this isn't a 5* I don't know what is.

Perfect early metal from Ozzy and co! A very influential album too. I like that it still sounds very musical, not a compressed impenetrable wall of distorted guitars.

I used to look down on everyhing with even a whiff of Disco - new wave and other cool music was where it's at! Getting older I no longer care, I listen to everything and anything, as long as it is good music. Chic has definitely been added to that list! I started to appreciate them when I started playing the bass. I'm an extremely poor bassist but I know a good bassline when I hear it and Bernard Edwards' are the best ever. Just genius. I could happily listen to just the rhythm section of any Chic song, the basics are all there and it would take rubbish musicians to completely mess songs with that good a foundation. Luckily, Rodgers' guitar is more than fine. The vocals, alright, but I couldn't care less. Very close to 5* even though Disco still isn't really my thing. My only minor nitpick is that the variation on the album isn't that great (within and between songs), they found a 'recipe' and follow it throughout. I'm never suprised by a sudden creative twist. Still an excellent album.

The first listen was "meh" (really well made but "vanilla" pop sogs). The second, more careful listen was really nice! The music is good and very well produced, it sounds great with lots of musical detail and an expressive voice. The lyrics are also good. Will listen again! Not a 5* because it is not ground-breaking and songs are a bit same-ish but a nice album all the same. A 3 or 4 but go on then, I'm in a good mood, a 4* (not that anyone cares ;-)).

I love everything White Stripes, it's the rawness and the authenticity, not the musical perfection! Even though Jack White is a fantastic guitar player. The band definitely belongs in the list - not sure about this specific album, I think there are some I like more.

I think I like this Aerosmith better than their later work. Less hair-rocky, Tyler's voice is less dominating and some songs have a rough edge. Still, there is something about it that doesn't click with me, it's probably too much influenced by traditional (Jerry Lee Lewis, Bill Haley) rock and roll for me. Those typical rhythm guitars. There are several instances where I thought they were going to squeeze in "great balls of fire". It's not a bad album, but in the mid 70's you also had Led Zeppelin, Queen, Black Sabbath, Pink Floyd and the like... compared to those bands this album is rather conventional and well-behaved.

PJ Harvey is one of my favourite musicians ever, or I'd rather say one of my favourite artists. PJ does not make music to please the masses and I get that the rawness and dynamics in this album isn't everyone's cup of tea. But I find it amazing. I'd buy the album even if it just had the opening song. Whenever I listen to PJ Harvey (any of her albums) I feel like I'm listening to a person, not just a song. There is something about her music that (when I'm in the right mood) connects straight to my brain without any resistance. Can't explain it. This is creative, raw, authentic art.

This album is tight as anything, great rhythm section and it has a nice energy. My only problem (a personal thing) is that I find David Byrne's voice quite a-musical, almost robot-like in character. And it's right upfront in the mix so it dominates strongly. Which is probably exactly the intent and it does "work" but I get tired of it for an entire record. But I have to say this album is perfectly good in many ways.

I'd been wanting give The Fall a good listen for a while - after all they are (were) from the area where I live now and have a bit of a cult following. So this album was very welcome. I liked it, not loved it. It ticks a lot of boxes for me (as someone who grew up with the Pixies etc.), sounds good but not "polished", and there are some good basslines. But few songs touched me and it's not an album I'd put on very often.

I've listened to this album twice now and it's not going to stop at that. This is jazz how I like it, to be enjoyed with focus (but it works as background music too). It's as if you are in the studio with the musicians just enjoying and wondering what they'd come up with next. Nothing is predicable, but at the same time nothing is just to show off, it all serves a purpose. Nice variation in instruments/ solos. There are a (very) few phrases reminiscent of what came before like swing style jazz, which I don't like. But it's mostly (hard) bop - not sure what that means but if it's jazz with bop in it I usually love it :-). Nearly 70 years old but still sounds great. A 5* for me!

If this album was food, it would be vanilla ice cream. Not the fancy homemade one with real Madagascar vanilla, but the 1.5 pound-a-tub supermarket variety. Do I enjoy such ice cream? Well yes, even bad ice cream is good! But it won't win any Michelin stars. In the same vain, this album doesn't sound bad. Very inoffensive electronic-based songs. But if you told be this was AI generated I'd believe it. It's just very bland, I can see no reason to play this record either for a critical listen or as background music. If this was made in the 1960's I could see why it ended up in the list, but in the 2010's? I'll give it a 2*; a 1* would be if it met all of the above but also sounded bad.

What a fantastic album. Well, anything PJ Harvey is fantastic in my book. This album is one of her most accessible ones (that being said, I like the rawness of her first few albums a LOT). Every song is good, many are absolute marvels, and there is a nice coherence across the album. Fantastic musicians too and I especially like Thom Yorke's contributions. This Mess We're In, what a stonker of a song! Definitely a 5* for me.

Pleasant surprise! I had never heard of Common, but find rap/hip-hop quite interesting so was keen to listen to it. I was hoping for a good one, because I had Kendrick Lamar last week, with high expectations, and was disappointed. This album I liked. The opening track was a very good start, which helps. The songs are quite varied and not all equally good, but many had interesting samples and good grooves. Common seems to be (like many rappers) a socially engaged person (and I'll take Michelle Obama's word for it). I'll definitely listen again. Is it a 3* (because do I _want_ to like hip-hop more than I actually do) of a 4* (because I haven't heard many better hip-hop albums, but not all songs are top)?

Sometimes one wonders why albums even exist... The singer apparently did not plan to be a musician and only joined the band out of boredom - but then why is this music still so boring and same-ish? Every song sounds the same and not in a good way. They are all thirteen-to-the-dozen pop tunes. The single "Lovefool" is probably the most catchy one of the bunch. Still nothing novel or anything like that, and I am clueless why this is on the "must hear" list. I'll give it a 2* because some of the arrangements are quite good and it's not _that_ bad, just (or did I mention this already) boring. Sorry for the boring review.

I knew two songs from the album (we al do: Wild World and Father and Son) and love them. But there are no bad songs on this whole album. It brabbles along like a gentle river. Yes, it's poppy and "uncomplicated" but it just sounds great. Cat (Sufjan)'s voice is of course very recognisable with its grain and nasal tone and I like it. This album does the job very well - not a 4 or a 5 because I keep those for more innovative and creative work, but this album is near perfect in its niche of sheer enjoyable melodic pop songs.

A really nice reggae album by one of the great names. Exactly as you'd expect it to sound, which is not bad.

Another pleasant surprise! I was expecting over the top kitsch funk, which I associate with later Parliament Funkadelic stuff. However, this album is a much more eclectic mix witch echoes of Jimi Hendrix (lots), Led Zeppelin, and the use of sounds à la Pink Floyd. It all works together really well. I'd give it a 3 because it's not something I'd play often, but it gets an extra point for creativity and musicianship.

Nick Cave fan here, but I had never listened to The Birthday Party (shame on me). I liked the raw energy. I like early Cave and in a way this album is that, but extrapolated. A bit too much for my liking... I found it quite tiring to listen to the album in its entirety.

Great, fun, energetic punk/rock. Not giving it a very high rating because after all, it is all very simple and same'ish musically. But I enjoyed the album. It's all about the drive and the energy.

This is yet another covers album from the 1950's. The Gershwins wrote songs, someone else arranged them and Ella sang them. All did their job great. I'd probably call this a Gershwin album with an invited singer. The result is an album that is great in its genre - except it's not mine. The songs are great for cliché rom-coms or in some cases children's cartoon movies. I'll give it a 3 because I gave Ray Charles ("The Genius", ahem) a 2 and this album got on my nerves much less - the big band arrangements are much less annoying here - and Ella IS an amazing singer (rather than a musician).

My second Can album form the list, and another great one. Some songs (esp. the second half) are a bity too experimental for easy listening but the first four are great. The album is not exactly background music (good) but a careful listen is an interesting experience. I like the breakbeats and the often jazzy feel even though the instrumentation isn't jazzy. Very creative and interesting and, when in the right mood, great sounding too.

Maybe one of my favourite Beatles albums, so far. Quite inventive (as usual) and some great, catchy songs starting with the opener, Drive My Car. However The Beatles rarely move me emotionally, most songs are just well-made pop songs. There is not a lot of musical coherence across the album, they are mostly individual songs (the lyrics align more though). And why do they always have to include some bad songs on each album? Here it's Michelle (really?) and What Goes On. But no doubt, this album is creative and very influential. Too good for a 3, but not quite a 5. For a 5 I'd like more coherence, no bad songs, and just me enjoying it more.

Really glad I learned about this album. Not sure if I really like it or whether I find it "interesting" more than anything else. Either way, it is really a must listen album. One of the albums that really has a concept and it works. It is mostly psychedelic rock with lots of experimental stuff going on and use of electronics. Reminiscent at times of The Velvet Underground, Pink Floyd, The Beatles. Not quite as good as either of them, but that's no shame. Some songs are just really catchy though ("The garden of earthly delights"). The lyrics are very good and paint a picture critical of bourgois American holier-than-thou attitudes (I loved "I won't leave my wooden wife for you baby"), and bitter family situations (loved "Where is yesterday"). Excellent as a concept album, OK to listen to but it's not for every day.

Your archetypical country rock. Well made, not my thing. Too well-behaved.

Not my favourite Bowie album I think but still good. Only six songs, some good ones (Golden Years, Wild is the Wind) but didn't like TVC15. A 3 or a 4.

Oh my, this is the hardest album to assess. Art (incl. music) is as much about the artist than about the product itself - I personally can't separate them. The product first - the album. I had never listened to a Kanye West album but I must say this is creative and sounds excellent. Beautiful production, and a slew of top guest artists taking part. Not really my thing but I recognise a level of quality when I see it. It doesn't move me emotionally though. Now the artist. I find it really hard to enjoy an album made by a self-proclaimed Nazi and otherwise complete assh*le in his morality and behaviour. I won't listen to Ye unless I have to - similarly I would not hang a painting by Hitler in my living room (even f he was a great painter which he wasn't). So in terms of rating, I'll torture myself and rate the album (I'll give it a 3) rather than how much I like the artist as a person (which would be a zero - yes I know the scale starts at one).

I love my grunge and this album is a good one... great drumming, a simple but effective bass and guitars to dominate the soundscape. However it gets a bit tiring after a while and I don't really enjoy this album in one sitting. I miss diversity, I miss a nice groove in many songs. Interesting more than enjoyable.

Thank you 1001 Albums, this was a discovery for me. I'm not much into folk (any more) but this is an amazing album and it goes beyond your typical singer-songwriter material. Some of the accompaniments (esp. like the cello) are great as is the musicianship generally. Nick Drakes' vocal and lyrics are subdued but that is entirely in keeping with the album... and with wis tragic life and death a few years after this album was made.

I had high expectations, after all Syd Barrett is an original Pink Floyd! But, I was sorely disappointed. Some of the songs are fundamentally good but the album sounds like a demo tape cobbled together on a drunken evening (drugs, more likely). Is it too much to ask for a retake if the vocals are way off ("Dark Globe") or the guitar isn't even tuned ("Octopus")? Some songs are psychedelic Pink Floyd'ish but not nearly as good, and some songs are jus too Monty Pythonesque (but again not quite as good or with the necessary sense of parody). A pity.

OK - Muddy Waters is one of my favourite bluesmen, and Mannish Boy is a stonker of a song. And this is a great blues album. BUT apart from a few songs, it's all very same'ish 12-bar blues with the same harmonica howl running throughout. I know that's what blues is supposed to be like (and I love the sound esp. live) but doing that in the 1970's is hardly innovative and I think I can't give this album more than a 3 for those reasons. Muddy Water's voice is perfect though, and the album has a nice rough edge, it's very well (not over) produced IMO.

I've enjoyed this album. Not totally my thing but it's good music. I enjoyed the songs with more focus on the Latin percussion most. The louder the Big Band, the less I liked it (I'm, generally not a big band fan). The whole album is quite filmic and transpires a hot humid climate. Pleasant, made me happy.

This is good pop record, no arguing there. But it's exactly that, feels very commercial (made to sell rather than as an artistic expression) even though apparently this is Madonna's most "arty" album. Some good songs e.g. Oh Father. Many songs are so embedded in my brain from hearing then 1000 times on the radio that it is hard to have an opinion on them - they just "exist". I suppose they are really good at what they do. Madonna surely is a pop phenomenon and I feel at least some of the albums need to be on the list.

I have this album but hadn't listened to it in ages. Was I wrong! It is brilliant. It is grunge I suppose, it refers to metal and post punk, and it is really well made. I like Chris Cornell's (RIP) vocals and the musicianship is good throughout, helped by alternative time signatures (My Wave in 5/4 time signature, Fell on Black Days in 6/4). Very good if you want something a bit heavier/ punchier without resorting to often very simple (but in many cases also excellent) stuff like some early metal or punk. It is a 4 or a 5? Can't find anything wrong with it, and Chris Cornell (and this album) was influential, so...

This is the (my) Perfect Album. Not the Radiohead album where you'd find another Creep or Karma Police - no "hits" here but this is a genuine album that works best when seen as a single work or Art, surpassing the attraction of single (even the best) song. The balance between conserving this coherence from start to finish, yet also having a unique sound signature to each song, is perfect. The soundscapes (no vanity solos here) strengthen the lyrics and the whole album feels very emotional in a warm very human sense. The lyrics are never cheap but also not so arty-farty that nobody actually understands them. Great balance, again. I especially like the way how the album is made so well musically (great breakbeats, guitar work etc.) yet flows so effortlessly. This is one of the few albums that I'd both call great art, and also just sounds amazing. 106 albums into the list, this is the first I'd give a 6 if I could. Genius.

I listened to this three times and still can't remember a thing about it or half whistle a tune. There is nothing really wrong with this album (except some of the vocals) but I find it very bland. A mix of folky and punky elements, some songs are Pogues like (but not nearly as good). I'll give it a 2 because it is not bad per se, but not more than 2 because for me it just "exists" and I don't know why this is a "must hear" album.

I had to listen to this a few times to make up my mind. Yes it's interesting and creative, but do I also like listening to it? Yes I do. And thanks to my wife I am reminded why - at times it sounds like dEUS (which is even better but I'm biased). An eclectic mix of instruments and electronics with a focus on soundscapes, drawing from (prog) rock and much more. I like this album better than their singles, and will explore more :-).

As a live album this is a good one, it really feels "live" (small mistakes and tempos running away included). For historic reasons, I believe this fits in the "must hear" list. Musically, however, I find it quite basic and made simply to entertain - worthy in its own right but it won't get a high rating from me. I'm sure this must have been a fun gig but I have no desire to listen to this at home 60 years later, it all feels a bit cliché now. I've listened to it twice now and am utterly bored to be honest.

I love Janis Joplin's vocals and they shine on this album with mostly blues/rock with a nice rough edge (plus a few great covers like "Piece of my Heart" and "Summertime"). Nearly a 5 but a few songs (like the slow blues) are a bit less interesting and they faked a live sound by adding recorded applause to studio recordings. But still, a great album that sounds and feels very "period" in the best possible way.

There is a fine line between atmospheric dream pop and elevator music. Unfortunately this sits on the elevator music side of the spectrum for me. Not this it sounds "bad", but it doesn't do more to me than to merely "exist". Could have been AI generated if it wasn't from 1992.

Second Kinks album from the list and I hope it's the last. Simple, fun pop tunes wit a definite "Englishness" (that's good) but much too cabaret-esque at times, I think thins music would work well in school plays when the clown comes on stage. Some songs are very Beatles-like, but unfortunately like those Beatles songs I don't like. Songwriting as such, if this style is your thing, isn't bad. This album get on my system but not quite as badly as Christina Aguilera, which I have a 2, so I'll give a generous 3 here. Not fond of Davies' voice and it's right in front of the mix.

Another hard one to scores - sound really nice and many songs are cleverly done. I love the acoustic instrumentation (an album with cello automatically gets bumped one point from me). So then why is this hard to score? For some reason I don't really connect, it does me nothing, and it'd be background music only. However I have the Kinks a generous 3 yesterday, and feel this should definitely be more. A 4 then.

Very moody for a funk album but I absolutely loved it. No bad songs, but I'm not sure about the yodeling in Spaced Cowboy.

British hip-hop with its own recognisable sound. Not bad, but it doesn't really click with me. I think I'm more into Oldskool hip-hop, and less the kind you hear emanating from lowered Toyota Celicas. I can see it's well made, bonus point for that.

This is of course a true classic and rightly so. What an album! Jazz can be all too academic and intellectual more than emotional, but not this album. What a feat pulling off this improvisation, live, under very difficult circumstances (wrong piano, tired etc.). This is very easy to listen to, but, luckily, not \"easy listening\". Works in the background but especially for a careful listen, wondering which direction Jarrett will take next (and the album does go through a range of \"feels\"), but it's always a good direction. A very easy 5.

This is the sort of music that plays loud in crime series on TV, in shabby warehouses where the drug gangs are hanging out between cooking sessions. Because the series producers want to create the absolute most nerve wracking atmosphere so that we are all super happy when the first shots fall, the electricity drops out and all you hear is just shouting and guns. Which is an improvement over this music (thanks, cops). This music may be functional in crime series but I don't need it in my living room or in my too short life. There is something about it, mostly the breakbeat, that instantly makes me want to throw something through the window (and I am normally a very peaceful guy). The rest of the music is just very dull and unimaginative, with some cheap "orchestration". A hard 1 for me and definitely on my "1001 Albums you must avoid until you die (but may hear after if you believe in Hell)" list. Haven't been able to finish this, can't imagine listening to this without some form of sedation.

Good singer-songwriter. Pleasant but not exceptional. Wish he stuck to his folky songs, when he attempts the blues it's a bit boring (hard to make blies exciting at all, and he just doesn't have 'it'). When he adds some big band fills it's worse. But most of the songs are fine. Well written and sung. A generous 3.

Of course I know Depeche Mode (mostly the hits) and I quite liked them, but not enough to buy an album, it's always been more "radio music" to me. But listening to this album I must say - I really enjoyed it. No hits but a steady flow of good music, great to listen to in one sitting. Yes it has the typical electronic Depeche Mode sound but it's chilled and atmospheric, reminiscent of Talk Talk sometimes (and that's a huge complement).

Still like Manchild the best - no wonder, it's co-written by Robert del Naja. But there is some filler too and it does sound a bit dated. However it's still an interesting combination of rap and other genres (mostly pop).

Terence Trent d'A was big when I was in secondary school and I found him OK, no more. I recall reading an interview where he seemed quite full of himself, proclaiming he was the new Michael Jackson and Prince combined I think. He said it was something to do with his name. He must have changed his mind then because he now goes by a different name. Anyway, what do I feel about the music? Not much. It's OK but a bit "meh". Some songs have nice arrangements and his high pitched gritty voice is good. It has soul and funk in it but it's mostly just quite commercial sounding pop. It also feels a bit dated and I can't see why I'd listen to this again. Could have been a 3 on a very good day but I'll go for a 2.

A nice, quite poppy punk album. Sounds a bit like Ramones (short songs, the vibe) but not quite as good. Pleasant but I miss a bit of rawness.

A metal classic and rightly so, what an album. Heavy when it can, but with quieter intros etc... it's not just full pelt the whole time and it is very listenable. There is excellent virtuosity here but it's all functional. I almost took one point off for the production. A lot of Metallica is about the interlocking of the kick drum and the bass, almost sounding as one instrument giving a solid basis on top of which the guitars and vocals can shine. However, the kick drum sounds quite tinny (I listened on a good stereo) and the bass is... where is the bass? A pity, this album could sound better but I'll still call it a 5 purely for the quality of the music.

A unique album in many ways, and it still sounds good after more than 50 years. Only a few long tracks (or should I call it symphonies) on the album. Ground-breaking synths with acoustic instruments too and all played by the same, young (23?) Mike Oldfield. Has elements of minimal classical music. Not a 5 for me because it's all a bit cold and academic and doesn't really move me. It's a bit too show-off like (try and cram as many instruments and variations in as possible). Still, quite a feat and a definite "must hear".

By pure coincidence I had "... And Justice for All" two days ago. Two very different Metallica albums but I liked them both a lot. The "Black Album" is less speed/trash and more accessible, with even a metal ballad (of which I'm not usually a fan, but Nothing Else Matters is good). Lots of stonkers/classics on this album. And unlike "... And justice for all", this album is beautifully produced, it sounds great at all volumes with a solid rhythm section and powerful but not shrill guitars. Stunning album.

As far as prog rock goes, this is as good as it gets. It is not really my thing but I can enjoy it, and the quality of the musicianship is beyond any doubt. Geddy Lee produces beautiful, melodic basslines that are always functional. The opening piece is a brave 20-minute song (well it is in several very distinct parts), or rather a composition, much like a classical symphonic work. The biggest drawback for me is its lyrics... not my thing, I'm not into the fantasy thing with priests and temples and magic, it comes across as a bit puberal. But then I appreciate it is often part of the prog-rock package. Musically, this is a great album and definitely worth listening to (and again).

This is a typical run-off-the-mill pop album with all of the musical clichés one can imagine. Even though it doesn't sound "bad" it is really quite boring and I'm sure AI could write very similar songs. Kudos the the fact that there is a theme across the album, the lyrics are OK, and Lorde's voice is more interesting than some - if it wasn't for the voice, most songs could be mistaken for other generic pop such as Taylor Swift. Much like the latter, I think I really like Lorde as a person and role model and they have a lot going for them, just not the novelty of their music. I can understand that its inoffensive nature, universal thematic, and pleasant sound sells. Nothing wrong with a plain old commercial pop album, it just won't get a high rating from me as a "must hear" album.

Bob Dylan definitely belongs in the list, and especially this album does. Very influential, has several major "hits" and some of the most covered songs ever. I mean, all on one album: Blowin' in the Wind, Masters of War, A Hard Rain, Don't think Twice! Dylan won't go into the history books as the best singer or harmonica player but that's not the point. His songwriting skills are the best and his legacy is clear. An easy 5 as a "must hear" album.

I have always liked PIL but only knew a few songs. Listening to this album was great. Johnny's voice is marmite, but musically this album surprised me. Yes there is punk but not quite the Sex Pistols, there is Prog Rock but not quite Can, and there is hard edge funk bass but not quite TC Matic. Interesting rather than enjoyable, but worth a place on the list.

I loved this album, nice bluesy rock with good vocals and a nice "edge". A 3.5.

A bit of a cacophony, didn't like it, even though I like a lot of the elements that went into it (some punk, Indie, rock, but I like the "choo-la-la" less). A bit like a meal made with a random selection of fine ingredients that ends up tasting of nothing.

Lo-fi singer-songwriting. Sounds "nice" but it leaves me a bit cold. I really struggle to say much more about it. A bit samey and background music for me.

80s pop is not my thing, but I have always had a soft spot for Cyndi Lauper. Funky personality, great unique voice and some of her songs are really good (Time After Time). It's not all genius though, and I don't think, overall, that it's more than a 3 for me in terms of musicality, But a very good 3!

Easy, I am a huge Tom Waits fan and this album, along with Rain Dogs, first attracted me to him. So, a definite 5 for me. It's the creativity, the use of unorthodox "instruments", the rawness (but with a soothing song just when you need it - Downtown Train etc.). Waits is an amazing storyteller, both with words and musically. I also love his jazzier early work and his more recent work, but I'll always come back this album and Rain Dogs.

All songs are quite samey; most sound like children's tunes treated with the same "wall of sound" sauce. I like the sound and some songs are half decent but more variation would be good. And it's still a Christmas album, for Christ's sake (pardon the pun). A 2 is as far as I can go for a Christmas album until someone puts The Pogues, The Waitresses and the few non-annoying Christmas songs in existence on an album.

This album has a definite 1980's electro-pop stamp on it, and to my ears it hasn't aged very well. It's not bad, some songs are quite catchy, but I'm not sure if this is a "must hear" - is it that good? Has this album been novel or influential? Not sure.

I know Aretha Franklin is the Queen of Soul but I never listened to an entire album. I like her singing but not many songs stand out to me - and only very few songs (not including R.E.S.P.E.C.T) she has (co-)written herself. So, she is mostly a singer rather than an artist. Kudos for the vocal power and style. Nice but not wow.

Nice grunge, it started to grow on me after a few songs. I don't like it quite as much as Nirvana or Soundgarden, but Mudhoney was first and they deserve credit for that. The songs are nice and energetic with echoes of punk and Black Sabbath.

This album has two great songs (Imagine and Jealous Guy), a few OK ones (e.g. How do you sleep) and some mediocre ones (e.g. Crippled inside). Much like most Beatles albums you could say. As an 'album', to be played in its entirety, I don't particularly like it.

Really glad I discovered this! I'm not going to try and describe the sound or influences - first and foremost this sounds like a musician/ artist stubbornly doing their thing. This album sounds authentic and sounds great without being over-produced. I like the creativity and the use of a variety of instruments (and non-instruments) esp. for the rhythm (Tom Waits fan talking here :-)). I have listened to this album three times and also to two other Apple albums. Not all of it is 100% my think, but overall I'd say, a nice antidote to polished, poppy, but utterly boring music. There should be more Fiona Apples.

I find the Doors fantastic - this album doesn't have the hits or most epic songs (e.g. The End) but it does have the typical Doors sound based on gritty blues with Manzarek's signature organ and of course Jim Morrison's voice and charisma. Great stuff.

Great album, folky and with excellent songwriting. I also like Van Morrison's nasal and instantly recognisable voice. Not my favourite Van Morrison album (that may be Poetic Champions Compose) but still a solid 4.

Totally not my style it I see it's well made and I have well tolerated some of the funkier song. Very good rhythmically. Other songs seriously got on my nerves. Not my kind of soul.

I've always had mixed feelings about this album, so for the sake of this list I had a really good listen of the album in its entirety, A to Z. I have now made up my mind. First, the good. Yes, as many will argue, this album is extremely well produced - the sound quality is superb. The musicians show great virtuosity. Technical perfection. Then, the bad. However technically good music is, for me it is ultimately about the intrinsic quality of the songs, the authenticity of the artist, the creativity, and more than anything else, the emotional appeal. And that's where it is totally lacking for me. Oh my, is it boring and non-engaging. It's soooo smoooooth. It's anti-punk. It's excellent for outros of cheap romcoms. It is an extremely skilfully polished turd (OK maybe I'm exaggerating a wee bit). It is mineral water served in a $1000 designer glass - I'd rather have a characterful single malt in a charity shop glass. I'll give it a generous 3 though, because I can see how, IF this is your thing, it shines "in its genre" and there are some nice jazzy chops and it is rhythmically very enjoyably tight (I enjoyed the first 20" of Josie). I just wish the album wasn't so boring. Oh is it boring.

Yes it's poppy but it shows how good pop can be, and I have a soft spot for this album (and for Eels in general). It strikes a nice balance between song variation (no bad songs at all on this album) and still having a coherent sounds album. Some interesting choices (instrumentation, some use of samples etc.) and good song writing elevate this above your run-off-the-mill commercial pop album. I should probably give it a 4 because is it really "must hear"? But I'll give it a 5 just because I love it and can't fault it, really.

Good songwriting but I'm not too fond of the album for a reason that's hard to pinpoint. I quite like his voice but the songs get a bit boring-rocky and I'm not a huge fan of the instrumentation even thought this makes it "the" Springsteen sound (the sax, bells etc.). The Springsteen album I like most is Nebraska, which makes me not a real Springsteen fan I suppose. Still a 3 (could have been a 4 if I enjoyed it more). Just an album I won't put on but I won't zap away from it either.

I only knew Teenage Kicks, and liked it. The rest of the album is more of the same, but usually not quite as catchy. Well sung and played but a bit plain for punk, for me.

I have to give this a 5 admittedly it's not just for this particular album, it's for the artist. In one word... authentic. You really feel like it's the artist communicating to you. Musically, it's good (nice song writing, some punk-like emotions), lyrics are great, but the combination surpasses both. Also definitely a "must hear" album because of its legacy.

Great album, maybe not my favourite Costello one but has the recognisable sound I quite like. Good songwriting - I'd almost give this a 5 just because of Allison.

Grunge perfection. A wall of sound interspersed with quieter songs to keep the attention. I may be biased because I saw them live and it was amazing.

I knew them vaguely and thought I'd have loved this album more. I love early punk but this was a bit too much like (not so good) hard rock for me but with added quirkiness. It's all good fun though and I feel it does belong on the list as a quite influential band.

I find this really hard to rate. I like the overall sound even though it often is not quite there. Good voice. Quirky lyrics (and sometimes, music) which is nice. A blend of folk/ singer-songwriter with some electronics etc. esp. towards the end. It's a 3 +/- 2.

A bit of a discovery. Really clever prog rock (I think) worth listening to with some focus. It's really well made musically with great drums, functional bass and excellent guitars (I'd say good virtuosity but always functional). Could be a 5 but I'll stick with a 4 because the vocals are quite same'ish and I keep the fives to the absolute greatest (to me). Great album, I'll definitely explore the band.

I like that this is a concept album (weird concept though) and it sounds OK. It does get a bit boring though. If hip-hop was my thing I'd certainly give it a 3 or 4 because I hear it has a certain quality. But I just don't enjoy it, it lack the rhythm and raw energy of rap albums I like more.

A pleasant curtain of organised noise wit a clear 90's stamp. I quite like this. A good rhythm section, nice basslines, noisy (but not too noisy) guitars and melodic vocal lines. It is a bit samey though and doesn't move me, but I was happy to discover this.

I think we all know the hits on this album... (Sharp Dressed Man, Legs, Gimme All Your Lovin'). They are also the best song. The rest feels a bit like filler is is very samey. I feel like I should give this 2, max, for the quality of the music (with all its clichés) but that's not the point of this music. It was more about having fun and they didn't take themselves too seriously. So an extra point for that.

I have listened to this album so much when it came out - it's difficult to give an objective opinion on it (but since when do we need rationality in music). It's a 5 for me... I love it, and its legacy is huge (not just because Kurt Cobain died a tragic death). I see youngsters with Nirvana T-shirts on an almost daily basis. Nirvana originals have been completely reworked, I think we weren't expecting a grunge band to do this at the time. Add a few fantastic covers (Bowie, Leadbelly etc.) and you have a stonker of an album. A true classic.

Sometimes you wonder why an album even exists. This is one of those. I find this utterly boring hip-hop and fail to understand why anyone would ever play this. I'm a positive guy though and I always look for a saving grace so did a bit of reading about Cee-Lo and this album. Maybe the lyrics are really good? Nope, they then to be quite banal and mostly about himself ("We gon' start this shit off tonight", "I am the living proof of a God somewhere" etc). Maybe this album created new trends? In 1978 possibly, not in 2004. Maybe Cee-lo is a really nice guy? Ahem, let's say he won't get an extra point from me for that. So I really can't see any reason to bump this to a 2. This was a hard listen.

Sort of soft rock, early 'hair' blend of The Kinks and the least good version of Bowie. Meh. Some of the singing style reminds of Dylan but unlike Him, they can't get away with it, don't like the vocals. Probably OK for the 1001 list because of their fans, incl. Bowie, anf they had Queen as a support act! Won't put this record on, might zap away if it's on the radio.

A stunning album and very influential too, so an easy 5 for me. I love the unique sound they produce, with a dragging tempo adds to the feel of the songs. A great instantly recognisable rhythm section with tight drums (almost like a drum machine) and an aggressive bass which often plays lower than the guitars. Love Ian Curtis (RIP) vocals and contained anger. As good as it gets for late punk/ early new age, whatever box this fits is - just great music.

Too bad it's recorded with the E Street Band. I love my Bruce Springsteen in its "Nebraska" incarnation - just dead good songs, executed minimalistic and powerful. Born in the USA (which I loved when it came out) has plenty of good songs but to me it is spoilt by that E Street sound, don't like the organ, don't like the sax, don't like the boring rhythm section (luckily there aren't too many tingaling bells on this album). Songs like Glory Days I really want to switch off. And be a bit less shouty in the vocals (as in Downbound Train) please Bruce, your softer voice is great. I love Bruce Springsteen, great songwriter, seems a really nice person with a very functional moral compass. I just like his intimate songs so much more than this. A harsh 3 for me, and I feel a little bit bad about it, it could have been an easy 4 if I liked the sound more. I find it a bit boring.

Early funk from the late 1960's. It is not that I necessarily love all the songs on this album, but it certainly oozes fun and creativity (particularly loved the almost 14' of Sex Machine and the groove of I Want to Take you Higher). Excellent musicianship too.

This is just plain good music with its attractive early electronics charm. This was ground-breaking in 1978 and totally deserves to be in the "must hear" list. I don't just love the music itself, but Kraftwerk comes with a whole aesthetic, from the album cover to the band's appearance and stage performance. I like that. When listening to older (non classical) music, I always wonder whether I only like it in its context (i.e. as a famous album from the '70s) or where I would equally love it if it came out in 2025 and from an unknown band. I don't know, maybe not. But context counts. Liked all the songs, Neon Lights the least. Still a 5 for me.

This album proves the marketing principle that if you want to make something popular, make it bland. I've always found the Preachers very boring but (as a result) never listened to an entire album. I did now and won't do it again. This sounds like a local teenage band - alright with a pint of Guinness in the Rose and Crown on Friday evenings. I find is musically very weak, it's just a bunch of 1990's clichés (OK then, dated now) with samey (and unpleasantly shouty) vocals. But hey, they call themselves preachers after all. Bumped a point because some songs are catchy (A Design for Life, Kevin Carter).

I liked it but didn't love it - if it has to be Sonic Youth, I like Dirty better. It is however a novel album given it's from the mid 80's. Nice soundscapes but I miss a bit of a groove or hook. So, not interesting enough for a careful listen, and not pleasantly sounding enough for background music.

A decent rock album, no more, no less. Must hear before you die? Nah.

An incredibly varied album oozing creativity and musicianship. Almost no genre is left untouched - it even has a country song ('39) which don't care much about, neither do I care much about the more cabaret'esque songs (e.g. Seaside Rendezvous). With that out of the way, it is still a solid 5. Most importantly, this album has amazing prog-rock and I even spotted Caroline Shaw-like glimpses of contemporary (I mean 2020's contemporary!) vocal classical in The Prophet's Song. Of course, in Bohemian Rhapsody, most of these styles are combined within one song - and it works. Great singing by Freddie Mercury (RIP), amazing harmonies, superb guitars from Brian May. "They don't make them like this any more".

I'll admit I'm very biased against big bands, they tend to get on my nerves and it usually doesn't take long to switch them off. But I decided to behave and listen to this album in its entirety. Yes there's still a lot I don't like (got the vibrato trumpets within the first 5 seconds, urgh) and many songs are what I call "Tom & Jerry" or "Love Boat" songs. However there were some good jazzy (but less big-bandy) bits that were OK and generally this album is rhythmically good (that bass player is like a Swiss clock and his fast walking bass line are fab). I'd give it a 1 or 2 because I don't like the music - it does not move me at all (not in a good way at least). But it gets an extra point because I do see it's good "for the genre" and it's well made. And I like it more/ dislike it less than Duke Ellington which I gave a 2, so a 3 it is.

This is perfectly fine blues rock, I enjoyed this album, some catchy songs there. It is also very traditional - this album could have been made sixty years ago (and possible not compete with some other music that was around then). I struggle to find something to say about it. Sounds too good to be a 1 or 2, way too vanilla to be a 4 or a 5.

Not all popular albums from the '80s have aged well, but this one has. I had it on vinyl (remember that crippled, clunky medium that wore out as you played it) but I hadn't listened to the full album in ages. I'm, glad I did, all songs are really good and original despite the undeniable synthy '80s feel. I like the less popular songs as much as I like the hits.

Most Beatles album contain some good songs, some average songs and one or two awful songs. This one is different, I find it uniformly bland. It's mostly plain R&R with not much to say about it. Not bad, just meh. All My Loving may be my relative favourite, but the lyrics are cheesy. Oh, and Money, but that's not their song (and not better than the original version). Maybe the better more creative (more drugs infused?) music was only kicking off a bit later in the 1960s, in general and also for the Beatles.

Not my thing musically and I don't dig the vocals for an entire album. Come On Eileen is fun at parties but it's not on this album. Not completely bad, but for me, definitely not "must hear before you die".

I liked this album a lot, warm, well made soul/pop/singer-songwriter songs. Nothing spectacular, but very pleasant. I'll give it a 4 which is maybe a bit generous, but the bar for popular music is pretty low these days, in my opinion, so he deserves it. And it's authentic. Tick.

One of those albums that I don't enjoy that much (not my thing), but I can see the creativity and quality. It's much more than hip-hop, it's an album of two halves but both are quite quirky and very varied. Love the funky and jazzy (esp. on The Love Below) elements.

Didn't enjoy this one, there are nice elements and the recognisable vocals add character, but it all feels a bit cobbled together. None of the songs fascinate me, they merely exist.

As good as hip-hop gets, if you ask me. A very atmospheric album.

Fine prog rock but it doesn't move me. The inclusion of flute is interesting, for a change, and I don't mind it, but at the same time it doesn't make it "wow" either.

Mixed feeling about this one, part of me likes the early ambient sound, and part of me dislikes the over-use of some effects esp. the flanger. I don't like that jet engine sound. Less can be more. It reminds me of my early PowerPoint days where I squeezed in all sort of effects in my presentations just because it was possible and (I wrongly thought) "cool". I'll give it a 3 for history's sake buy there is better electronic music from that era (Kraftwerk, Brian Eno).

Wow, it's as if after rumours they wanted to prove they were also really good at making bad albums. Some songs sound OK (mostly the ballads) but are, musically, basic pop songs (Sara, Storms). Many songs are cliché, boring rock & roll (I know I'm not wrong). Some songs are barely tolerable (What makes you think you're the one). Fleetwood Mac deserves to be on this list, but not this album. Could have been a 3 if they kept the better half of the songs. Also, I don't understand why this was the mostly expensively produced album ever at the time. My wife said it better than I can: it's as if it's recoded in a pub and anyone can sing along.

I never heard pre-disco, pre high-pitch, Bee Gees before, so this was unexpected. In a good (not great) way. Kind of a mix of folk/ psychedelic/ pop/ country. It's a 2 or a 3 but it's no worse than many other stuff from the 60s (incl. the Beatles in their less glorious moments) so I'll say, a 3.