"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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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