1001 Albums Summary

Pleasant enough. I lost interest a couple of times. Few stand-out moments. 3/5.

I still find Young's whiny vocals irritating at times. Occasionally lyrically obvious. Better than "After the Gold Rush?" 4/5

No expectations of this. Rather enjoyed it. 3/5

Already have this. Great album 4/5.

Some albums are timeless but this really hasn't aged well. It comes off as a selection of show tunes. A "rock opera", supposedly. 2/5.

I like this. I'd love to give it 5 stars, 'cos it's Bowie... and it is better than most of the stuff I've given 4 stars to so far. But... to get 5 it has to be as good as "Hunky Dory" or "Ziggy Stardust" or "Aladdin Sane" and it isn't. It will probably grow on me, most Bowie albums benefit from more than one listen... but currently this is a 4. I'll probably regret it. Oh... and the mastering is terrible. "Loudness war" writ large with audible clipping at times. That's disappointing.

Tedious, bland, derivative and unoriginal pop. Lyrically puerile. Michael Jackson ("Off the Wall", "Thriller", "Bad") or Prince ("1999", "Purple Rain"), all of which are echoed here, do this sort of thing so much better. George Michael has a good voice but the arrangements and backing are plodding at best. 1/5.

What a surprise. Excellent. Great voice, intelligent lyrics. Catchy tunes. Sound quality very good. Nicely mastered. 4/5.

Yeah, this. Had it for donkey's years. Fantastic. 5/5.

Not my style of music. I didn't like it in period and a re-listen isn't helping. If you like that sort of thing, it is well done. 2/5 'cos I "don't like it" rather than being "awful".

Yeah. Groovy, man! 4/5. Only a couple of tracks are stopping this from 5/5. On a second listen, on speakers instead of headphones, this gets a 5 :)

No expectations, somehow this band passed me by in period. Grew on me as I listened. 3/5 for now. If I'd stumbled across this when I was 17 I might have liked it more.

An unholy mix of The Doors, The Rolling Stones with hints of The Velvet Underground. This will undoubtedly grow on me if I let it. Levels on the album are way too high with excessive clipping. Loudness wars write large. It's a pity. 4/5

Nice. Perhaps a bit too nice. A bit too smooth, a bit too "easy listening". 3/5.

Mmm... I did not expect to like this at all. Colour me surprised but there were few songs on here I enjoyed. There was nothing "awful" either. Enough for a 3/5.

No expectations other than I wouldn't like this. I was wrong. Mastering could be better, there is audible clipping at times. 3/5

Typical solo Steve Winwood effort. Nothing bad, nothing really stand-out. Pleasant. 3/5

Yay, Bookend. Some great tracks on here. There's the odd "filler" and so 4/5. Oh, yeah. "Voices of Old People". Why?

One good single ("The Wall Street Shuffle") isn't enough to rescue this mix of pretentious waffle and "show tunes".

Really not what I was expecting at all. Huge influences from contemporary classical music in this. At times I might have been listening to Max Richter or Roger Eno. 4/5

Once again a Radiohead album that I liked. Whatever is the world coming to? Kept me interested all the way through. 4/5

Nothing about this appealed to me. The whiny vocals, the music, the sound quality. All left me cold. 1/5

If you ever listen to one ELO album... If you were a teenager in the late 1970s or early 80s you weren't supposed to like ELO. They weren't trendy. They were a bit old fashioned. Your uncle and aunt liked them. This album is very much a "guilty pleasure". 4/5.

Had this for a while. Pleasant enough. Little excitement, though. 3/5

Smooooth. 4/5

The title track is an all-time Bowie classic. That aside, some of my favourite tracks are the instrumentals. Otherwise, not my favourite effort from Bowie. 3/5.

Great album. 5/5

I can understand why this seemed interesting, relevant and a message of hope in 1987 during the apartheid era. In 2014 it leaves me cold. I struggled to get through it. I'll give it a 2, simply on the basis of the fine performances, there's no doubt they are very good at what they do, and the technical quality of the recording.

The problem with listening to a bunch of 20 something's lyrics on capitalism, greed, politics and social issues is that, in retrospect, they're mostly naive bollocks. Does the music compensate? Nope... "Let's All Make a Bomb", you succeeded beyond your wildest dreams with this howler! 1/5

Utter, pretentious, claptrap. Was this supposed to be a comedy album? A Noel Coward tribute band? I did a lot of laughing. Mainly at the compositional awkwardness, curious arrangements and choice of "instruments". Another 50 minutes of my life wasted. 1/5. Why can't I give this zero?

This sounds very odd, particularly on headphones. Drums are very "forward" and centred. Where is the bass? The guitar is evenly split on both channels but "wide". It sounds quite unnatural. It's quite well played but I found my attention drifting. 3/5 but a 3/5 I have no desire to own. It's not unpleasant but not that engaging either.

Nope. Not for me. 1/5

Kevin Rowland's vocal affectations are pretty marmite. I can live with them. This is a good album. Varied and kept my interest. 4/5.

They're undoubtedly good at what they do. Unfortunately, what they do isn't something that resonates with me. The sound quality on the "2008 remaster" I am listening to is very good. 2/5 is my "OK, if you like that sort of thing (I don't)" rating.

This is a hard listen. I want to like it. I wonder how much of that desire is due to the tragedy that Syd's life became. The album may be more important for the influences it had on other artists; at times you could be forgiven for thinking you were listening to "Hunky Dory" period David Bowie. Perhaps that makes it "important" and so something I should listen to. It doesn't make it "enjoyable", though. I've heard it, I am unlikely to listen to it again. This doesn't work for me, unlike "Piper". Syd's songs need the rest of Floyd. 2/5.

Significantly better than "Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire)". Still a few weak tunes. This gains a 3/5.

Not my favourite doors album. They've done better. They've also done a lot worse. An enjoyable 4/5.

A perfect slice of 1980s pop. Many of the refugees from the big rock bands of the 70s were trying to reinvent themselves in the mid 80s, Robert Plant, Roger Daltrey... Gabriel manages it better than most. If I was a fan of 80s pop I'd give this a five. I'm not but regardless of that it rates a 4/5. Catchy tunes, Gabriel is in fine voice and high production values.

I didn't expect to like this. Surprisingly, I sort of did. 3/5

Appalling, naive, pretentious, twaddle from a young man trying to be "clever" but in reality just showing his musical inexperience. I burst out laughing several times during the listen. I wish I could give this rubbish 0, 1 will have to suffice.

The last in a run of truly great Bruce Springsteen albums. It was all down hill for my relationship with his music after this one. I loved this album as a kid and I still rate it now. Perhaps not as fresh and exciting as the first two, it foreshadowed some of the bombastic tone his later albums adopted. Worth 4./5 of anyone's money.

I struggled with this one. I wanted to like it more than I actually did. It is unpretentious, unsophisticated, blues rock. I'm not a fan of the vocal delivery. Reluctantly 3/5.

Not unpleasant but I failed to engage; instant background music. Insufficient variation between the tracks to interest me. I'm going to give it 2/5.

No.

Great album. Has a slightly earlier feel that 1972. More late 60s... even so, thoroughly enjoyable. A solid 4/5.

Formulaic pop that left me cold. Awkward sounding with a techno-esque/EDM beat applied to vocal lines and melodies that really don't suit them. "Here are some songs... make them 'club'". Madonna has a great voice but it is wasted on this. Was going for 2/5 but the longer I listened... 1/5. It loses a point for wasting the talent of her voice.

This took a while to get going. Two same-ish tracks to start off and I was starting to lose interest, then it got much, much. better. I'm not quite there yet but I can easily see myself thinking this is "good" after a few listens, so 4/5.

Musically very competent. Just not my thing. 2/5.

No, sorry. I never did like Abba in period. Neither did anyone I knew. It was the band elderly relatives said they liked in order to try and relate to us young folk. Abba weren't in any respect "cool". I cannot comprehend the nostalgia for them now. 2/5 but it only gets that much because it is "well done" nonsense.

The greatest Christmas album ever? Could be. As Noddy said, "It's Christmaaaaaaaaas". It loses a point for Spector's self indulgent nonsense at the start of "Silent Night". Can't give it other than a festive 4/5.

I have no idea why I haven't heard this before. Of course I have heard many of the individual tracks, some of them performed by others because let's not forget King has writing credits on ALL of them. I like her voice. The songs are wonderful. This gets a 5/5. I give 5s sparingly. This is only the 3rd in 54 albums and the only 5 that has gone to something I haven't owned for years.

No. Not for me. I like jazz, I even like some jazz from this period but I definitely don't like this. A generous 2/5 from me.

This was a trial. Perhaps if I was chemically enhanced and on a dance floor this might have worked. Sitting at home with headphones on, I found it had nothing to recommend 1/5

Several "classic" tracks the "fillers" aren't bad either. That'll be a 4.

All time jazz classic. Take 5/5.

Difficult one. 45 years ago there's a good chance I'd tell you this was my favourite album. My musical tastes have changed (a lot) over the years so that would no longer be true. Still, this album remains "special" to me although I rarely listen to it. It is one of the very few that I've owned on vinyl, cassette tape, CD and hi-res digital download. I know all the words. Before listening to it for this exercise, I did think "mmm... which headphones would 'Born to Run' sound best on?" and got a little-used pair out of their case. That says 'something'. Despite my rule of thumb that "it's all over for a rock band as soon as they add 'strings'", I'll defer to my teenaged self, he knew more about rock and roll than I do, (the young always do) and for the sake of the memories I'll give this 5/5.

The phrase "concept album" normally sends me running for the "off" button. They are usually pretentious crap. Still, I entered this with hope as I do like some Genesis tracks. I was thoroughly bored after about 25 minutes and irritated by "Counting Out Time". 2/5.

There is a long-running comedy panel game on BBC radio where one of the tasks is to sing the lyrics of one song to the tune of another. That sprung to mind listening to the first track. The second sounded like an out-take from Jeff Wayne's "War of the Worlds". The start of the third gave me Supertramp vibes then went punk. Then the album just got weirder. Not for me 1/5.

I was bored after 3 minutes of track 1. A minute into track 2 I was irritated. A minute into track 3 I gave up. Not my kind of thing. 1/5

Mmm... I have never worshipped at the shrine of "The Beatles". Some great songs, true. Some awful claptrap as well; a band thinking they were cleverer than they actually were. McCartney's solo work didn't impress me in period. He did himself absolutely no favours with nonsense like "Mull of Kintyre" and "We All Stand Together". Not at all "cool". I approached this with some trepidation. McCartney's vocals are a bit nasal on couple of tracks ("Band On the Run" and "Bluebird") did he have a cold? The lyrics to "Jet" are a bit awkward. A songwriter desperately searching for a rhyme at times. "Let Me Roll It" is a great track. Those minor quibbles, all was going well. It went horribly wrong with "Picasso's Last Words (Drink to Me)" where they descended into some pretentious Beatle-esque drivel. That track commits every "sin", strings, odd bits of talking, changes of rhythm for no good reason. That nonsense cost it a star. The rot continued with "Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Five" which could have been an ELO track. Ultimately, a disappointing 3/5.

What do I say about this? "Inoffensive", I think sums it up best. 3/5.

Yeah, excellent. 4/5.

I've known this album for more than 40 years. Superb. 5/5.

Wikipedia says (and it is never wrong, is it?) "'Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water' was listed in the book for 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die, but later removed in recent editions of the book." I can see why. The bigger mystery is why it was included in any editions. Utter tosh. 1/5 (only because I can't give it zero).

If you like the blues (and I do) this is excellent. 4/5.

I didn't listen to them in period, although I was "aware" of the band. This album came as something of a surprise. A pleasant one. "Sealand" is a bit long and self-indulgent. I am really not sure what they were aiming for with that. Otherwise, pretty good. 3/5

This wasn't "bad". It wasn't "good" either. It was exceedingly bland. Dullness writ large. "Desire Lines" is the perfect example. Each phrase lasts just long enough to be irritating. A generous 2/5.

This was a surprise. Way better than I expected. My initial reaction is a 3/5 but I could very easily be prepared to give this 4/5 after a few listens.

Vocals in the style of one who has listened to too much Bryan Ferry, in fact the whole thing has a distinct Roxy Music sound. No surprise, then, to discover that this album shared a producer with RM. It's easy to be dismissive and call it a "Roxy Rip Off", but I like RM so there could be worse things for it to sound like. They get credibility bonus points for covering a Velvet Underground track ("All Tomorrow's Parties") and managing to put their own spin on it combined with hints of Nico's vocals and John Cale's viola. Perhaps it is telling that it's the best track on here. There is nothing offensive but nothing really caught my attention apart from the VU cover. That gets it a distinctly average 3/5 from me. It is the kind of album that might go up in my estimation after several listens.

Entirely forgettable. Not for me. 2/5.

Tedious, dull, repetitive, unimaginative, bereft of musical interest, unimpressive. Rage on its own is insufficient. 1/5.

Perhaps I needed some chemical enhancement to appreciate this. Perhaps it was the wrong thing to listen to after completing three weeks work without a break. It certainly did nothing to relax me. So repetitive, and repetition can be good (see Philip Glass) but the trick is to repeat things just enough. This goes beyond that. I found the album mostly irritating, occasionally annoying. 1/5 only because I can't give it 0.

I've never consciously heard "The Cardigans" so approached this with no expectations other than what I might expect from a late 90s recording. I got something that sounded like it was from several decades earlier. There's a distinct 50s style to the vocal presentation. An interesting selection. With some good arrangements. Can someone please take the drummer's cymbals away? Too much and too prominent in the mix. I failed to be grabbed by anything on here but it was pleasant enough. That gets it a middling 3/5.

I was not expecting this. Of course I was aware of some of the band's singles in period, who couldn't be. They weren't my sort of thing then. They're better, and seem more at home, doing the slower, jazz/soul oriented numbers on the album. Good variety. The sound on this 2008 remastered edition I'm listening to is excellent. Yeah. Very good album. It gets a solid 4/5 from me.

Live blues albums don't get much better than this. I'm going to dock a point for the crowd. Why must American audiences scream and holler all the time, what is wrong with listening to the music you've paid to see? 4/5.

Blur isn't my thing. Bands that try to be too lyrically clever, sometimes at the expense of musicality simply don't do it for me. The drumming is particularly poor. 2/5.

If I'm going to listen to 69 love songs over 3 CDs I need them to be well sung and well played. Unfortunately... So... how to score this? -1 for excessive length, -1 for the poor vocals, -1 for the awful guitar work, -1 'cos the band seems to be simply "going through the motions". I'll stop there 'cos I can't give it less than 1.

Is/was it avant-garde, ground-breaking, and "interesting"? Oh yes. Do I like it? Not really. It has been part of my collection for some considerable time but it is a long way from being my favourite Bowie album. Since I am scoring on "how much do I like it" rather than "value to pop/rock music as an art form" this gets a middling 3/5.

I don't worship at the shrine of The Beatles. This was a decent album with some recognisable singles. Enjoyable enough but not my favourite from them. It's a 3/5 for me.

I was so unengaged with this that I started checking my work email, and it is a Saturday. Distortion and bellowed, puerile, lyrics are a poor substitute for musical talent. I've wasted enough time on this twaddle. 1/5.

Pleasant enough. She has a fine voice. Some of the arrangements are very predictable, almost formulaic. It lacks emotion at times. She hits all the right notes but I can't help thinking someone in the studio needed to say, "one more time with feeling". I can understand how it became very popular. Not really my thing. 3/5.

It is not terrible. It is a generic example of the "soft metal" I remember friends playing in period. I do not understand why it appears on a list of "must hear" albums. I could quite happily have died never having heard it, and I am not disappointed that I am unlikely to ever hear it again. A respectable but bland (and possibly generous) 3/5.

It's (c)rap. That's a form that I do not understand or appreciate. It may be really good in terms of its genre. I have no benchmark to judge it by. I'm scoring on whether I like something or not, consequently this gets 1/5.

It is not awful. 2/5.

Classic early metal. 4/5.

Who told him he could sing? Who told him he could play bass? They were lying. Cultural appropriation done badly. Why is this on this list? More forgettable twaddle. I was going to give it a 2, but the longer it ran the more bored I got. 1/5. (why can't you give 0?)

I quite enjoyed the first track, and it all went downhill from there. The vocals started to grate. By the time we got to "skeletons", I'd had enough. Oh... and the electronic "bagpipes" on that track were the final straw. It's a 1.

Two and a half minutes into track one and I am still waiting for the intro to end. I am still waiting for it to "do something interesting". I am starting to fear the "intro" is all this has got... I guess it is trying to do a Bolero-esque build... but they aren't Maurice Ravel, not even Jeff Beck. Tedious. Track two... this is tedious. Is that the concept, to bore the listeners into submission? Incredibly annoying vocals. Oh, no, it is nearly 6 minutes long! Mmm... "tedious" used about two songs in succession. That's not good. Shocking start to track 3... I am not wasting any more of my life on this. 1/5.

I have a rule of thumb that says by the time a pop musician starts using strings, they've run out of ideas and it is all over. Here we have the first track of his first album starting off with a cello... Oh. I guess there's always the "exception proves the rule" thing. Let's hope so. OK. 5 tracks in. Plenty of ideas on display so this can be "the exception". Problem is, I am not sure I like many of the ideas. The album is certainly "interesting". Lyrically good, musically entertaining at times. At other times just jarring. With a different vocalist this would be a lot better. I'm reminded of "Tubular Bells". No, not the style of music but in the sense of a new artist trying to prove "how clever" they are. This pulls it off better. I'm going to give this 3/5 which is my "OK" rating, but I have no particular desire to own it or listen to it again.

Meh. All very bland. I changed headphones halfway through to see if a less analytical pair would add more excitement. It didn't. 2/5

Ambient music at best. There's nothing to indicate why it should be included in such a list. Failed to engage. One wonders whether people who think this stuff is "worthy" ever step outside the limited musical world of Rock and Pop. Broaden your horizons a bit, listen to some contemporary "classical music" (although I mislike the term). 1/5.

Not for me. One for the fans perhaps? 2/5

I was genuinely excited when this popped up. After a couple of weeks of disappointment something that promised to deliver on the "1001 ..." claim. This compilation (released in 1957) of earlier sessions is brilliant. Yes, there ARE better Miles, it doesn't make this one any less fantastic. Easily 5 stars.

Bit of a guilty pleasure this one. Never a fashionable band, Creedence are nonetheless enjoyable pop. 5/5.

I've never been the biggest of R.E.M. fans, but it is hard to argue with the quality of this. A solid 4/5.

Yeah, excellent live blues. 4/5.

I suppose it had to happen eventually. Whenever I talk about this "1 album a day" project with a friend he always asks, "any Taylor Swift yet?". I have never knowingly heard her before. How is that possible? I don't listed to broadcast music. My listening is normally "limited" to within the 3,200 hours of my own collection. "Expanding my musical horizons" (in the scope of "modern music") is why I am listening to recommendations from this site. So onto this, "1989" and Taylor Swift. Her voice is good, although it seems a bit over-processed. It is being manipulated electronically to a degree I find irritating. A shame as I suspect her voice doesn't need it. The tunes are catchy. I suppose that's good. But it's all a bit fluffy, even dare I say it, "Disney". I'd probably categorise it as "relentless, formulaic synth pop". It isn't that we're "not at home to Mr. Emotional Engagement", he isn't knocking at the door, in fact he may not even be in the same postal code. Is this the best she can do? I hope not, otherwise I am struggling to understand all the hype about this artist. Timeline... I've now got as far as track 6, "Shake it off" and my patience is wearing thin. The whole listening experience is starting to grate. A bit of variety would be welcome. 2/5. Unimaginative, over-produced, fluff. Decent vocal talent wasted. I'm sure it sold very well, but there's no depth.

Hadn't heard this artist before. Interesting start, the first track seems to consist of about 5 separate songs welded together, none too convincingly either. Not the best recording either, it is clipping noticeably by the end of the track. Why don't contemporary recording artists have the courage to record things at sensible levels? If your VU meter goes red detail has been lost. The title track, "Grace", is more conventional. It kept me interested. The three covers are ambitious and mostly successful. I'm getting "walloping great whiffs of Nina Simone" in the vocal style on "Lilac Whine"... wasn't expecting that! "Hallelujah" was a brave choice and he mostly pulls it off. Unfortunately the vocals clip a bit when he sings more loudly. "Corpus Christi Carol" is a miss, I am sorry to say. Jeff Beck got away with it on "Emotion & Commotion" but it doesn't work here. There seems to be tendency to "do something different" at random points in songs. I am afraid it feels rather contrived, a bit "let's change this up for the sake of it" rather than having any real musical idea behind it. "So Real" is a prime example of this. Final track and I am getting hints of "The Doors". There's been subtle "Jim Morrison" vibe running through several songs. Quite possibly my favourite track. There's promise, a new artist setting out his stall. I am not sure the promise is fully realised or that he had quite settled into a style of his own. What a pity we never got a second album. I'm torn between a 3 and a 4. 3 is a bit of a "meh" score and it probably deserves more than that, as it did keep me interested. Christgau gave it a "C". On his scale I'd probably go for a "B-" but no half points here. I think I've talked myself into a 4/5 despite the flaws.

I'm a British man of a certain age. I know I am SUPPOSED to like Kate Bush. It's almost a matter of musical orthodoxy. Most of my friends profess to. Colour me a heretic, then. Her music and singing style have always left me somewhere between disinterested and irritated. Her vocal tics and affectations grate. I'll give this a 2/5 'cos that's my "All right if you like that sort of thing (I don't)" rating, as everyone tells me this is "good". I simply cannot hear it. I expect to be buried under the avalanche of 5 star reviews when I choose to look.

Meh. Oh. You wanted a longer review? "Relentless, unimaginative, tedious, meh". Is that better? 1/5.

"art rock band". "2012 Mercury Music Prize". Both phrases are enough to get my heart plummeting. My expectations were met. "Clever", tedious, soulless, mechanical. The band doesn't sound very interested and neither am I. 1/5.

I presume the "Collectors Edition" cover was the only one available. I see lots of people complaining of the length. Yeah. Like all of these "Collectors/Expanded/Anniversary Editions" it's padded with the sweepings of the editing booth floor and is of interest to die-hard fans only... and possibly not even them. Enough on that. I missed out on The Waterboys in period. Some friends of mine liked them, but I was more into Zeppelin and the like at the time. Musical tastes change and evolve. Mine has, at least. I still like Zep but there's space for music of this sort too. I'll choose to listen to the original 13 track album; the first 13 tracks for those listening to the "Collectors Edition". That's excellent and has the benefit of already being in my collection. Great album, interesting lyrics, well produced, at times playful. Solid 4/5.

Nope. Not for me. 2/5.

Just no. 1/5

I don't think I have listened to a Byrds album all the way through before. Of course, I have heard various tracks but never a whole album. Interesting. This was a proper curate's egg. Hints of brilliance, then at times humdrum. I enjoyed it, so 3/5

As much as I like jazz, this chunk of jazz fusion is a bit on the bland side. It's all rather unchallenging. I'm tempted to go as far as "lounge music". Whatever it is, it's superbly played. For that alone, an middling 3/5.

My mother would have loved this. That's no bad thing. It made me smile several times. That's a good thing too. A joyous, swinging, jazz performance from the late 50s and Sarah has a wonderful voice for the material. I found two variants of this album. A 9 track hi-res "remastered" version and a 20 track CD res version. If there's any sound quality benefit from the hi-res version its marginal at best. I'll take the 20 tracks as 9 simply isn't enough. 5/5 - I don't do that often.

Not awful, but I didn't like it and I didn't engage with it. It gets an "all right if you like that sort of thing, I don't" 2/5.

Someone said this album "defined a generation"; well it wasn't my generation. I've always regarded Oasis as a band that produced "a few good singles" and listening to this, the first studio album of theirs I have listened to, confirms it for me. There really is no depth here. The musicianship is "high school rock band" level, there is a lot of noise but it is all quite simplistic. I didn't dislike it, so I suppose, grudgingly, a 3/5.

Somewhat of its time, but interesting in parts. 3/5

"Originators of heavy metal", "influential in the development of...". Yeah, yeah, yeah. I hear you. They may have done it early but they sure didn't do it well. The rhythm section keeps changing tempo for no apparent reason, the guitarist is school-band level with delusions of being able to play like Jimi Hendrix. He keeps on launching into off-key solos that bear no relationship at all to the song the rest of the band is playing. The vocalist is OK, just. Live, in a field in California and off my head on acid, maybe. Sunday morning, sitting at home with some headphones on. Nope. Terrible. 1/5.

All over the shop. Look behind the hype and there's little of substance. 2/5.

"nominated for the Mercury Prize," Often a good indicator that what you're about to listen to is pretentious nonsense. It was going all right until he opened his mouth. The first track boasts some of the most annoying (and inane) vocals I've ever heard. I hope it improves. Oh... track two, no it doesn't. Track 3. I've had enough of this. I'm out. Oh, yeah. 1/5 but only 'cos I can't give it 0/5.

I am struggling with his irritating vocal style which comes across as "faintly drunk pub folk singer". Why must he stick "-uh" to the end of most lines? "dream-uh", "reverend-uh", "neck-uh", "head-uh". It is an intensely annoying vocal tick. The lyrics might be deep and meaningful but I can't listen to the delivery. 1/5.

Yeah, s'alright. I mean, it's a bit repetitive. It's unsophisticated. There's no outstanding musicianship on display. It's "OK". I didn't dislike it. If it was on the radio I wouldn't yell at you to change the channel. Umm... 3/5.

Idiosyncratic. That's the word. I remember "This Town..." from period. I thought it was "odd" then and I still think it is odd. The album is 50s show tunes meets rock. One could level the same accusation at Queen, but they carry it off better. I don't hate this... I am not sure that I like it either, that's the problem. 2/5.

To my surprise I found myself enjoying this, to the extent that I felt the need to swap from the Bluetooth headphones I was using to some decent wired cans on a good amp. I am getting distinct Velvet Underground and Doors vibes a lot of the time, but its not a pastiche. 3/5. I could easily see this becoming a 4/5 with further listening.

I love this album. I have since the first time I heard it. The only (slight) black mark is the use of Roy Harper for lead vocals on "Have a Cigar". I have never been a fan of Roy's singing. Still, even that isn't enough to detract from a, very rare for me, 5/5 score. Pink Floyd at their very best.

Mmm... "Bob Dylan cover band"? There's some weight behind that argument with 1/3rd of the songs on here penned by Bob. He must have been happy with the royalties. There's a bit more, though. The genesis of folk-rock, perhaps? There are pre-cursors of psychedelia too. This is important, influential; even if I don't particularly enjoy it. No-one really needed the Vera Lynn cover at the end. Epic fail. Minus a point for that. 3/5

My streaming service has two versions of this album. A short (22 minutes) 8 track version and the proper (according to Wikipedia) 13 track, 37 minutes recording. Curiously one is titled in English and the other French. Regional licensing agreements, perhaps? Anyway... the longer version is more coherent. The recording isn't great from a technical sense, of its time perhaps. It is entertaining. More entertaining than I expected. Not really my thing, but I will give it 3/5.

I really don't like the vocal style. Hit a note, for pity's sake, don't wobble all around it. The first track is soporific. Second track... more wobbling. Is this her trademark sound? Track 2 also makes me inclined to nod off. Sounds very like Michael Jackson; only he had a better voice. Track 3... ugh... more of the same. This is turning into a "cure for insomnia" album and I've only just woken up. Need coffee. Track 4. I have coffee. It isn't helping. Music to snooze to. 1/5.

This was heading for a solid 3, even if just for interest's sake. Then side 2 happened. 2/5.

There are a couple of lows but the highs are so high that they don't matter. 5/5.

I didn't much like punk in period, and I don't much like it now. 2/5.

Not much to say about this. It is a solid 5/5.

I chose to patch together the original 1956 L.P. track listing using the 2017 Columbia - Legacy "Newport 60th Anniversary Edition" 96kHz/24 bit mono release. That gave me something a more manageable 43 minutes long to listen to. The various "complete" and "expanded" editions are, I am sure, "important" but this list is taken from "1001 albums..." so I'm going to listen to the original album where possible. Just to see what all the fuss was about. The sound quality on this album is very much of its time; mono and a bit "distant". Curiously, I prefer that to the snippet I head of the re-mastered, massaged into "stereo" recordings. YMMV. It's the sort of album that I expect to sound great on my valve amplifier. I'll get around to that a bit later, solid-state will have to do for the moment. The playing is exceptional. Real top quality swing/jazz. 4/5.

Not for me. Any music that I don't understand lyrically (because I don't speak the language; my "fault" I agree) has to be exceptional musically to hold my interest. This... isn't. It's competent and if I knew what they were singing about, it might be more. 2/5.

I enjoyed the music. Pity about the lyrics which are puerile at best. 2/5.

I genuinely cannot get my head around "Edinburgh reggae" as a concept. I have no idea why this made this (or any other list). An intensely irritating voice with an accent that keeps slipping. The lyrics make no sense. Just random phrases poached from other reggae tracks strung together. I kept trying to work out whether it was a pastiche. 1/5.

An interesting mix of tracks. Quite enjoyable. Probably deserves more than a 3. Did you know you can sing Janis Joplin's "Mercedes Benz" to the tune of "I'm Lonely (But I ain't That Lonely Yet)"? The temptation to do so is very strong. 3/5.

This is all a bit "meh". The singer is "OK". Not great, "OK". The songs are also "OK". Not great, "OK". The playing is ... well, you get where I am going with it. Why someone feels I MUST listen to this, I have no idea. About halfway through I stopped actively "listening" and it became "background music" as I got on with other stuff. 2/5.

Three significant hits on this glittering piece of mid-80s pop from the group which finally put paid to all those "Norwegian band" jokes. An excellent album 4/5.

It is not awful. It isn't something I'd choose to listen to either. All rather vacuous. It's probably OK if you like this sort of thing. 2/5.

It isn't my favourite "Talking Heads" album... it's OK. 3/5.

's OK. It didn't engage much interest. 3/5.

These guys want to be 'Queen', rather badly. They're not. They lack originality. What you might hope is "drawing on influences to form their own style" was revealed as something less by track 7. It's more a case of "let's do this in the style of..." That probably works well if you're young teenager, so I can understand why it sold. If you've heard all the earlier bands they're merrily doing turns as... well it just grates. 2/5.

Yeah. So very of its period. The smoothest of the smooth yet with a hard-edged message. 4/5. The 192kHz/24 bit remaster I am listening to (2011?) is technically superb.

I've never consciously heard this band before. Completely against my expectations I found myself enjoying this. 4/5.

5 great singles from this album by a legend of reggae. I'm not going to bother reviewing it, who am I to comment? 4/5.

Badly played demo tape. If they'd taken the time to finish the songs, record them properly, arrange them in a sensible order and get in some session musicians to play the difficult bits they struggle with... Of course, that means I don't get the whole "lo-fi" thing. Fair enough. I think my take is, "if they can't be bothered... why should I?" 2/5 simply because if someone else decided to record some of these songs properly they might be quite good.

Umm... OK. Track 1, am I listening to a drunk bar singer? He has that particularly irritating, slurred, vocal style. I do like the arrangement, albeit there's that annoying 60's thing of being a little too impressed with stereo going on, "what happens if we put the guitar just on the right channel?". Track 2. More of the same. Can't someone shut the bar singer's mic. off? Track 3 starts with waves! How very cliched. Then some acoustic jazz bass... hopeful. Oh dear, more slurred droning. The others are more of the same. So, decent songs coupled with dreadful, self-indulgent, vocals. I think that earns it a 2/5. Hopefully someone else covered the songs at some point.

Meh. 2/5

"Talking Heads" are one of those bands that people get very pretentious about. I'll try and avoid that. This is OK. It isn't my favourite TH album and it isn't the best one that has been suggested from this list. It hasn't aged well. 30 years ago this would have gained a 4 from me. Now, 3/5.

Heh. yeah. A favourite Bowie album and has been in my collection for more than 40 years in every format conceivable. Normally under the rules of engagement with this site I'd listen to the album now. I am not going to as I listened to it two days ago. 5/5.

'Thrash Metal' wasn't a genre I was particularly fond of in period. Friends liked it so I had considerable exposure to it, sometimes unwillingly. My opinion hasn't really changed, it's all a bit overblown and lacks sophistication. There is an awkward flow to several of the tracks, 'not really one car, three cars from different manufacturers welded together'. All that said, I thought this was OK. 'Orion' was the track I enjoyed most. It gets my 3/5 'OK' rating, which isn't bad for a musical style I don't particularly like.

I enjoyed this. I may even enjoy it more on repeated listens, it's got that sort of feel about it. 4/5.

Decent enough album. Some I liked, others not so much. 3/5

She has a lovely voice but I dislike the music and arrangements. 'Eagles' are as 'Country' as I am prepared to go. This isn't for me. 2/5.

I was 5 minutes into the first track, reading an article about 1970s 'warm' hatchbacks, when I realised I had lost interest and wasn't listening any more. Track 2 is very '60s French Rock' and not in a good way. Same for 3... When was this recorded? 1996? Really? Track 4... now I am just irritated. Enough. 1/5.

I disliked the vocal tics on the first track, things got better. A decent album overall but not really 'my thing'. 3/5.

One of those albums that has been in my collection for more than 40 years. I've owned this on vinyl, cassette, CD, and hi-res download. It has drifted in and out of favour with me. It isn't really my favourite of the early Zep albums, I'm not sure I particularly liked it as a teenager. My musical tastes have changed a bit and I can now appreciate this more. Still, 5/5.

Mmm... Excellent. 4/5.

There's a 'died too young' veneer attached to the Purple Pixie that gains him many unjustified superlatives; 'top 5 guitar player'? Hardly. Not even close in fact. However, anyone who wasn't around in 1984 will struggle to understand just how huge this album was. Still an enjoyable listen and one of only two Prince albums I regularly choose to listen to. Not a bad song on here and some great ones. It gets a rare 5/5 for me.

So... this is a 'legendary' album in 'country', a genre I don't much like, but I'll try and give it a proper go. First thing, the sound quality is awful. Echoey, remote sounding vocals and instruments, and it sounds dynamically flattened. Yes, it is live and yes the venue was probably less than ideal, even so... Getting onto the music. The arrangements are simplistic, nothing to hook onto there. I don't find Cash's voice particularly engaging. That leaves me with the lyrics... 'ditties' more than 'songs'; nothing lyrically engaging. No deep social content, nothing 'meaningful'. I'll admit I just don't 'get' Country. I'm expecting lots of 5/5 reviews but for me it is a 2.

One of those bands I think I SHOULD like but reality differs. This album washes over me but fails to engage. It's not unpleasant but it stirs no emotion. Musical blancmange. 2/5.

Unexpectedly enjoyable. Early 60s live recordings are a mixed bag. This is OK. 3/5.

Do I hate this? Surprisingly not. I don't like it either. I think my biggest issue with it being it could have been so much better. There is promise in many of the tracks but they all sound like demos, lyrically incomplete. Something to dance to? Perhaps. Something to listen to? Definitely not. 2/5

This is 'OK'. It didn't grab me on first listen. Didn't offend me either. It might grow on me... bit 'porridge made with salt and water'; OK but you really want to add some taste. Oh yeah, 'bland', that's the word. 3/5.

I have no need to listen to this. I know how good it is. I will though. 5/5

I enjoyed this. If I understood the words I'd enjoy it more; that's my issue. 3/5.

'A Hard Day's Night', 'And I Love Her' and 'Can't Buy Me Love'; great tracks. The rest, not so much. Not one of the Beatles' stronger albums. This doesn't stretch to much more than a 3/5 for me.

It's all right. I have no desire to hear it again, but it wasn't awful. 'Of its time' is how I'd describe it. 3/5.

Neil Young's frequently whiny vocals were less whiny on this recording. That's a good thing. 'Down by the River' is a great track. So is 'Running Dry'. Both have extended instrumental sections packages. The 'unkind man' in me is whispering, 'yeah, you like them 'cos Young isn't singing so much'. This was going to be a 3, but 'Down by the River' onwards turned it into a 4. moving it from the 'OK' to 'I like' category. 4/5.

'Beck' but not 'Jeff Beck'. 'Close but no guitar', how disappointing ;) Actually, 'disappointing' sums this up. I've never knowingly heard 'Beck' and if this is typical I don't particularly want to again. His vocals are lifeless, droning, lacking emotion. It's an album of songs that deserve, no, demand, a voice with some genuine emotional content. This sounds, 'robotic'. Not for me. 2/5.

Difficult one. Yes, I can see how this could have been 'influential' on all sorts of later artists. One might reasonably argue that this makes it 'important'. I'm not voting on that. I'm voting on how much I like and album and from that standpoint it's a middling 3/5.

Someone said, "The best single LCD Soundsystem studio album for sure". Oh dear. Life is too short for this unimaginative nonsense. 1/5.

This almost got 3, but I am deducting a point for the crappy 'string arrangements'. Why do rock bands do that? 2/5.

's all right. Didn't do much for me. 'not unpleasant'

Yes, it is completely over the top. Yes, it is pretentious. Yes, it is great. 5/5.

I really shouldn't like this. Not 'my type' of music at all.. but that's why I am playing this game. I really enjoyed this. Brilliant vocals. Atmospheric. Made me actually listen. 4/5.

Eminently forgettable, verging on annoying. His brother does 'ambient' so much better.

Definitely not. 1/5

There was nothing else quite like this in the late 1970s. There still isn't really. It is very much 'of its time' but 4/5 for a mix of nostalgia and being surprisingly enjoyable even today.

This is difficult. Three of my favourite Beach Boys songs on here, 'Wouldn't It Be Nice', 'Sloop John B' and 'God Only Knows'. The rest, while not exactly 'fillers' can't live up to those. I'm too old (by more than 40 years) for themes of 'teen angst and romance' to resonate, so lyrically this doesn't speak to me. I KNOW this is an 'important' album. Everyone says so... I'm not scoring things on that, though, I'm not a music critic. I'm scoring things on my personal enjoyment and on that basis it gets a 3/5.

A great album that I've owned for 40-odd years and don't listen to often enough. It was nice to get the prompt to give it another spin. 5/5.

Meh, poorly recorded/mastered, clipped and distorted vocals; the 'Loudness War' writ large, unsurprising given the date of the release. I wonder if the original albums these tracks were pulled from were technically any better? Unfortunately I am not interested enough in the contents to go and listen. Fairly generic, yelled, vocals over high energy but simplistic guitars, bass and drums. Why is this on the list? By the time I got as far as 'Untutored Youth', I was bored by the posturing. 2/5 from me.

I get why people dislike 'Prog Rock'. If you are after 'instant gratification' then it's not the musical genre you're looking for, it often lacks the 'hook' that will drag you in during a casual listen. Fair enough. I've had this album knocking around my collection for a number of years. It isn't my favourite Rush album. For many reasons, including some personal ones, that distinction goes to 'A Farewell to Kings' which isn't on this list. In general I prefer the band's earlier albums. This is listenable. I wouldn't kick it off the turntable but it isn't something that I choose to play often and that is telling. 3/5 for an 'OK' score. Were I allowed to I'd give it 3.5/5.

Tricky. There are some good tracks on here, ones that I enjoy listening to, but I don't think this 'works' as an album. It's analogous to putting your favourite track of all time on repeat for an hour; at the end I'll guarantee you'll like it a bit less. It would help if this was about 20 minutes shorter. 3/5 as an album. Some of the individual tracks deserve more.

'Music is Love' was more 'Music is Hate' for me, are those Neil Young's thin, whiny vocals? Yup. Apparently he contributes vocals to 'What Are Their Names' as well. Lovely. The second track, 'Cowboy Movie' is much more to my taste. It does drag on a bit, though. 'Tamalpais High (At About 3)' sounds like 'Steely Dan' in one of their blander moments. and that's the album's 'three tracks to grab me' quota reached. I'll sample the others just in case. More of the same. According to Wikipedia 'In 2010, Crosby's album was listed second, behind the Beatles' Revolver, on the "Top 10 Pop Albums of All Time" published in the Vatican City newspaper'. Had they been at the communion wine? This isn't for me. It is terribly bland and self-indulgent. 2/5.

There are some possibly decent songs hiding under all the EDM crap. Did they ever make a version without it? Nope... oh well, <plonk> I was going to give it a generous 2/5 but actually, I'll take another one off for loss of potential. I hate this. 1/5.

Monotonously dull. It's not unpleasant, at times it even meanders into tuneful, but it remains uninspiring and failed to grab my attention. Lobby music. 2/5.

I'm going to give it 4/5 but I can easily see how, after a few more listens, it could become a 5/5.

I wasn't into punk in period. Nearly 50 years later and listening to this I find my opinion hasn't changed. Detached from 'the scene', it is better than I remember and perhaps compares favourably with some of the things that followed. This isn't something I'd choose to listen to. 2/5

The first thing that strikes me is that this isn't an album, it is a collection of songs. There is no structure. It's a selection of tracks best described as 'show tunes'. Most sound as though they would be more at home in musical theatre than on a pop/rock album. The final nail in the coffin is that I really don't like Randy Newman's voice. A generous 2/5.

Bits of this are OK, others are irritating. It's not something I'd choose to listen to. 2/5.

Sparse arrangements. Tight, competent, playing. It's an album that's marred by irritating and unnecessary audio tricks. The 'dustbin lid banging' effect on 'Play for Today' that shifts from the left channel to the right and back again through much of the song is an example. Perhaps those are more apparent when listening on headphones. 3/5 but a low 3. Not offensive but I wouldn't choose to listen to it again.

Some of these tracks are familiar. I wasn't keen on Madness in period regarding them as one of those 'novelty bands' that were a peculiar feature of the British singles chart. There are some terrible songs, 'Blue Skinned Beast' is particularly awful, sounding like three tracks crudely Sellotaped together... I've reached track 7 and I am almost frantic for the whole thing to end. Track 9... I can't stand it any more. I am out, before the trauma becomes permanent. No... this is a deeply annoying album that I find almost unlistenable. 1/5.

I remember punk from period as a 'reaction' against the rather silly excesses of glam rock and prog. In that context it 'worked' and was needed. Out of context and nearly 50 years later it comes across as crude, badly played, and unnecessary. It is possible to combine 'back to basics' with skilful playing, some of their contemporaries managed it, but these guys swing and miss. I might have enjoyed this in 1979. 2/5.

Reggae overtones on track one. Andean flutes on track two. Jazz influences on three. Somewhere else entirely on four. Blending musical styles can be interesting but that's not what this sounds like. It is more 'try that one, nope... let's try something else...'. Sometimes the insertion of, for example, 'a bit of jazz here' sounds distinctly awkward and contrived. It is an album that's scurrying all over the place, searching for a direction. It fails to find one. There's nothing unpleasant here... but nothing that grabbed my attention either. Not for me. 2/5

If we ignore the 'ex-Beatle George Harrison' thing, where does that leave us? It is an album with a 'cast of thousands', that is too long and with over-blown Phil Spector 'wall of sound' production which also blighted 'Let It Be' by George's former band (oh no, I mentioned the Beatles again). It is drowning under a swamp of reverb. With all that, it is a miracle and testament to Harrison's song writing that some gems still sparkle. I'd love to hear a more pared-back version of this album, it would probably be really, really good. Listen to 'Beware of Darkness' for what could have been... I wished I could give this flawed gem more than 3/5, but I can't.

Nothing here for me. 2/5

Somehow I'd managed to get well into my 6th decade with no knowledge of Tom Waits. How I wish that remained true. This is... terrible. 1/5 but only because I can't give it 0. Really, we need a '0' star rating on here.

I was a huge Zep fan in the 1980s. My musical tastes have changed a lot since then, but this remains an album I reach for. 'The Rover' is one of my favourite LZ tracks. 5/5

This isn't helped by the fact that I have never really liked Ian Hunter's vocals. The album failed to grab me. Not unpleasant... just... not. An entirely mediocre 3/5.

Why? Peaked at 57 in the UK charts during 1994... no one cared then and I don't care now. Utter, forgettable, crap. Another for the 'I wish I could give it 0' pile. 1/5

It's an album that needs a glass of wine, old-school dynamic driver headphones and a valve amplifier. It's a bit too early for wine, not even 8am, but I gave it the other two. I've always preferred 'Astral Weeks' but this 'more accessible' Van Morrison deserves a warm and fluffy, thermionic valve enhanced, 4/5.

Of course I am familiar with the 'big hits' on here. Given my age how could I not be? My musical journey started around the time of Bolan's death but the music was still all over the radio. My thoughts at the time were of a band with a few fun tunes but no real desire to ever listen to an album. Having listened to this now, I still hold to that. 'T-Rex is important to the development of Glam Rock'. Fair enough, I can't argue with that. It doesn't mean I like this, though, and that's what I am ranking albums on. It gets a 'historically important' 2/5 from me.

Ambient music with some squeaky vocals layered on top. I failed to engage with this in any way. 1/5.

Hard to top this. I am not going to review it, 'cos no-one needs another review of 'Sticky Fingers'. 5/5

A great album but not an easy one. If you want 'easy' try bubblegum pop, it is probably more your thing. I've owned this for years and it gets better with every listen. A rare 5/5 from me.

My least favourite of the trio of Quincy Jones produced MJ albums and missing Rod Temperton's songwriting influence. Perhaps too many vocal tics. As such, 3/5. Might scrape 4 on the right day.

A bit of a struggle to find this, but it is on YouTube. It is a strong 3, verging on a 4.

Mmm... I prefer the more up-tempo numbers and this was going to get a '3' but then Jeff Beck appeared and he's always worth a +1 so 4/5 it is. Some of the ballads drag.

There really isn't any need for me to listen to this album. It has been part of my life for more than 40 years. I will, though. 5/5

I've never really bothered with 'Crosby, Stills and Nash' and coming into this album I wondered whether that was a mistake. It seems not. It isn't unpleasant. I'm grateful Neil Young isn't present. It is 'Simon & Garfunkel like' but without the gentle humour, or occasional hard edge that S&G bring to their songs. It is all quite 'pleasant', gentle and very much of its time. I think it has aged badly. If you're a fan of late-60s folk rock, this is probably fantastic. I'm not, so it will get a middling 3/5 from me.

I didn't hate this but I have no desire to ever hear it again. Once is enough. 2/5.

Yeah, enjoyed this. 4/5.

Bland and forgettable. I failed to engage with it at all. 2/5

Enjoyed that. Terrible recording (typical of the period) and I'll need to find a less revealing amp and headphone combination for next time I listen to it, but there will be a next time. 4/5.

No engagement. Wasn't awful.

'Tragic' is correct. Also 'banal', 'awful', 'dire', 'dreadful', 'appalling' etc. Perhaps you have to be a citizen of the U.S. from a particular demographic to 'get this'. Oh yeah, I've thought of another one, 'drivel'. 1/5 but only 'cos 0 isn't an option.

Some of these songs are familiar, I suspect I heard many of these tracks on the radio in period. Certainly none of my friends were Madonna 'fans'; she was 'pop' and we didn't do 'pop'. The track 'Like a Prayer' could be an ABBA number... dunno if that's a good thing. I completely panned 'Ray of Light' when it came up here. This is better. A more honest pop album, fun at times, and she has a great voice without a doubt. It is not really my thing and I don't want it in my album collection, I wouldn't choose to listen to it but if someone started playing it I wouldn't yell at them to change to something else. 3/5.

Queen is a band I often have trouble with. They're frequently guilty of wandering into 'show tune' territory. They tend to inhabit an awkward middle ground between Glam Rock, Prog, and Zeppelin-lite. Still, this was entertaining enough to garner 4/5 from me.

It was a bit of a struggle to find this on my streaming service but I eventually tracked it down as the first four tracks of the album 'The Virgin Years: 1974-1978'. Basically it is 'ambient music' with some annoying use of stereo imaging. I am sure this was 'important in terms of the development of electronic music' and all that, but Roger Eno does 'ambient' so much better if that's your want. A 2/5 from me.

Not as awful as 'shortlisted for the Mercury Prize' normally indicates. I am not convinced the material made the best out of the vocalist, who is very good indeed. There's a 1960s film score sound about the whole album. 3/5.

I always wondered how 'The Stranglers' got bundled up with the whole Punk scene; a coincidence of timing I guess. They're really not a Punk band. They can play, they're intelligent, there's some musical structure.. Oh well... 3/5.

A solid 4/5 from me.

No, I'm not getting this at all. Well played, certainly, but it is failing to connect. 2/5 (thinking it 'must be me').

Mostly inoffensive.

I've never knowingly heard anything by Amy Winehouse. What I'm listening to now is an early 60s pastiche with some profanity thrown in for impact. Is that typical? I'd hoped for something more original. It's well sung, I agree... but I'm struggling to find any point to this. A disappointed 2/5.

They do what they do quite well. The problem is I have never particularly liked what they do. They weren't my thing in period and, after a re-listen this morning, they're still not. 3/5.

Pretentious as hell with all the depth of a road-side puddle. Not for me. 1/5.

4/5

This is inevitable and difficult. The songwriting is sublime and the musicianship excellent. Then there's Bob's voice. I hate Bob's voice and always have done. I've long held that Bob Dylan songs (with very few exceptions) are far better when covered by others. This album has done nothing to disabuse me of that opinion. I spent much of it thinking, 'who would do a good cover of that?' for each track. This is an exercise of trying to enjoy the music and lyrics whilst ignoring the caterwauling. 4/5 for the sheer brilliance of the songwriting.

This is an 'almost' album. It almost escapes being background music, it is almost enjoyable enough for me to want to re-visit, it is almost worth 3/5. One of the 1001 best albums... nah.

7 a.m. on a Sunday morning immediately after listening to W.A. Mozart's 'Missa brevis in D Minor, K. 65' was possibly not the best time to listen to this. This probably works very well at a rave. It does nothing at all for me outside of that context. It gets my 'alright if you like that sort of thing...' default of 2/5.

I haven't listened to this for some time so it is interesting to re-visit it. A very inconsistent album. There is some complete dross 'Mother'/'Walking in Your Footsteps' and some gems 'King of Pain'/'Every Breath You Take'/'Wrapped Around Your Finger'. The highs are very high, and the lows are very low. I think that garners it a 3/5.

I sort of like this and I sort of can't be bothered with it. 3/5.

Yeah, 3/5.

This will be something new. I have never listened to an entire Pet Shop Boys album. Of course I heard many of their singles on the radio in period but that was mostly earlier. I'd moved on to other genres by 1990. Two tracks in and I am missing the energy I expected; it's all quite mellow and laid back. Lyrically it is a little awkward at times, occasionally the words don't quite scan. 'How is he going to rhyme with that? Oh... he didn't bother'. Four in and "How Can You Expect to Be Taken Seriously?" is the first vaguely 'Pet Shop Boys sounding' track. Then track 5 is back to the ballad format. I am genuinely perplexed. I was expecting 'dance', 'upbeat', occasional biting social comment, humour. Instead I get ballads, fake strings, awkward lyrics. Was this album an attempted change in style? Anyway, not what I was hoping for. I was in the mood for some upbeat synth pop and I got this... a disappointed 2/5 from me.

I wanted to like this, really, I did. Then it started playing. It's not that Isaac's vocals are bad on 'Walk On By', it's just that they're in a completely different key to the music. Did no one tell him? It is better when there are no vocals and I started enjoying 'Walk On By', until at about 8 minutes they just kept repeating one phrase way too many times and I thought, 'get on with it, for pity's sake'. 'Hyperbolic...' has a lot of curious grunting that switches from the left to the right channel and back again. You can see where Michael Jackson got a lot of his inspiration from, although MJ tends more towards squeaks than grunts. Then it descends into a long jazz/blues jam, again with weird channel placement. The piano wanders between left and right, was it on wheels? Irrespective, it is VERY annoying on headphones. 'One Woman', Sammie Davis Jr., is that you? At least Isaac is in the proper key this time and the song is of a respectable length. Good, because it is something that needs to end (relatively) quickly. Ah, 'By The Time I Get to Phoenix'. Starts off with Isaac speaking complete bollocks for several minutes. It's a 'deep tune' but apparently 'I have no idea what it's about' he claims, but Isaac is going to do it 'his way' anyway... Now some might argue that if you don't understand a song you CAN'T do it your way, Isaac... Oh no, I've typed all this and he's STILL talking nonsense, we're 5 minutes in now. I suppose I should be grateful for the lack of off-key singing? I like soul music. I've worshipped at the shrine of Otis Redding, Sam Cooke, Nina Simone and others for decades. This is dreadful, self-indulgent nonsense. BTW we're now 8 minutes into 'By The Time...' and Isaac still hasn't started singing... ah... 8:44; the talking ends and the vocals start. It wasn't worth the wait. A scraped 2/5.

This does nothing for me. 2/5

What an interesting album. THIS is why I signed up here. I completely missed Wire in period. Wikipedia gives the gnomic utterance, 'Although the album has received acclaim, it was not a big seller.' That'd be why. Urgh... Robert Christgau liked it, that's usually a red flag. I shouldn't like this. It's really not my thing, I don't like 'punk', 'post' or otherwise. I especially don't like it at 7am on a Sunday morning immediately after listening to W.A. Mozart's 'Mass in C major, K. 220 "Spatzenmesse"'. Yet... somehow I found myself switching to a better amp and set of headphones and nodding along. It kept me intrigued. Oh, sod it. A very surprised 4/5 from me.

First time with this album. The studio version of 'No Woman No Cry' is umm... 'different' if you're used to the commonly played live track. I enjoyed this. Not as much as I enjoyed 'Exodus', but it's still 'good'. 4/5 from me.

By the time it got to 3 minutes into track 2 this was starting to annoy me. By 5 minutes into track 2 I was angry and wanting the whole experience to end. It seems I don't get 'funk' if this is supposed to be a great funk album. Perhaps it's a 'transatlantic thing'. Nah. Not for me. I am out. 1/5.

I am not a huge Beatles fan. My best friend when I was growing up was, so I had many, many, many, hours of Beatles albums played at me. Familiarity breeds contempt sometimes, so I tried to listen to this with as open a mind as possible. Leaving aside the anomalies of 'Yellow Submarine' and 'Doctor Robert' it is an excellent album. The problem with hindsight, though, is I know what other Beatles albums are coming and this sounds 'transitional' at times. Oh, well. A solid 4/5 from me.

She has a voice and vocal style that is, to me at least, intensely irritating. Couple that with the naive guitar playing, fake bird sounds and badly arranged 'strings' and this becomes a disaster. 1/5.

Bouncy, fun, upbeat. Musically simplistic and with all the lyrical depth of a puddle. It struggles into a 3. Oh, sod it. It became more tedious the further I got through it . 2/5.

3/5

4/5 for this bit of nostalgia.

I'm going to ignore the political, racist and cultural appropriating hullabaloo surrounding this album. Tricky, I agree. That leaves the question of whether I am enjoying what I hear. I don't think I do, particularly. I don't hate it much either. A middling 3/5 then.

's alright. 3/5

I loathed this. I dislike her vocal style. I dislike the excessive use of auto-tune. I dislike the over-boosted levels leading to constant distortion. 1/5.

Track 1 and I'm listening to Blue Oyster Cult... but with less talent. Then a Sonny & Cher cover? I've no idea what to say about 'Back to Africa' other than it really hasn't aged well. Is this a novelty album that someone mistook for early punk? I'm not wasting any more time on this tosh. 1/5

A long-anticipated and dreaded day. It was inevitable that this album cropped up on this sort of list it is a work of genius, right? The problem I have is that I bought it years ago, listened to it once and didn't like it. I'll forced myself to listen again. Long, indulgent, jazz/blues derived solos with a side-order of psychedelia. Lyrically obscure. The musicianship is competent. The drummer needs to calm down and back off a bit. The drums are much too forward in the mix, to the point of being irritating. Period typical abuse of stereo imaging. Standard, rock band, 'simplistic, badly arranged "strings"'. Really why do they do this? All the tracks drone on a bit. 'Moonchild' got very annoying. Interesting, yes. Innovative, sure. Enduring work of genius? Perhaps not. I can't decide on 3/5 or 4/5 for this. It's really a 7/10. Oh for more granularity in scoring! 'Moonchild' and the drumming nudge me towards 3/5.

The conversation that should have happened but never did. Record Company, 'John, find someone else to sing on your album'. 'OK', John replied. 2/5.

Initial thoughts when this popped up were that in period Slade was something I regarded as a bit of a 'novelty band', with a penchant for song titles that mangled the English language, and that if it wasn't for a certain Christmas anthem they would have been long forgotten. Then I remembered that I rather liked 'Far, Far Away' (possession of the single may have been 'a guilty secret' [I am admitting nothing]) and was disappointed to see it wasn't on 'Slayed?'. Oh, well. I should listen to it and not work on preconceptions. Thing is this is 'OK'. I mean it's not awful. The songs are well enough done. It sort of hangs together as an album. The production is... well, it clips and distorts (and not in a good, Jimi Hendrix style distortion way) at times. It's 'OK' though. It's an 'OK' album. It has no place on a list like this. Neither does Slade to be honest. Did I enjoy it, well... sort of. If I was in a pub for a night out and the band played this, I wouldn't walk out. 2/5. That seems cruel as 'It's Christmaaaaasssss' but yeah. postscript: Memories of 'Far, Far, Away' sent me off in search and I landed on 'Slade in Flame'. Now, if THAT had been the album on this list it would have been 4/5.

Another White Stripes album? Thing is, this one really deserves to be on this list. OK, perhaps there are many Stones influences. I like the Stones. 5/5.

I remember 'not thinking much of' these in period. Things change, so let's see. By the end of track two I am bored and feeling vaguely uncomfortable, I'm not sure why. One side done. The album has failed to engage. The band don't sound like they're trying. It's all a bit 'music by numbers'. 2/5.

4/5

An interesting attempt but it is a bit of a swing and miss for me. 3/5.

4/5 for this one.

A favourite album for as long as I have enjoyed music. Something I've had in various formats since the early 1980s. Absolutely 5/5. Why can't I give 6?

At times bland, at other times just unpleasant. This isn't for me. 2/5.

I tend to regard ZZ Top as the US Status Quo and I've walked out of two Status Quo gigs because I was bored. Perhaps slightly unfair as the guitar work is better with ZZ Top but even so... There are three tracks on here that I recognize from radio play back when the album came out. That's not enough to sustain an interesting album but enough to give it a grudging 3/5.

This sounds almost disturbing. Four musicians each playing different parts, but I am entirely unconvinced that they all belong to the same tune. There is no cohesion. 2/5.

2/5

Meh layered on meh. 2/5.

It's a bit of nothing really. It's not good, it's not bad, it's not interesting, it's not irritating. Audio blancmange. 2/5.

It was interesting for the first 1 min and 15 seconds. Who told the girl she sounds good when she adds volume to her voice? She doesn't 'sing' at high volume, she 'shouts' and forces here voice. There is a difference. Wikipedia describes her as a 'mezzo-soprano'; much laughter. Go and listen to some proper mezzos, Cecilia Bartoli, Ann Hallenberg, Adèle Charvet... Track 2. Why is she singing with a distinctly US accent? Apparently she's one of the 'world's best selling artists'. Fair enough. The Toyota Corolla is the world's best selling car. I have no desire to drive a Corolla. or listen to more of this generic, predictable pop. Included solely on the basis of sales? I can think of no other reason. Technically the recording clips quite badly. Hire a decent sound engineer while you're at it. I am sure she can afford it. 2/5

Not my thing but I can see the attraction. 2/5.

I'm not sure what this is. It's categorized here as 'Jazz'. Mmm... well not really. Not in a form I recognise. Brazilian pop/'easy listening'? Perhaps. Let's not use 'Jazz' as a bucket term for 'stuff we can't easily fit in anywhere else', please. It is also, according to one source, 'A posthumous compilation of some works by Elis Regina, put together with no evident concept in mind'. That seems evident as there is no cohesion to the recording. Does it meet the category of '1001 Albums...' if it isn't really an album? I've yet to encounter any other 'Greatest Hits' compilations here. That makes this a strange inclusion. She had plenty of studio albums to choose from in her career. On to the music. Stylistically it isn't what I'd choose to listen to. As background music in a bar I'd wandered into it would be OK. I wouldn't walk out. I might even order a second drink and linger a while but it's not going onto my turntable. Her voice is 'OK'. I'm not wowed by it and at times it is a little 'thin' and off-pitch when the song gets more demanding. Again... I've heard many singers who sound as good. I'm plainly missing whatever is the 'special sauce' here. 2/5.

A solid 4/5 for this one.