1001 Albums Summary

When I was 16, I took a school trip to France, and the one teacher bought by a crepe because he was impressed that a 16 year old knew 'I Want To Take You Higher' was performed by Sly & The Family Stone (which I knew only because I owned and loved Duran Duran's 'Thank You' album). Anyway, this is a bit too noisy at parts for my tastes. I much prefer Duran Duran. 'Everyday People' is a classic, though.

Own it. Love it.

Clearly a classic. I know videos aren't part of the challenge, per se, but because So came out in a time when videos carried weight, this album has even more magic in that context. Plus, Kate Bush is enough to immediately give anything 5 stars.

Having given LCD Soundsystem a 5, I couldn't very well give Talking Heads anything less. Even if this isn't your type of music, you have to appreciate that this was released in 1980. Groundbreaking.

Kinda torn on this one. As far as reggae goes, Bob Marley nails it. Great merger of uplifting music with heavy subjects. However, without much variety from one song to the next, it felt like the album overstayed its welcome. Would have been a better experience in smaller doses.

Uh... What is this? I am loath to hate on anyone's art, but this was positively grating. Salt in the wound: I endured the bonus tracks edition.

Ahh... just the ear bleach I needed after that Fairport Convention nightmare. Seriously though, the first time I heard this album I was much younger, and I didn't get it. But after seeing the movie and letting the music sit with me a while, I've come to appreciate it more.

First two tracks are great, but there's only so much falsetto and horns I can take in one sitting.

¡Ay, caramba!

Before today, I had actually never listened to this album. Sure, I was familiar with the title track, but everything else was new to me. Sitting here in 2024, I can see the importance of this album, insofar as Madonna using her brand to bring electronica into the mainstream, but this confirms what I assumed when I heard the title track back in 1998: she was headed in a direction I was unwilling to follow. In fact, knowing what I know now, I'd say this "ray of darkness" is the very harbinger of the overproduced garbage that has been the Top 40 ever since the turn of the century. In that "light", Madonna is responsible for the destruction of modern music. I jest, of course, but this album DOES kick off what I dislike most about today's music. At any rate, there were a few nice moments on here (i.e. the ones without the clubby drum machines), but I, personally, didn't care much for it. Still, I'll give her credit for being the trailblazing queen she is.

I do love that this challenge is introducing me to music I've never heard before! This was nice. Light. Melodic. Simple. It gives more to its listener than it asks of him. No, it didn't change my world, nor will it make its way into my playlist, but I'm happy to have spent a short and pleasant time with it on this journey called life. Perhaps we'll meet again someday :)

Welp... didn't think we'd be dethroning Fairpoint Convention so quickly, but here we are... Before today, I had never been so relieved by YouTube's intrusive ad practices. I almost quit this one several times, but the challenge IS to listen to these albums before you die... even when they try their categorical best to kill you before you can... Everything from the vocals to the guitars seemed to be pathetically and PAINFULLY whining "boo friggin' hoo". It's as if someone managed to harness the dark acoustic energy of Fran Drescher and channeled it into an album. Unnecessary.

A very Paul Simony album. Peaceful and toe-tapping at times, but largely background music.

SERIOUSLY?! Someone needs to audit the algorithm! I'm fairly sure two Clapton albums within three days is a violation of the Geneva Convention. That said, this one wasn't nearly as terrible as the last (largely due to their comparative lengths), but in the end, trash is still trash.

I know I'm supposed to like Nirvana and all... but I just never have... Some would assert they should be respected, if not merely for their importance in music history... OK, but I'd argue the Huns were pretty important in European history - does that mean they deserve respect for it? Still, I'll give it a 2 since Eric Clapton didn't have anything to do with its production.

A twofer... or possibly threefer... Glad I had the day off! Some hits and misses here. A few tracks would definitely benefit from a radio edit, but overall, I do appreciate the eclectic nature of the album.

On a different day, I might have been more open to this... but today was not that day...

Ah... finally... an album I don't have to set aside half my day to get through... There are some enjoyable nuggets in here (mostly the songs written by Sting), but there are an equal number of tracks that feel kinda throwaway to me...

I could imagine hearing a few of these tracks at The Bronze... and that pleases me...

Even chicks in tight shorts couldn't save this album... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WADa5ItkV6o It's simply beyond the limits of good taste... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X9x9VqtciA

After recently reviewing a number of extremely long entries, I was relieved to see that this had only 9-tracks of mostly reasonable lengths. Unfortunately, it FELT just as long as those double albums. Seriously. This POS shouldn't even exist, let alone be on ANY requisite listening list.

Classic arrangements. Flawless vocals (obviously). It took me back to riding in the car with my grandparents. Though it's not really my thing, as an artform, it's pretty on point. Plus, several of these tracks were featured on the Golden Girls, so that's pretty much an automatic win. Minus 1 star, though, for the length - nothing should ever be this long.

Beyond the three singles, I was unfamiliar with the other eight songs - so it was nice getting to hear these for the first time. I wouldn't say they're overly strong tracks, with the side A four being noticeably better than the side B four, but I still dug the experience.

I'm really not sure what to make of this... I'm pretty sure I don't like it, but I could be wrong... No, I'm positive I don't like it... But on second thought... Wait, does this mean I hate Love? Ah, the 60s were such a confusing time...

Beck is sorta hit-or-miss with me... He offers flashes of brilliance but then muddles it all up with what can only be described as noise... I can appreciate an artist wanting to mashup genres, but it's always seemed to me that Beck mixes in one part glorious with two parts laborious... I'll give it a 2 because I do enjoy the singles, The New Pollution and Where It's At, but I really must flush the rest of this rackety rot...

Diet Beatles. For when you want to listen to British pop without all of the catchy hooks. Completely neutral to this. Nothing amazing; nothing offensive. Next.

Timeless.

Not enough drugs in the world...

The very definition of "death by a thousand (two-minute or less) cuts". While I didn't find anything of particular value on this MULTI-album, I did pick up vibes here and there of other bands I do like... ones that have a more structured approach to actual song writing. So, in that regard, I'll give it a 2 for having the right ingredients set out on the counter... just wish they had bothered to bake the damn cake.

Phil Spector's extreme creep factor and criminally murderous behavior aside, this was a great Christmas album. Full props to all of the talented performing artists.

Unequivocally awful. Why was this even made? I refuse to believe that anyone would listen to this under their own free will... let alone pay money for the displeasure...

Nice! An actual standard studio album to review! And it's a fairly good one! Despite some unnecessary meanderings and questionable noise (particularly within the title track), I enjoyed most of this. I'm still not willing to venture forth into the swamp of jazz, but I thank Steely Dan for showing me that there are some fringe elements that don't completely suck.

Meh... other than the two singles, I hadn't heard any of these songs before... and based on those two singles, I had always (correctly) assumed I didn't really need to, either... If I were a young girl hearing this for the first time in 1981, it probably would have hit harder... but I'm not, and it isn't, so it doesn't...

Garage rock? More like garbage schlock.

I know this was a critically acclaimed event and got tons of coverage back in the day... but I just don't like live albums... nor Nirvana... That said, compared to the other live albums I've had to endure on this list (and Nirvana's In Utero), this is slightly more tolerable... so I'll be generous and give it a 2...

Wow... This was really quite good... I have the cover of Thirteen by Garbage, but otherwise this was all new to me - which after reading up on the history of the album, I understand why... Too bad... They really could have been Big Stars...

Oof... that voice, tho... seriously... Thankfully, none of these tracks had particularly outrageous runtimes, though they did all seem VERY long...

W. T. F. I guess yesterday's review fell on deaf algorithms... And now I wish I were deaf...

Meh... Other than the two (rather weak) singles, I had never heard any of this, and I don't know how I ever really would have, either... There's certainly nothing even close to radio worthy here... More-or-less, it's just a boring, longer-than-necessary, story-telling experience... But it didn't outright assault my senses, so I'll give it a disappointed 2...

This was a tough review to write... On the one hand, I greatly appreciate experimentation with sounds, and without pioneers in the field, we wouldn't have the greatness we have today. On the other hand, this particular album just isn't landing with me. I listened to it three times just to be sure, but it failed to trigger that internal magic that sparks when you've found something special. While it does have its moments, it ultimately hits more like noise than music. As a contemporary comparison, put this up against Kraftwerk's 1978 Die Mensch-Maschine. One is CLEARLY more polished. I'm still going to give this a 3, though - not quite for what it is, but rather for what it was at the time, and for what it no doubt helped inspire afterwards.

This is of a genre I usually enjoy, but there isn't enough variety here. It felt like one 40-minute song. I listened to this twice, and I think the issue has less to do with the musical arrangements and more with her voice. Ethereal falsetto is nice in small doses - just not for an entire album. The electronic mix was decent, though. I was reminded of The Range at times; so, I'll give it a 3 for evoking some of that energy.

Ugh... College... Not sure I can be impartial about this one given my personal association, but I'll try... I guess, all-in-all, it's not a bad album... The singles are strong, even if they do bring me back to the dorms... The non-singles are also fairly decent, for the most part...

I would have expected "Brothers In Arms" to be on this list (and it probably is), but this was a surprise. OK album, if not somewhat unremarkable.

Genre-ly speaking, this is the kind of stuff I love. Unfortunately, this album misses the mark, and the one thing I can absolutely point to is how most of these tracks ultimately devolve beyond mere refrain into an endless loop that feels downright burdensome. I hated when "Message In A Bottle" did it, and I hate it here, too. Shame - because there are some elements on this album that could have been used for greatness. It hurts me, but I have to fail this.

Another completely new experience for me. There's no arguing that Adele can sing. If I were in a different place in life, I could see these songs hitting pretty hard. Thankfully, I'm not. Though not in relevant resonance with me, it's still a very strong work of art. Maybe a 3.5? Tell you what, I'll do Adele a favor and round down so that she has some new material to lament about on her next album.

I think in 1967 this would have been pretty tight - err groovy. I'm not so sure I have a place for this in my life today, but it's certainly far from offensive. There - I stayed away from any and all prune-related humor.

Full disclosure: I'm unable to be unbiased when it comes to Bowie. Low may not be one of his more commercial ventures, but this is still an excellent atmospheric album that I could listen to on repeat (and have). I don't know what the afterlife is like, but I really hope its soundtrack is written and performed by David Bowie.

I've always sorta hated Sympathy for the Devil... it's too long-winded, and the background woo-woo absolutely grates after the millionth time... My hangups with that particular track aside, I found the rest of the album (save for the rebellious rock classic, Street Fighting Man) to be very... dirty country diner... which I suppose is what they were going for based on the cover art... I guess if I'm being fair and honest, it was a slightly less than middle-of-the-road experience...

So... it seems the algorithm's theme for this week is country diner... at least we're getting these albums done and over with... I guess if I had to identify one positive thing about this experience, it would be that it made me feel better about myself knowing that this album had zero resonance.

Well now - this is distinctly NOT country diner! Thank you, algorithm, for the palate cleanser! Only 7 tracks, but what an array! Title track is a classic and a clear standout. For 1982, Scorpion was totally rad. And then, mixed in between some old skool rap and a gospel ballad, there's Dreamin'... talk about an awkward man crush - but I still can't say I hated it!

I have no idea what's going on, but it's got rhythm - and the honking Muppets! At least, that was the interpretation in my head... And if it's good enough for Rod Stewart to rip off, it's good enough for me! If you want my Muppet and you think it's honking, come on rate this album now!

I bought The Door's greatest hits in high school, and most of this album made the cut, so that's impressive for a debut, I suppose... Or maybe that just means they were never able to fully recapture the same magic? At any rate, there wasn't much to discover here for me, and maybe because I've heard most of this countless times it felt sorta boring... But it IS a classic... and I can respect it for that... So, for what it is, it would be unfair to give it anything less than a 4.

Hmm... not so sure about this one... there are songs I recognize (and like better) that were done by other artists, leaving "A Natural Woman" as the only song of real value... which I can't say I love, either... At the end of the day, I prefer singing to screaming, but there are far worse albums on this list...

The sax on the first track set the early, agonizing pace... and it was all downhill from there... Seriously, trumpets are the Devil... But at least there weren't any drum solo - - - ugh... And unholy Hell were these songs long and rambling... Definite contender for worst album yet...

Meh. I wanted to like it, but it felt like every time I heard something interesting, it led to a dead end. I know there's talent here... and lots of energy... but it just felt like a runny, chunky puddle that didn't set well overnight in the fridge...

Johnny Cash is one of the best there ever was and ever will be. He's a consistent performer and great storyteller who makes you feel. This album delivers the goods.

Outside the two singles, this borders on unlistenable... and even those are brought down by the overall experience...

Ugh... MORE jazz... I'm sure for what this is, it's wonderful... For me, however, it's just discordant background noise...

Whew... I can finally stop worrying that rumba was going to be unfairly underrepresented on this list...

Add another corpse to the pile of recent disappointments...

This exercise is challenging assumptions I've had about myself for a very long time... I thought I enjoyed all types of music... I guess I was wrong... Or maybe I just really hate meandering instrumentals, jazz, blues, bluesy jazz, jazz-infused blues, folk anything, and *gulp* rumba - which, based on the first 60 albums reviewed, makes up about a fifth of this list. Hopefully, this has been just an unfortunate randomization of the algorithm and not a foreboding of what the next 3.6 years will be like.

Sure... kick me when I'm down... Seriously - Rush is terrible, and this album doesn't change that opinion. There's nothing interesting or catchy with the music, and Lee's shrill vocals tear through my very soul. I appreciated that he wasn't screeching on Tears, but that moment of calm was, sadly, not enough to undo the damage on my psyche done by the rest of this rot.

Thank you, algorithm. This is exactly what I needed after last week's debacle. Excellent album that has something to say and makes you feel something.

OK seriously, enough with the jazz already... But I'll give it a 2 because the drummer's name is Donald Bailey.

Thank the sweet baby Jesus algorithm! I hope this is a sign o' the times that we can finally be done with jazz! Prince is right there with David Bowie for me. I know I'm biased, but I can only describe this as brilliant. Like Bowie, Prince does things that no one else has done - good things. I guess I should clarify because I've heard some unique things on this list that were not do good.

This was... odd... Based on other recent entries, I now have a new perspective on what awful truly is, and I can't say that this is that particular shade of bad... But it definitely isn't even close to good, either... In fact, it really is awful... Just in a very inventively odd way... I dunno... I struggle to imagine the target audience this was meant for... It sorta feels like clips of it would appear in a Hallmark movie or something... In the interest of mending my average score from the damage done by jazzapalooza, I'd love to give this a neutral 3 and move on, but it definitely doesn't deserve that... So, I guess the lesson here is that evil just comes in different flavors... Oh, and under no circumstances should Rufus ever be allowed to sing again... His whiny vocals are as deadly as any jazz horn...

Someone take away that man's harmonica this instant! Unless one were drunk and had given up entirely on life, I can't imagine another reason to willfully select this off the shelf when there are SOOO many other things to listen to in this world. But to prove I'm not a monster (or a bot programed to lower the global scores of this challenge), I'll give it a 2 because there are moments of good song writing here - just zero moments of good song performing.

I'm utterly offended by the obscene cover art... That aside, this album is totally groovy. A number of recognizable hits, no 20-minute-long ramblings, full motivation for multiple playthroughs. Everything a good album should be.

Soooo.... I can see my pleas for harmonica extraction have fallen on deaf ears... which mine now are... Is Dylan's M.O. to lead with one well-written (and badly performed) classic, and then fill the rest of the album with rambling garbage? If so, couldn't we have given him just a greatest hits entry and saved some room for other groups (possibly of non-Anglo origin) that absolutely should have appeared on this list but likely don't? Unfortunately for this album, my generosity for Dylan's songwriting was spent on the last rating.

Hmm... There are plenty of songs I enjoy by Morrissey and The Smiths, but I found this particular album somewhat lacking for a reason that I can't quite articulate. I gave it a second and third playthrough hoping that something would click, but I'm not sure that it did. I will say that, like most Morrissey-related works, subsequent listenings did reveal additional layers, so I think there's probably something here if you're willing to work for it - I just ran out of time in the day. So, I guess I'll give it a neutral rating. I'd probably have given it a lower score if not for the recent slew of painfully unlistenable garbage, which I certainly wouldn't lump this into. It's not bad - it's just not the best he has to offer.

Wow! I had never heard of this band before, and I love this album! This, THIS, is the reason we've taken on this challenge! I love finding something new that I love - especially when it's been out for such a long time - a whole new discography to explore!

Now, you know I love Bowie. However, this was just an OK experience for me. It's got Bowie-level production quality, and it's still better than many of these other "must hear" albums, but nothing here felt particularly special. I wish it had been half the length with twice the depth.

Big beat. This subgenre will forever hold a special place in my heart, given my age when it was popular; but as I and the world have evolved, it's just not as tangible as it once was. For one thing, this is dancing music - not casual listening music - and I do much less of the former nowadays... However, given this album's release date and purpose, I think it's fairly good. It's got exceptional mixing, some trancey rhythms, and lots of energy. All the things a good dance-oriented album should have. It's definitely not a casual listening album, though - so if that's the forum (like this challenge), then it can come across as repetitively oppressive at times. Still, for what it is when it was, I can't give it less than a 4. Oh, and a special shoutout to Praise You - that's a classic track.

OooooooooooooooooK... I guess there's a purpose for this, but I'll be damned if I know what it is... The lyrics detract from whatever musical quality this might have otherwise had. It's like barf on a wedding cake.

A must hear album? Sure, if you're a Promise Keeper.

This is pretty much White Stripes, and like White Stripes, it just doesn't land with me. I have tried REALLY hard to enjoy White Stripes, but their music (like this album) always feels too busy and noisy to me. In some cases, it's the guitar (Jack), in more cases it's the drums (Meg) (or more specifically - the damn cymbals), and in even more cases, it's both. Even without Meg, this still has that busy noisy cymbal thing. Like several White Stripes albums, I've given this a fair shake, and I can only conclude that Jack and I are just not compatible.

Another excellent album by Talking Heads. Though, if they have a bad one, I've never heard it.

Not at all my thing, but I can't say it's an affront, either. A 3 in the truest sense.

Eh... less falsetto, please... I know this is allegedly a classic, but I just really, really hate folk... I was willing to consider giving this a 2, but her voice caused me physical pain at times, and that goes beyond just not liking it for being boring and pointless...

Serious question: How the Hell did anyone survive the 60s? I COMPLETELY understand now why The Beatles were so popular. That said, I'm grateful these songs were mercifully short and leaned slightly more toward unremarkable than grating. Slightly. This is clearly not an album anyone needed to hear before he died.

Swingin' from the gallows, maybe... OK, it's not THAT bad, but I can only take so much big band and ol' blue eyes... Furthermore, this can't possibly be the best Frank has to offer, so I don't know what this album is doing on this list... make room for something better...

It's been a while since we've had something this century. Unfortunately, this isn't very good. Kinda just noisy and boring. I'd probably have given it a 2, but I feel compelled to give it a 1 to offset its undeserved hype.

Not my genre, but I certainly can't knock the guitar work. Seriously, I kinda HAFTA give it a 5. It really is an important album.

Some interesting ideas here, but at times I couldn't help but feel like this was more a demo than a studio album. I think there's probably some treasure here if you've got the time to dig for it among the rubble, but unfortunately, I only had time for two playthroughs today, and that wasn't enough to uncover the goods. Regardless, I think the weak vocals and "misery chick" vibe bring it down; so, it's a 2 for me.

None of these songs break the five-minute mark (most under four), but they all seem to drone on longer than they should. I guess that's not a very good sign. Now, I know very little about the technics of music, but maybe this "lag" is because the songs are written in a strange half-time or something? I mean, I like Robert Palmer's version of "Get It On", but I don't like it as much here. I dunno... All-in-all, it wasn't a painful experience, though - so I'll just slap a 3 on it and move on.

I enjoyed most of this, but the choice to make it a double album keeps it from greatness. There's far too much redundancy and filler here. If you're going to produce a double album, variety is critical; and this definitely doesn't have enough. Had it been a 9-10 track fare, it would have been a 5.

An undeniable classic. These songs have touched your life somehow at some point. Even if you don't like Led Zeppelin (I'm not crazy about them, myself), you've at least enjoyed music that's been influenced by them. Gotta show the respect.

What I kinda was expecting. Title hit, and a bunch of filler. I'm relocating today, so I have neither A. the time nor B. the inclination to give this a another playthrough. Sorry, Sister.

So... let me get this straight...this is a fragmented collection of scaps and debris that wasn't good enough for The Beach Boys, but it's good enough for this oft questionable list of "must hear" misfits? Got it.

I regret that I originally gave this album 2 stars based on only half-listening to it. That was unfair. But now that I've had the opportunity to give it my full attention, I am pleased to report that I fully hate it.

You had me at "(featuring Alison Goldfrapp)." By its nature, this isn't something you're going to be able to actively listen to very easily, but as an ambient artform, it delivers. I will say, however, that it runs a bit long (as an album and, at times, as individual tracks). Still, not bad for what it is. I'd probably have given it a 3, but Alison's worth an extra star.

I don't get this at all. It's the most monotonous album I've heard on this list (yet). I couldn't tell one song from another. Vocals are washed out and muddy. Music is repetitive and hookless. This honestly just sucks. A trash album that definitely doesn't deserve a place on this list... or even space on a dusty shelf at FYE.

Metallica's good at what Metallica does - I just don't care for what Metallica does. As an artform, I'm sure it's probably worth a 5, but my personal preference keeps me from giving it anything higher than a 3.

Not a fan. The guitar work is downright terrible. It's that noise pop crap I hated in my youth. It was a struggle to finish this (even with YouTube gratefully blocking 5 of the 12 tracks - which I didn't even bother to subsequently track down). I guess this means I didn't technically hear this album, but I can totally live with that.

This has everything a good pop album should have: catchy hooks, actual music (as opposed to noise), clear, well-executed vocals, variety between songs, reasonable track lengths. I really can't find fault with this - especially in juxtaposition to many of the other albums on this list. In fact, I'd probably have given this a 4, but the other garbage I've had to listen to recently compels me to give this a 5 as a point of comparison.

This one required a lot of work without much payoff... I hated the first listen, but I decided to try again (for some unknown reason) and surprisingly only kinda hated it the second time... I skimmed through it a third time, and the noise got less noisy, but my hate stain remained... There might be something of value here, but I don't want to risk injuring myself any further digging for it, lest I becoming as damaged as the vibe this album gives off... I'd like to give this a 1, but its being released in 1986 is pretty pioneer-y, so that's worth an extra star...

Another case of "this is probably good for what it is, but I hate the genre, so no amount of perfection is going to sway me" kinda thing.

I'm sure Talking Heads having so many entries on this list is going to elicit some eyerolls, but fortunately I love them, so you'll get no complaints from me. This is probably the weakest of their three Brian Eno-produced albums, but that still didn't stop me from listening to it multiple times; and I see no reason to rate this any less than the other two albums considering a Talking Heads low is still way better than an alleged high for many of these other artists.

Excellent album. Beautiful with an aura of sadness. This is an album you should hear (more than once) before you die.

Oh no... it's the misery chick again... Actually, this one wasn't as bad as the last one... hooks are much tighter, and the vocals (while still not very strong) aren't quite as washed out... If I were going to throw a pity party, this is the album I'd choose... but I hate parties... of any kind... Seriously - this was pretty decent, though.

I'm not overly familiar with the Bee Gees' library, but I find the selection of Odessa for this list highly questionable... as if someone had an agenda to push this obscure (and fairly terrible) album onto the masses who otherwise would not have (and should not have) ever listened to it. And yet, there have been worse things on this list; so, I guess it'll get a 2 for its relativity.

I've been told for a very long time that Rage Against the Machine is good... and I've for an equally long time disagreed. I suppose if I were angrier at "the machine," this would resonate, but I figure, I voted, so if things turn out to be a shit sandwich, either I'm partially to blame or fully free of fault. Getting angry at those in power and/or the idiots that put them there has just never felt like a good use of energy... I'd rather reserve my ire for more sensible things like malfunctioning technology and lousy coworkers. But I digress... back on topic: this album sucks. Any redeemable guitar work (and there is some) is completely lost in the splatters of screamy and oft silly cliches... seriously... I was more convinced of Alanis's anger on Jagged Little Pill than I was by the forced "rage" on this after school special...

There's a lot of great stuff here. As with most albums of this genre, it's not really an "active listening" event, but more of a subliminal mood setter. And, for the most part, I totally dug the mood that was set. There were, however, a few noisy misses and some run-on sentences, but I'm overall more pleased than pissed with the experience.

A band hailing from the sacred origin: Manchester, late 70s. Considering the historical context, this is pretty good; but unfortunately, the Buzzcocks were more punk than post-punk... not terrible by any stretch, just slightly off the sweet spot...

I'm neutral to this. Nothing compelling; nothing repelling. I had never listened to The Isley Brothers before; so, I guess I'm glad for the exposure, even if it was underwhelming. Besides, the title was just begging for a 3.

I mean... how could anyone give this less than a 5? And now that I'm done with my review, I've reviewed the other reviews, and apparently a lot of alleged "people" could and did give this less than a 5 - as in, like, 1s and 2s. Assuming no one would bother putting in the effort to spambot this silly challenge, I can only, once again, conclude that I'm simply living on a different planet than the majority of humanity... and thank goodness for that!

Golly gee whiz! These fellas sure do seem angry 'bout somethin'! Seriously, this brings me back to high school with a bunch of country white kids (who had never even seen a black person) listening to this thinking it somehow gave them a dangerous aura of protection from bullies and invisible gangs. Meanwhile, I simply perfected my resting bitch face to much greater effect. Anyway... back on task. In a vacuum, I'm not sure I would be able to find much value in this beyond a few clever moments (found particularly more on the back end). From a cultural and temporal perspective, however, I do have more appreciation for what this inspired - directly and indirectly. An example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2UmNA9T3T8

I don't think I like this, but I also think I might like this more than I think. Because it was short, I listened to both the original and the remix. The latter IS cleaner, but grime was an essential ingredient in the original... so, I think they both have merit depending on what you're after.

Admittedly, this isn't my favorite genre, but I've heard better... way better... This radiated a stiflingly lazy vibe to me. I felt like I was being asked to put more energy into listening to it than 50 put into producing it. Honestly, this doesn't even deserve a 1 since I'd rather have an album outright disgust me than induce such a feeling of ennui.

Some interesting ideas here, but it seems like that's all it is: ideas experimented with and then quickly abandoned in pursuit of other ideas; attractive moments of pleasant melodies interrupted by unnecessary noise. I would describe this as a dirt-encrusted gem found lying in the woods somewhere. There's beauty here, and you might even see a twinkle if you tilt it the right way, but the caked-on dirt prevents you from really enjoying it - not to mention, the dirt adds an additional 50%-75% weight (in this case length) that makes you put it back down and look for more easily-accessible sparkle elsewhere. Shame.

So... uh... I guess I needed to hear this before I died... at least, that's what I've been told... There wasn't a single thing about this that was particularly enjoyable, interesting, or revolutionary. Plus, it ran way too long. If this had been consolidated into 30 minutes (with ANY variety), I MIGHT have given it a 2 for being considerate of my time, but as it is: Crap x 2 = 1 Pile of Shit.

Even though (all but one of) these tracks don't have unreasonably long run times, they sure do FEEL unreasonably long. I think, perhaps, it's the incessantly bland and repetitive melodies in the background with nothing vocally or harmonically interesting in the foreground that makes this an absolute chore to listen to. In the face of undeserved hype, I very confidently give this dross a 1.

Oh, joy! The moment I knew had to be coming is finally here! Clapton's third gig! I sure do hope this list contains ALL of them - not the least of all his solo career! Look, I hate Eric Clapton. And nothing is going to change that. Not even the iconic riff on Sunshine of Your Love. While this is better than the Bluesbreakers and Derek and the Dominos, it's still Crapton.

Well... this was certainly... different. I can't say it was the worst thing this challenge has thrown at us, but it was quite possibly the most pointless. Who is the intended audience for this? The lyrics don't speak to "every man", and the music isn't for casual or even background listening. It's like a Broadway soundtrack without the plot. Very confusing. And, probably more than any other album we've heard thus far, NOT something that needed to be listened to before death. I will say, however, that other than the last track (which I mercifully ended at the 2/3rds mark), the overall orchestration and Ute's voice are strong, but does that REALLY matter at the end of the day? I mean, the bassoon's a great instrument, but if you're just using it to fish out lint from behind the dryer, you're squandering the potential of its true function. Sadly, this is yet another 1 for me. I know... I'm a monster...

I really, REALLY do hate harmonica solos of ANY kind... That aside, this was OK. It's not something I'd listen to again, but I do recognize that it has its moments. Back half is stronger than the front.

I've never felt strongly about the Beatles one way or the other, but this challenge has given me a new appreciation for them. Especially in the 60s, it seems the alternatives were bleak. And knowing what came later, it's clear the Beatles were important to the evolution. This is actually the first Beatles album I've ever listened to in full, and while it doesn't feel particularly impressive, it's nowhere near as bad as many of the other entries this algorithm dropped these last few weeks. Plus, I really appreciate that the Beatles stick to the radio standard of not droning on beyond a couple minutes per song. Smart. This keeps the weak tracks from dragging down the experience, and there are a number of them - "You Can't Do That" being particularly cringy. Overall, and in the greater context of what I've heard so far in this 1,001 stack, I'd say a 3 is fair.

I appreciate that this album challenged some of my preconceived notions about this type of music (i.e. modern pop) and about how I consume music, in general. I would never have listened to this without participating in this challenge, and without overanalyzing why I enjoyed it, but, instead, just enjoying it because I enjoyed it, it felt nice to not take this process so seriously. Anyway, I hear a little Fever Ray and a little Kate Bush here; and since I love both of them, this is an easy 5 for me. Sure, it's a little melodramatic at times, but it DID come with a label, so I can appreciate that it's also not taking itself too seriously.

Much of what I said about their debut album applies here, too. Putting the two together, I conclude that The Doors are the textbook archetype for justifying the need for a "Greatest Hits" album. Glad that that was my initial experience with them and not these individual albums, which are islands of hits in seas of calm meh to choppy ugh. Even so, this is still far better than most other entries on this list, and fillers aside, the hits do hold some personal nostalgia for me. I'd say this is a 3.5; so, since I gave their debut a 4, I'll give this a 3 and call it even.

I enjoyed this obscure little nugget far more than I had any reasonable business to. And then I proceeded to ingest the entire discography of studio albums: Music from the Penguin Cafe Penguin Cafe Orchestra Broadcasting from Home Signs of Life Union Cafe I was not disappointed.

TRIPLE? A triple album? Brah... There's some truly great stuff in here, and with the proper editing I could have easily justified giving it a 5, but the bloat drags it down. Way down. This could and should have been 1/3 5-Star Album, 1/3 Deep Cuts Album, 1/3 unrecorded scrap (i.e. Apple Jam).

Hmm... There are some splashes of interesting flavor here, but nothing ever gels... Unsatisfying... Like having a few bites at a buffet and leaving hungry... Disappointing... A taste of honey is worse than none at all...

pre·ten·tious /prēˈten(t)SHəs/ adjective attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed. Boring, annoying, and unquestionably overlong. Even the track titles disrespectfully demand too much energy to fully read them.

Lots of well-known hits here, obviously. In fact, I skipped those because I've heard them a million times (which IS still a credit to the Beatles and to this album, regardless). The other stuff that was new to me was mostly meh. 'I Want You' felt unnecessarily long (even despite my skipping a third of this album), and other than 'Here Comes the Sun' (which, again, was skipped for familiarity), nothing on the back side grabbed me. Like their last album, it's hard to be completely impartial when some of these songs have been sewn into the very fabric of Western existence. On the other hand, it's inevitable that their lesser-known tracks are unfairly held to that same standard. So, I'm just going to punt again here.

Look - I know Mariah can sing. However, I don't feel like she did that here so much as just sorta breathily sighed her way through this album. A very questionable use of a very powerful instrument. Furthermore, not one track stood out to me. Admittedly, 1997 was a very busy year for me, but I swear I never heard any of these alleged singles - or maybe I did, and they truly were/are that unremarkable. In fact, I hypothesize that if these songs had corporeal form, I could hang wallpaper with them. Oh, and I lied. The Prince cover DID stand out to me - for being a grotesquely unnecessary capital offence to the institution of good taste. KEEP YOUR CLAWS OFF PURPLE RAIN!

I'm a little conflicted on this one. I can appreciate what this was when it was, and a few of the beats/background ambiances are tight, but I don't think the overall sound has aged particularly well 40 years out. It feels a bit too rough... a little too bare bones. Still, this needed to exist for better things to come after, so I'll be middle-of-the-road with my rating.

This was weird. Thankfully, unlike 1968, Wikipedia was there to explain why. Without that, I would have been left wondering what the point of the first side was, and why it clashed so much with the second. Even with an explanation, however, it's still weird. I'm not completely convinced that the first side has a cohesive concept, and the second side feels like padded cheating. I do like the singles, though, so I guess I won't completely fail this meager effort.

My familiarity with 'Walk This Way' compels me to separate that from the rest of this review. 'Walk This Way' is a great track. I love me a good mashup, and it's one of the best. On the other hand, I found myself pretty underwhelmed by the rest of this album, unfortunately. Coming hot off of their debut album, I'm able to recognize that they've fleshing out the production and their overall sound, but it feels like this album has even LESS variation than their first. Maybe not a full step backwards, but certainly no better than a step sideways, I'd say. Feels like a 2, but I'll give it a 3 to stay consistent with their debut.

The perfect album doesn't exi-

Kinda an odd mix of mostly passive listening with a few awkwardly placed active listening tracks like Southside (which was, itself, oddly different than the single version I'm familiar with). Furthermore, even the passive listening is a bit odd in its energy variances - like I'm unsure what mood Moby wanted to put me in here. Odd. It really is the best word for it. I think I'd like the individual tracks more on their own than I did the album in its entirety. So, with that in mind, I'll try to walk away feeling neutral.

WTF. Maybe there are other Rod Stewart albums on this list (don't know yet), but considering his EXHAUSTIVE library, it's stupid that this was selected as one that needed to be heard. It's not. It's weak. Too weak. Complete failure by the admin.

This was awful... I'm trying to think of a reason not to fail it, but I got nothin'... tunes are bland... his voice is grating (especially when he goes for the high notes)... songs tend to linger longer than they should... and at times, it's just plain noise... I also see that its reception wasn't so hot when it originally came out, and it was only after his foolishly unnecessary death that opinions warmed... suspicious...

At least it wasn't long... and yet, still too long... But hey, there's that famous guitar riff - which is, I suppose, why this album hasn't been otherwise forgotten by the human conscious.

I worked really hard on this one. I gave it three playthroughs - which I feel was quite generous given its unnecessary length and my initial, confused impression of it. The final verdict? Mixed. I think there are some really great ideas here, but it feels like a manic brain dump with zero focus. Her voice, the instrumentation, the production - all great - no complaints. But damn, pick a lane. There are, like, four different stories trying to be told here, and I'd love to hear each one of them, but just as she's making progress in one direction, she then goes hurling off into another. Look. Editing is a thing. An important thing. Making cuts shows maturity as an artist. I get it - this was her debut album and it's hard making something and then not using it. But if it's not up to snuff (and there are definitely tracks on here that aren't), you need to be able to recognize that and respectfully not burden your audience with 30+minutes of your B game. On the other hand, if it IS up to snuff, but it doesn't fit the current motif, you need to save that for a later, more appropriately themed album. Bottom line: I like many of the pieces here, but I hate the composition. I enjoy chocolate, mustard, apple cider, and broccoli, but that doesn't mean they should all go into the same bowl. Since this was more-or-less the same gripe I had with Moby last week, I'll give her a 3, too.

Zzzzz... *Snort* *Mumble* What was that? Oh, just another YouTube Ad... Zzzzz...

I admit it. I'm a synthoholic. I'm completely incapable of suspending my bias when it comes to this genre. However, there is something about this particular album that feels off. Like I'm being sold a packaged product instead of enjoying authentic art. Just about everything this does was done better by someone else decades earlier (and seriously, some parts are straight-up ripped from other artists like Soft Cell, Depeche Mode, Erasure, and even Kate Bush). I suppose, therefore, one could postulate that these were the acts that were "in their heads" when they made this album. Outside of that context, it was a pleasant enough experience, though. It's just super unfortunate that I couldn't shake the feeling that I was hearing weak, phantasmal echos of things I'd rather be listening to. A disappointing feeling to have but have it I did. So, now how do I rate this? Part of me wants to give this a 5 since it IS something I would (and probably will) add to my personal library (something I can't say about most of the other entries in this challenge), but another part of me wants to penalize it for breaking the 8th commandment. Meh. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that, right?

I feel like I took a wrong turn somewhere and ended up in a frightful, albeit non-dangerous situation. Despite my not being the intended audience, the girls diligently entertained me for a time and then sent me on my way; confused but unharmed. Upon reflection, I felt strangely yet pleasantly changed somehow and knew, with both relief and regret, that I would never have that experience again. Not really my genre, but I'll give it a base score of 2 and tack on an extra star for its fearless trailblazing and another for its unquestionable relevancy. This actually IS an album you should hear before you die.

Who needs drugs when you have this? Though, I'll bet if you DID have drugs, it would take this to next-level slow-trance. I actually liked this more than I thought I would - and as an album overall, more than I did at certain times during it. It tends to meander, but I suspect terseness would prohibit sufficient runway for tripping. In the right mood, and on the right prescription, I would voluntarily revisit this.

SMH. This is the same story as Rod Stewart's Gasoline Alley (oddly, also his second album). Considering all the Silver, Gold, and Platinum certifications The Cure's OTHER albums have received, it's pretty stupid that THIS one was chosen as (one of?) their representative(s) on this list. If Wikipedia is to be believed, this challenge "compiles writings and information on albums chosen by a panel of music critics to be the most important, influential, and best in popular music between the 1950s and the 2010s." If that's so, then the selection of this album, like Gasoline Alley from Stewart's library, is a tone-deaf blunder by the admin. I'd give this entry a 1 in protest, too, but I actually do own this album and like The Cure too much to fully penalize them for the failure of others.

This is the perfect album for when you want to feel like you've wasted 3 hours of your life but only have 37 minutes to spare.

Oh, boy. I can already hear the haters bitching about cultural appropriation and such. You know, I think I'd be more liberal if my, then, constituents weren't such whiny assholes. ANYWAY... I quite enjoyed this - well enough to want to listen to it several times today, at any rate. It really is obscure gems like this that make this challenge worth the effort. Overall, I think this is a solid 4, but I'm giving it a 5 just to piss off some overly sensitive schlub out there. Is it you? Good.

My only previous exposure to The Blue Nile was tracking down their original version of the song, 'The Downtown Lights' - which I had first heard (flawlessly performed, by the way) by Annie Lennox on 'Medusa'. While I did enjoy the dark and moody atmosphere of the original, it wasn't enough to hook me, and I forgot all about them. Until now. If you're into this genre, there's some great stuff here. If you're not, I imagine this would be as painful for you as all the jazz, blues, and folk tripe on this list has been for me. That said, this has been a repeat experience for me for them: I love the mood that's set, and there are wisps of brilliance (e.g. the instrumentation on Tinseltown is choice), but once again, there's just not enough here to hook me. Sadly, I'll likely be forgetting about them all over again as I pursue other, more interesting finds throughout this challenge.

I've listened to this one far too often over the years to be impartial. These tracks are part of my chemical makeup by now. Fun fact: When I visited France in 1996 (about a year and a half before this album dropped), I bought me a stuffed monkey on the streets of Paris as a travel companion. Said monkey is one and the same as the star of the 'Sexy Boy' video and, coincidentally, sitting next to me as I write this review. Indeed, what a wonderful travel companion he has been!

This is a solid debut with some genre-influencing elements. When listening to 'Mystery Achievement', for example, I couldn't help hearing Adam Ant's 'Desperate But Not Serious', and 'The Phone Call' reminded me of Aerosmith's 'Shut Up And Dance' (both released well after this). I think I also heard The Kinks, but they would have come before. At any rate, this is great. Probably not one I'll add to my personal collection, but I'm glad I listened to it, and it DOES deserve to be on this list.

Le sigh. I suppose this is this challenge's attempt to claim unbiased legitimacy by including a(nother) token entry from this subgenre (though "Punishing Kiss" by Ute Lemper was MORE than sufficient representation). 2/1001 = .1998%; which is proportionally more than the population listening to this crap; so, can we please consider it "represented" and move on?

This was a fairly painful experience. There were things on here that I think I might have enjoyed, but I really don't want to listen to it a second time to confirm. It would be like running back into a burning house just to save a few knickknacks that I'm sure I could find better replacements for on Amazon. Anyway, somewhere in this fiery mess I heard a sample of the Pixies (who are pretty much perfect on their own, though, so this did nothing for me). Oh, and as I barreled through this inferno, I also picked up some Lady Gaga vibes (who wasn't yet on the scene for another couple of years or so); so that's noteworthy, I guess. If this could be run through some magical, noise-cancelling filter, maybe it could be clutched from the jaws of Hell. But as it is in this state, it's unlistenable trash.

Well... if I'm being absolutely honest... I hated this. While I AM thankful that it took little more than half an hour of my life, even THAT seemed too long for what this is. Maybe if it were consolidated into a single track (which, considering its monotony, it essentially is), and then shortened to a reasonable length, I could appreciate it as an artistic statement. But the novelization of what should have been no more than a sonnet really drags the experience out and down.

Tch... Did Radiohead really deserve a second seat at this table? No. No, they did not. Other than the way this album was released and "sold", I can't see any other reason why it deserves attention or a spot on this list - which is for albums you must HEAR before you die - not albums that disrupted the industry or have an interesting backstory. Judging it solely for its auditory value, it's terrible. The vocals are whiny and mumbly, and the instrumentation is bland and repetitive.

I didn't get this at all. Though now that I see that it was produced by a member of the Velvet Underground, it makes total sense. And just like my review for them, I deem this to be over-hyped tripe enjoyed by the same people who gush over paint splatters on a canvas and call it "art". MAYBE if I had heard this for the first time in 1975, I'd have praised it, too, for daring to do something different. But, as I am not a product of that time, and I have the benefit of having heard a wealth of better things that came in the 50 years hence, I'm grading this for what it is and not for what it may have been. Some things simply DO NOT age well - regardless of what they may or may not have inspired.

Yeesh... enough with all the shouting, already... This has always been my problem with Lenny... I could dig his music... I could dig his vibe... but I just can't get past his propensity for screaming... I'd have probably given this a 1, but as I've had a long string of 1s lately, and this isn't quite as 1y (though very close), I'll give it a 2 and hope we're on an upward trajectory...

Who hurt you, Chester? I was familiar with the singles; but then, how could you have been alive at the turn of the century and NOT been familiar with them? They were blasted everywhere. And I suppose, for that, they do carry a bit of nostalgia for those especially angsty times. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on your pain tolerance, I guess. The unfamiliar non-singles were sorta meh for me, which makes me wonder if the singles are of an equally meh caliber but get a pass because of their familiarity? I don't think there's enough here for me to spend too much time pondering it, though; so I'm just going to move on to better things. Which seems apropos considering the parallel this album's anger and historical time period share with my own life's timeline.

Not today or any other day. Beta male music from the Boomer era rubs me the wrong way for, admittedly, personal reasons. But I get it. The Beach Boys DO deserve a seat at this table - but only one - and that one should have been reserved for either 'Pet Sounds' or something from the height off their vapid surfer days. Oh, who am I kidding? I'm sure both of those are on this lousy list, too. *p.s. I hope it was just a coincidence that Brian Wilson died yesterday and that the algorithm isn't showing favoritism...

Seriously? Right away with the harmonica? Talk about an ambush. At least if this were Dylan, I could have steeled myself first. I've never been to Nebraska, but this album captures exactly how I imagine it would be: desolate, desperate, and dull... and full of harmonicas... Atlantic City is a solid track (uncoincidentally, not in Nebraska), but a single hit does not a good album make. 4 stars for the track, 1 star for the album.

Live AND blues??? I almost just outright skipped this, but then that wouldn't have been true to this challenge - which is becoming exponentially more challenging by the day... As expected, this was dreadful. Simply repeating the title of the song is NOT good music.

I was wondering when these two titans were finally going to clash. No, not Getz and Byrd - jazz and samba! On the one hand, jazz has been one of the lowest ranking genres in my lineup; whereas samba has been THE highest (mostly because I've only had two albums and gave them both a passing 4). And the winner (or loser, as it were) is jazz. It's like the two had a baby called Bossa Nova and, while it did inherit some of the pleasantries of its mother, Samba, the boring drone of its pointless father, Jazz, doomed it to dumpster life. I might have mercifully given this a 2, but I'm pissed at the algorithm for giving me garbage for two weeks straight now.

I. HATE. JAZZ.

It's like jazz without the horns.

Perhaps it's because I'm coming hot off of a Nu Jazz Blues binge, but I didn't hate this. I certainly wouldn't elect to listen to it again, but it was nice not feeling like the day's album was actively trying to break me on a personal level.

Hard to be impartial with anything from the "Dirty Dancing" soundtrack. Otherwise, the rest was all new and just OK. Better than most of the last three weeks' worth of albums, but not something I'd revisit.

Color me impressed. You've managed to find an "album" worse than any other thus far. It's shuddering to think we have yet to reach the bottom.

An observation: For artists with large discographies (e.g. Rod Stewart, The Cure, The Rolling Stones, Elton John, Bruce Springsteen - Hell, The Beach Boys, even - and now XTC), they seem to think the least accessible album is the one "you need to hear before you die" rather than any of their more commercially successful albums that would better fit the moniker. Maybe the latter are also on here, and the algorithm just so happens to be giving me the deep cuts first (since Abbey Road and Purple Rain would be counterexamples), but I'm in the business of identifying patterns, and this pattern seems puzzling and a bit disappointing to me. On the one hand, I guess it's nice not hearing the things you already know, but on the other hand, not hearing the best an artist has to offer can unfairly disincentivize you from further exploring what could be a great new find. Anyway, about this particular album. It's OK. One of XTC's weaker outings but still OK.

Title track is a classic. The other seven are middling. And he knows it; otherwise, one of them wouldn't be a refrain of the title track. Given this dynamic, this really is more of an EP than a full album - and a weak one, at that.

Ah - so, this is who did that nameless song that's been featured in every movie and commercial ever. Wait a second - did they just rip off Mickey and Sylvia? What is even happening here? I guess for what this is - a background mix of mostly instrumental covers - it's OK. There's a distinct vibe they've managed to capture here, but it's a single vibe, and active listening to it for over 30 minutes gets repetitive and dull fast.

After weeks of unlistenable garbage, it was nice having something that wasn't a challenge to get through. Somehow, I had never listened to this, despite it being huge in my youth. I would have said it seems like a safe, adult alternative album, but given its release date, I guess it was sorta a pioneer in that space. So, I suppose it would be more appropriate to credit U2 for helping to create that genre instead of just lazily parking there. Whether that's good or bad is up to the listener, I guess. It's probably a 3, but I'll bump it up for being what it was when it was (plus, I've always had a soft spot for 'One', which came out during an impressionable age).

I think if I were in 1976 with only the music available to me in 1976, I'd have liked this a lot more. But with 50 years' worth of available alternatives, I'm afraid it hasn't aged well enough to be competitive with all of the artists it undoubtably influenced. That said, it's very impressive that this was recorded in 1971/1972, and that undeniably gives them proto-punk street cred. That's not to say, however, that they were completely original ('Old World' was clearly inspired by 'L.A. Woman', for example), but if other, more well-known artists deemed this album worthy of a cover or two, that shouldn't be discounted. Hmmm... rating this one is tough. I gave it two playthroughs, but nothing really grabbed me (except 'Hospital' - that was a keeper). But I also can't deny that this feels like a pretty important precursor to music I really do enjoy. So, I guess a 3 it is.

There's no denying this is pure crap, but I still found it easier to listen to than Clapton.

What even is this? At least Napalm Death, Lightning Bolt, and Slipknot had the decency to be directly offensive. This one tries to slow kill you with silky boredom.

I generously gave 'Are You Experienced' five stars for being an important album despite not really caring for it personally. I can't say this album feels as important, so the tide has rolled out on the rating...

I'm told this was pioneering, and I believe it - I just don't care for the trails it blazed. The tracks are too repetitive within themselves and even amongst each other. Without its historical context, this would have been a 1.

Yep. Definitely stoner rock. This album made me think of sitting on a musty couch in a dank basement playing Killer Instinct on SNES trying to escape the humid July heat before my evening shift of flipping burgers and twisting soft serve at the miniature golf course. I'll give it a bonus star for somehow managing to evoke that nightmare.

L can certainly throw down, even if his lyrics do feel a bit cheesy at times. Overall, I found the experience less challenging than most others in the genre (despite running long). I wouldn't go out of my way to listen to this again, but I'd also be fine letting it roll if it ever DID come back around.

This is OK as an ambiance, but its need to be included on this list is debatable and polarizing because of the inherent conflict between active and passive listening. There's no way anyone should or realistically could give this album their full attention for two hours. So, it's then, by necessity, relegated to mere background music. And that's too bad because there's good stuff here - just not much you'll be able to hold onto with a single listen - and it's far too long for multiple playthroughs when you've literally got 1,000 other albums competing for your time. Not sure how to score this. I enjoyed it, but its core characteristics make its being on this list seem flawed - which, I suppose, really isn't its fault but the fault of the challenge designers. Bottom line: if I bought this, I wouldn't regret the decision. And while I wouldn't likely listen to it from start to finish very often, I'd also not be upset if a few tracks made it into the greater shuffle.

There are parts of this that I really liked ('Skeletons' is a keeper), but unfortunately, it had quite a lot of meh, too. Kinda tough to pin down exactly why this isn't better than it is. I mean, it seems like they've got a winning recipe here, but it's just missing some important ingredient that would have made it gel. Perhaps an egg?

I like Johnny Cash. I hate live albums. I fucking hate live albums with lots of talking.

Solid album - and more accessible than "Apple Venus Volume 1" - but I think XTC should have only one seat at this table, and it should have been reserved for "Oranges & Lemons".

A truly horrifying experience.

This pretty much sucked. Sure, it has no doubt influenced other metal bands (Quiet Riot, for example, straight up owes their "success" to Slade), but outside of inspiring others to do a better job, this has zero value.

This is an absolute Living Wreck that needs to be tossed Into the Fire. Immediately. At least they're consistent in their suckitude... except this time they didn't even have the benefit of that 'Smoke on the Water' riff.

Objectivity is not possible here. I've listened to this literally hundreds of times in my life. And it looks like I'll be adding another time (or two) to that total today.

For me (and possibly thanks to VH1), Cash and Raitt are pretty much the only tolerable artists who dabble in the dark arts (i.e. country, folk, and blues). This album has a few forgettable misses, but there's more good than bad, overall.

Based on how this algorithm handled Brian Wilson, I would have bet good money this was going to show up today... Metal's not my thing, but if I had to listen to an album, this would probably be the one. A-side is definitely stronger than the B-side.

Again with the "let's give you an obscure and unremarkable album by an artist who has a literal library of more accessible material to choose from". True, in this case the "accessible library" is much smaller than the other artists who have fallen victim to these shenanigans, but still... Anyway, despite giving Elvis Costello plenty of chances throughout the years, I'm not a fan. Furthermore, what I DO sorta like by him isn't here, and nothing here is as good or better than what I do sorta like by him; so, this gets a hard 1 for wasting my time (and nearly a full bloody hour of it, at that). Seriously though, can you honestly say that this album has ANY business being on a list of must hear material? No. And another thing. I'm DEEPLY concerned that the "Album Summary" indicates that there are SIX Elvis Costello albums on this list. Sure, one of his early albums for representation - MAYBE two if compelling evidence could be furnished - but SIX?!?! Dude doesn't even have six good songs, let alone six essential albums. Bollocks! >:(

More live jazz... smashing... Since you already know I'm giving this crap a 1, let me take this opportunity to explain my umbrage with live albums. It's the same issue I have with people taking videos of concerts, fireworks, weddings, etc. By being so focused on trying to "capture the moment", you end up completely missing it. What's more, odds are you're never even going to watch that stupid video again - or worse, you'll try to make people who weren't there watch it, and trust me - they don't want to. All that said, I still would have hated this performance live. Jazz sucks. Period.

So, 'Pet Sounds' IS on this list, after all. Fine. It deserves to be. But then I stand even more strongly by my earlier assertion that 'The Beach Boys Today!' does NOT warrant taking up a second spot on this list which at least 1,001 other albums could and should have had. Anyway, about THIS album. It sucks. Since it's (thankfully) short, I even gave it a second playthrough just to be sure. Yep. It sucks. The three tracks everyone knows are passable, but the rest of this is a singsongy snoozefest. "(Brian Wilson's) goal was to create "the greatest rock album ever made"—a cohesive work with no filler tracks." Uh... really? Guess "filler track" had a different definition back in 1966. I understand this album's historical context and significance, and so, for pushing production boundaries and for using a theremin (if for only but a moment) it gets a bump in its rating - but I'm unwilling to bend any further for what is essentially an overrated, outdated slice of beta male Americana.

Live = Shit James Brown belongs on this list - this album does not.

It's nice to step outside of the UK/USA for a change, but surely, there must be better options than this??? Sadly, this album doesn't inspire me to explore that hypothesis. To be clear, I didn't HATE this, but it certainly didn't interest me in any way. That groovy organ on the last track was, I'm afraid, too little too late.

Meh. Kinda a mixed bag for me. Contrary to popular opinion, I thought the concept section on the back end was the strongest part of the album. The front end oscillated between bland and juvenile and ran undeniably too long. I can understand why some would find the lyrics cringy, but I found them no more offensive than, say, Prince - just with more emphasis on camp than class. Far, far from the worst this journey has to offer, but not a particularly interesting nor pioneering entry, either.

Man... what was with the 00s? Did that decade REALLY suck this badly, or did the bot that put this list together just really miss the mark? Thinking back to around that time, I recall being preoccupied rediscovering obscurities from the 80s, so I'm probably not the best judge... though, maybe I was subconsciously in survival mode shielding myself from what would have otherwise broken my will to ever listen to music again... hmm... Right then. That musing aside, back to this Muse. I had never heard, nor will I ever choose to hear again, any of these tracks. Sadly, I have to re-ask the question that's been asked all too often on this journey: was this REALLY something that needed to be heard before one died? What makes this special? It's not innovative. It's not particularly good. In fact, it's objectively quite bad. Was it just randomly selected as a token representative from what was simply a terrible year in music? Equal parts puzzling and troubling, this.

Finding unfamiliar artists (well, serious artists who aren't obvious farces like Lightning Bolt and Napalm Death) is what makes enduring this challenge's weeks of garbage worth the effort. I really enjoyed this despite it not quite reaching greatness for me. I found Joan's voice and vibe to be very approachable, but the musical arrangements were somewhat wispy and weak. It felt like she was bigger and better than these songs were able to support. Perhaps the poor production was just a product of the times? Shame. With stronger musical accompaniment, I think Joan could have shone much more brightly. Overall, I'd say this was good, and I'm glad I got to listen to it (a few times. in fact).

Good. Not yet a full fifth into this challenge, and we can hopefully be done with Nirvana. At least, I hope Bleach isn't also on here. Nirvana doesn't deserve 100% representation. No one does. Nevermind, like In Utero and Unplugged, is a very uneven experience. 'Lithium', 'In Bloom', and 'Come as You Are' range from decent to good, but the rest of this falls somewhere on the meh to flushable spectrum, including the leading track, which is, in my opinion, the most overrated and overplayed song of the decade - possibly ever. Maybe it was a good song at some point, but I can't tell anymore. It's been beaten to death; a victim of its own success, I suppose.

I prefer Duck Stab. At least that was original material.

Ya know how some people just shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a mic? Yeah. That.

As far as metal goes, this was fine, though a bit insipid.

Some strong pros and cons here. I appreciate the far-reaching influence and ingenuity of this album, but I don't think it's particularly good, itself. It is short, though - so, I'll give it an extra point for not taking up too much of my time. Plus, without this, we wouldn't have Rob Zombie's version of 'Blitzkrieg Bop'; and that track turned up to 11 has gotten me through many a day in corporate America - so, that's worth another point.

Joy. More 00s Indie. This one challenged me. There were ideas splashed here and there that could have worked, but nothing ever felt fully executed - making the songs, and by extension this album, weak and forgettable. I even gave it a second and third playthrough later in the day to see if I'd have an "aha moment", but alas, it actually got worse the more I listened. Maybe if they had implemented more structure and chorus to capitalize on the promising parts, this would have landed better. But as it is, it feels rather sloppy and, ultimately, unremarkable. Still, this is one of a very few albums from the 00s that I didn't outright hate, and the fact that I even bothered to listen to it three times says something... though perhaps more about my effort to be open-minded than the quality of this album, itself.

Well, that's three of the four. Will Nash be making an appearance next? Stay tuned! Lead track is a classic; the rest falls somewhere between O.K. and W.T.F. I guess to differentiate this from Crosby's trainwreck of a solo debut, I should give it a 2. You should thank David, Stephen... he set the bar WAY low for you.

People: "This is brilliant!" "So ahead of its time!" "You have to listen to it more than once to get it." "You're just not smart enough to understand." Me: "Fuck your fish face."

Pixies have their moments, but those moments are mostly on their next two albums. Only thing worth saving here is "Where Is My Mind?" Sorry. As influential as 'Surfer Rosa' may have been, its poor production and preference for experimental noise over melody make it subpar at best. A year ago, I'd have given this a 1, but there have been SO many more heinous albums on this list, it would seem unfair to put this among them.

Jazz is an affront to the senses, and this steaming cowpat of dissonance does nothing to prove otherwise.

Oh, Morrissey. The poster child for "love the art; hate the artist." I own this album (with 'Hairdresser on Fire'), and I have to admit that I do love the art. Sure, Morrissey can be a cunt, but so can I. So can we all.

Look, I love Kate Bush, and she'll get nothing but 5s from me, but I can understand how this album would be a tough sell to the uninitiated (especially upon first listen). I urge you. If this is the first time you're hearing her, and you're like WTF, do yourself a favor and start somewhere else. Her next album, 'Hounds of Love,' is still Kate, but quite a bit more accessible. Don't get me wrong - there is no "shallow end" to her pool, but I'd hate for you to miss out on a truly great artist just because this challenge pushed you in at the deepest point possible.

See! Jazz (or at least jazz elements) CAN coexist with melody and chorus! The singles are classics. The rest is an easy enough listen, and nothing ever feels like it overstays its welcome. Good stuff.

Hoping the algorithm had set a precedent with Brian Wilson and Ozzy, I eagerly raced over to Wikipedia to read about Kanye's untimely demise... Alas... Having never before heard anything on this album, I was concerned I might enjoy it and be conflicted. Thankfully, that didn't materialize. I can confidently say that both the art and the artist have been given far more attention than they deserve. Let's be honest. Even if you like this, you can't deny that a 76-minute album with trite skits and a presumptuous, self-important outro could be objectively described as anything but tedious.

After ending last week on a low note, I was really looking forward to starting this week off with something better. So, you can imagine my disappointment (and horror, frankly) as I ran headfirst into this monster first thing on a Monday morning. NOTE TO ADMIN: Do you think this is Radiohead's best album? Or even their second best? No? Then why is this particular whiney drivel taking up valuable space that other artists could and should be occupying? New rule: no one gets more than two albums within the 1,001. If you're doing your job correctly, the two albums you've selected should be sufficient representation of what an artist has to offer - thus empowering the listeners to track down deeper cuts, if interested, while not burdening them with your enigmatic agenda. So, pick your champions and make your peace. It's time to make room for more artists who should be on the list but aren't - even if that takes a little bit of effort and further research on your part.

A fairly good album, overall, with some of The Smiths' best work. There are a few filler tracks, however, so I can't quite give it a 5.

I deserved this. It's my just punishment for ranting about how this challenge needed to feature more obscure artists and less Radiohead. Well played, Karma. Well played.

I hadn't realized albums were now available in those red quarter vending machines at the grocery store.

Ugh... Country... Does anyone REALLY need to hear Country before they die? For me, Willie Nelson is sorta the polar opposite of Morrissy: love the artist; hate the art. Though this was fairly painful, I'll give it a bonus star for being more "must hear before you die" Country than Dwight Yoakum. That twangy, hyper-masculine shit Dwight was peddling is the Devil; and as awful as this album may be, it certainly isn't that brand of insecure, hateful garbage.

Hmm... while 'Transformer' is far better than 'The Velvet Underground', it still feels just kinda OK to me. 'Walk on the Wild Side' is obviously a classic, but as it has been for other entries throughout this challenge, a killer single doesn't make the entire album "must hear". That said, I do appreciate Lou's songwriting and the inspiration he's given other artists. It's just that, unfortunately for Lou, I've grown up with Duran Duran's cover of 'Perfect Day' and Eurythmics' cover of 'Satellite of Love', and as is often the case, I prefer the familiarity of the versions that are already etched into my brain - even if they aren't the originals. Side note: 'Vicious' might have been a keeper for me, but I couldn't stop hearing Steppenwolf's 'Magic Carpet Ride' (which, again, is a better song than what Lou's offering here).

If ennui had a soundtrack, this would be it. The minimalist electronica is serviceable, and in fact, even good at times, but the lazy, oft asynchronous mumblings are a real downer. I get it. This is likely the exact vibe they were going for, and I, therefore, commend them for hitting their mark, but talk about sucking the energy out of a room. Unlike the stupefyingly generic 'I See You' (which we had to listen to just three albums ago and had zero business being on this list), I can see the somewhat unique value this album brings to the table. I think its resonance, however, is completely dependent on the listener's biorhythms at the time of consumption. If you're feeling broody, this might hit like a 5; else, it'll probably land much closer to a 1. Guess I'll split the difference.

Uh... I guess it captures that angsty, dark depression vibe of the 90s well enough, but who wants to relive that?

The only reason this is "must hear" is because Robert Dimery is English.

This is actually pretty good. I like all of the tracks I knew beforehand, but there's more than just nostalgia at work here. The tracks I didn't know are well mixed and, frankly, brilliant in their sampling. The lyrics are undeniably shallow and, at times, outright obnoxious, but the whole thing somehow works really, really well. All things considered, in conjunction with its achievements and impact on the industry, this has to be a 5.

This is not casual music to be enjoyed. This is dark poetry to be experienced. As I listened to each song on my second playthrough, I followed along by reading the lyrics (http://www.nickdrake.com/main_lyrics_page.html), and that really enhanced the art. Without that added effort, most of this album would have been inaccessible (as it was during my first listen) due to the weak, breathy vocals and instrumental minimalism. In this case, the lyrics are not only an essential ingredient, they're the main draw with the vocalization and instrumentation serving as merely the (still important) frame and setting of the artwork. Final verdict: this is some pretty potent stuff. I'd be afraid to linger too long with it for fear that my empathetic senses would pick up what Drake's putting down. I'm giving this a 4 for its artistic value and for being unlike anything else we've heard thus far (except for maybe "I See a Darkness" by Bonnie "Prince" Billy - but for whatever reason that album came off as more artsy boring than artist authentic).

Like his last album, this is neither particularly painful nor provocative. A safe 3. P.S. Holy shit, are there some overly sensitive reviewers on here. Cringe.

Somehow, I ended up in possession of this CD back in high school (I know I didn't buy it, myself), and after a single playthrough, I remember thinking it completely sucked and never touched it again. Fastforward to today and... well... it seems that I had quite discerning tastes as a teenager.

Thus far, no other album has challenged me quite as much as this one. I've given it more playthroughs than I've given any other, and after each listen (and even at different times within each run), I've wanted to give this 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 stars. To say this is a complicated piece of art is an understatement. It doesn't follow the formula of a traditional album. It's not a collection of jingles, and it doesn't feel like a story put to music. It's more like a painting of sounds - as if Wyatt uses various instruments (his voice included) as audio brushes to create something without definition. Like any abstract art, it's up to you to figure out what it means to you - which means, "I don't get it" or "I absolutely hate this" are perfectly sound conclusions to make. No one appreciates everything in a museum, but everything is appreciated by someone. So, where does this land with me? It's tough to say. There are moments that aggravate me (e.g. the horns and vocals are often agitating), but there are also moments that I find quite enjoyable - almost soothing (e.g. many of the keyboard, piano, and string pieces). Despite having it on repeat nearly all day, it's not something I would want to play very often. It demands far too much attention for casual listening. It's avant-garde, but not in that "let's be weird just to be weird" way that anything Frank Zappa has ever touched feels like. I sensed authenticity here more than I sensed artiness. I guess, given how much thought this has evoked from me, my personal assessment has to be a 5 - though I simultaneously understand and can fully respect the position of the 1 camp (and everyone else in between).

Wait. What? 82 minutes of this dude again?! Cruel and unnecessary. While this thankfully wasn't as artificially macabre as "Murder Ballads", the overdramatization was still about as compelling as a high school musical. And like such productions, it ran painfully too long. This should have been two shitty albums instead of one large pile of crap... or better yet, not have existed at all. Seriously, I might have considered giving this a 2 for the quality of its instrumentation and production, but the combination of its unconvincing delivery and relentless length fail it.

I hadn't heard a single song by Amy Winehouse before today. I had only ever heard of her "amazing talent" and her personal troubles that ultimately consumed her. So, now I've heard a full album, and... well... I hated it. Some of the arrangements are pleasant enough - a few even catchy - but (and I guess I'm in the minority, here) I found her voice irritating and, by the end of this overlong album, downright Macy Grayting. And my god, that last track just WOULD NOT END. I've a simple rule: if an album causes me prolonged auditory pain, it's a 1.

Sigh. I guess it's time to give up trying to figure out the mind of Robert Dimery and just go with whatever's put in front of me. Fine. Now that that's settled... Like 'Let's Get It On', I found this to be mostly meh. If I had gone through a similar life experience, it might have hit closer to home, but fortunately, I'm too smart for marriage. Worse still (and like divorce, I suppose), this felt unnecessarily drawn-out... though such ruminations are probably inevitable, given the topic. It wasn't all bad, however. 'Anger' could be my theme song, so I'll give it a bump for bringing that little gem into my life.

Kings of Mehsville, more like. While this album is by no means unlistenable (well, the vocals do come dangerously close at times); I struggled to identify what makes it must hearworthy. I gave it a few playthroughs throughout the day, and even then, I don't think I'd be able to hum back nor positively ID any of it by tomorrow. In a word: forgettable.

Wow! "The Thrills" doesn't quite capture the glory that is this! I think a more appropriate designation would be "AIreland". 2003?! I'm seriously impressed the Irish were already implementing some fairly advanced AI techniques way back then! The music, the vocals, Hell - even the album cover! If I didn't know any better, I'd have totally believed those were real people on there! And how about those lyrics?! Repetitive? Check. Vapid? Check. Repetitive? Check. Amazing!

I mean... it's OK... but there's nothing innovative nor even original here - and that latter point pretty much kills it for me. I don't think this 1,001 list contains soundtracks, compilations, greatest hits, etc. (no matter how "must hear" some of those truly are). So, why include an album of nothing but covers? Oh, that's right. Dusty's English. This is a protest vote and nothing against Dusty. If these songs are "must hear", then the original artists should be on here instead. And if it turns out those artists are also on here, then this entry would still be unnecessary per its redundancy.

This is the kind of album you'd buy for one track and then spend months trying to convince yourself you liked the rest of it so you didn't feel ripped off. To their (dis)credit, Blur does a pretty good job here of capturing the esthetic I hated most about 90s music: that noisy, lo-fi alternative garage sound with overbearing drums and simple-yet-flawed guitar riffs that sounded like a couple teenagers jerking around after school. I'm kinda tired of handing out 1s, though... and we HAVE had so many worse things on this list... so, since I was able to get through this twice without rage quitting, I guess I can justify tossing it a generous 2.

Basic math: (Appalling x 2)/78 Minutes = Egregious

Wow. There's quite a lot to unpack here. An effort I could see being difficult (or impossible) for some. No judging. That's why music comes in all forms. This is not pop. This is personal. At times, uncomfortably so. Psychologically speaking, I'd say it's self-deprecating humor used as a defense mechanism to mask the raw hurt, bitterness, and anger that become more palpable the longer you sit with this. But I get it. I've been there, too. Sometimes, I'm still there. Maybe once you've been there, you never really get to permanently leave. As an emotion-radiating catharsis, this gets top scores. As a broadly accessible musical album, not so much. Unless you've "been there" (or are still there), this is probably going to come off as weird or possibly even annoyingly self-indulgent. Lyrically, it's a mixed bag. Sometimes it's on point; sometimes it's basically unrhymed prose; sometimes it's outright nonsense. I can't decide how I feel about this point, but I will say it's a very distinct characteristic of the album. Some hooks and vibes are liberally borrowed from others (I heard 'Across the Universe', 'Free Bird', 'New Age Girl', some Pink Floyd, The Magnetic Fields, maybe Scissor Sisters, possibly Bill Withers, etc.), but if there's one thing I've learned throughout this challenge, it's that everything has pretty much been stolen from somewhere else - so this is more just an observation than a criticism. Anyway, I'm glad this was included on the list since I'd have never known about it otherwise. It's not perfect, and being of a personal nature, it's not for everyone - but I'm comfortable giving it a personal score of 5 since it does resonate with me, and I enjoyed it enough to want to listen to John's other albums to see if/how he evolves from here.

Having flashbacks to 'The College Dropout'... especially with that (almost equally insufferable) Outro... oof... It's unfortunate that what I think could be the strongest part of this album (the lyrics) is somewhat obscured and overshadowed by its weaker elements (e.g. dull hooks, uninteresting samples, and length (even without that unnecessary Outro)). I often felt like weighty things were flying by too quickly to absorb them. Multiple plays might help more of the message to shine through, but the cited weaker elements are a real deterrent to that approach. Still, I did give it two listens (minus that (and I can't stress this enough) fully skippable Outro), and there are a few decent tracks ('Kick, Push', 'The Instrumental' and 'He Say She Say' stand out), so it wouldn't feel right outright failing it.

Gonna try to be objective with this one... Pros: Some classic tracks That 'Sweet Child o' Mine' opening Slash Cons: Classic tracks have been overplayed Some cringy lyrics that have only gotten worse with age Original album cover is in the running for worst of all time Aw, Hell - just take my 5 and fuck off.

"The best live album of all time," huh? Fine. 1,000,000 * 0 = 0 Seriously, this was absolutely pointless.

This album is essential- ly generic garbage. But it was short and relatively painless. And as pathetic as it may be, that's enough to clear the failure bar so many other albums on this list could not.

Ugh. Another album of that 90s "overbearing drums and loud, muddy guitars for the sake of being loud" thing. I hated it then, and I still hate it now. While there are a few passable tracks I might consider adding to a larger playlist, as a complete experience, this pretty much sucks. Look, I can give Dave credit for proving he had more talent than being just a drummer, but this album suffers from the same problem 'Nevermind' and 'In Utero' had: there's just too little substance for the amount of crap one needs to wade through to get at it.

Hey! Nut Rocker was my nickname back in college! And speaking of gratuitous organ abuse... DAMN, Emerson!

This was OK. When it comes to funky soul, I prefer the tones of Isaac Hayes over the falsetto here, but the instrumentation was pleasant enough, I guess. Overall, this was pretty light on the hooks and felt largely forgettable, but it was short and didn't cause me any pain - and that's more than I can say for most of this list.

Déjà vu... or I suppose in this case, déjà entendu... Here we have yet ANOTHER debut rap album that runs too long and is littered with superfluous skits. Could someone please explain the obsession with this formula? And the obsession with avocado appliances in the 70s? I've never understood that one, either. I don't want to fail this, but I'm struggling to find a reason not to... I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't listen to it again, it's too long, the skits are an unnecessary distraction, the lyrics are one-dimensional (and base)... Biggie may have flow; it's just too bad he couldn't use his talent for something more... wholesome.

So bad it made me wanna https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypMnBuvP5kA Which, incidentally, was a much better song than anything they're offering on this album.

So, I'm in the business of recognizing patterns, and based on just two albums from Mr. Cohen, I'd hypothesize he misapplied his talents. He should have been a poet (or perhaps a lyricist); but he had zero business attempting to be a performing musician. Still, I don't blame him for this abysmal repeat experience today. Instead, I have greater contempt for Robert Dimery for leading us to believe that listening to more than one album by Leonard Cohen was a mandatory life experience. At best, this lazy decision was a shameful way to pad out his list of 1,001 albums so he could sell a book. Disappointing.

I could have cut-and-pasted my review of her last album onto this one. It's practically the same experience. At least this time SOME of the tracks weren't covers, I guess...

General takeaway: So, having just gotten done with Dusty Springfield's two albums, I'm starting to think that maybe women in the 60s weren't often performing their own/original material? Even though I'm not a huge fan of the "American Idol" feel of that, I'll try to be less judgy on this point going forward. Album-specific takeaway: Before today, the only song I'd ever heard by Nina Simone was 'My Baby Just Cares for Me' from the "Peter's Friends" soundtrack (a very good album, by the way, which, incidentally, is more "must hear" than most of the albums on this list - but I digress). None of the songs on this album feel as polished at that song - which I guess makes sense if this album is just a collection of leftovers. This, once again, has me completely questioning the author's decision to include this album over what are, no doubt, much stronger options from a fairly legendary artist's library. Yet another missed opportunity to hear some actual "must hear" material.

So, it would seem we're now in a rut of 60s cover albums. Shame the algorithm couldn't be modified to mix things up a bit more thoroughly. This album is fine, but I prefer the original material. And ironically enough, Aretha's cover is better than the original material here - so the fault, once again, lies with Robert for selecting this album for his 1,001 when there surely must be other albums by the artist that would be better suited for the "must hear" moniker.

This is a lot like "Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots" in that, outside of each album's one obvious radio single, there's not a whole lot to grab onto. That said, the overall experience here felt weaker than "Yoshimi", and I really had to force myself to listen to it a second time to see if I had missed something. I hadn't. The lyrics are simple and repetitive, and the meandering filler tracks (including two redundant remixes) felt even less relevant and more forgettable than the fillers on "Yoshimi".

This tired formula AGAIN? *Yawn* Debut rap album? Check. Runtime over an hour? Check. Weird intro track? Check. Stupid skits throughout? Check. Macho posturing? Check. More padding to write a book of 1,001 albums? Check.

Robert Dimery, my dude - you're officially fired. While certainly not the greatest band of all time, Cheap Trick DOES have a number of strong albums, and this live shit is NOT one of them. Seriously, Robert - you're honestly trying to tell us that THIS album above all others is THE must hear experience from their library? Have you ever listened to ANY Cheap Trick albums? Did you even listen to this one? If this were a road trip, and you were my DJ, your sorry ass would be walkin'.

A quote from my "Blur" review: "This is the kind of album you'd buy for one track and then spend months trying to convince yourself you liked the rest of it so you didn't feel ripped off." While it's not as janky as the other Britpop albums we've had thus far, it is pretty boring and (like several of its individual songs) runs too long. If I had no basis for comparison, I'd have given this a lower score; so, it definitely benefits from its place in the algorithm.

Music for when you want music but don't want to actually listen to the music. Honestly, this was pretty damn boring... and over an hour of pretty damn boring crosses the line into annoying.

At first, I took the "must hear before you die" criterion literally and panned albums that clearly didn't meet it. Then, after handing out 1 after 1, I came to realized that nearly ALL of the albums selected by this asshat don't meet that criterion, and that he had just scraping together a list of 1,001 albums (mostly British slop he'd heard the ONE single off of at some point in his life) just to sell a book. So, now I'm approaching this as just a challenge where (a rather poor) AI has randomly selected 1,001 albums to listen to. I hope focusing on the "what" and less the "why" will help me enjoy this experience more. All that said, this wasn't a very strong album. It's a single and some filler. Still, I didn't actively hate it, and it is of a reasonable length; and that's enough to score a C around here.

This gave me creepy vibes. It felt too hard on one end of the spectrum and too lame on the other. Like a cute, kiddie cartoon with adult themes, it alienates all possible audiences - save possibly freaks.

Another spin of the Robert Wyatt roulette wheel. Unfortunately, this time the ball landed on 00. Sorry, mate - there was simply no recovering from that first track. Oof.

This wasn't terrible, but as I noted in my review of "Lady Soul", I prefer singing to screaming, and this has just a bit too much of the latter for my taste. And then there's the matter of covers (which we've since learned was just the way of things in the 60s). Having just heard Otis Redding's original, it's undeniably clear that Aretha's cover is the superior product (screaming aside). However, I definitely do prefer the Sam Cooke originals.

This came out when I was an angsty teenager, and there's probably not another album I've listened to more in my life than this one. It would be impossible to provide an impartial review here.

Noise just isn't my bag, baby. This reminded me of Pixies. Like 'Surfer Rosa', there are some good ideas here, but they're corrupted by and ultimately lost to all the unnecessary dissonance. Unlike 'Surfer Rosa', I didn't hear ANYTHING enticing enough to want to ever revisit this again; so, even after giving this two playthroughs to prove itself, it's a fail for me.

Quite a mixed bag. The poetry slam on the last track is alright. Some of the groovy, synth lounge parts aren't half bad, either. Unfortunately, the rap parts are pretty terrible and drag down the overall experience. Still, it's better than Kanye. But really, what isn't?

Quite possibly the twoiest two that has ever dared to two. I can only imagine this was deemed "relevant" because it's the British dude from The Velvet Underground.

Cor blimey! It's these blokes again! Honestly, I didn't hate this. In fact, compared to the other albums on this list that are tagged as Britpop, this was quite good. Bonus star for surprising me and bucking the trend for this genre.

Overall, this was another boring experience brought to you by one of the allegedly best groups of all time. I'm starting to think The Rolling Stones are like The Doors in that they're a better singles band than a producer of comprehensively great albums. My evidence: The two best songs on this album are on two different versions of it. This makes each version inferior to the other and forces the listener to track down the missing single. In that regard, I have yet to hear on this list a must hear ALBUM by this group.

The best part of this experience was finding an alternative listening source on YouTube so I didn't have to directly contribute to Clapton's view count revenue.

Well... this is likely going to be the apex for Mr. Costello, so I guess I should be generous with my rating. In fairness, this album does have a few decent tracks, so I don't feel like I'm being completely & unjustifiably charitable - just lenient.

I'm not sure if it was the tempo, or the instrumentation, or the vocals, or all of the above, but this felt actively lazy to me. Like it was trying to be boring on purpose. Sorry, but "The Weight" isn't strong enough to carry the... er... weight... of the rest of this wallpaper paste.

This felt more like a fieldtrip to the Smithsonian than an album of the day experience. I can appreciate the historical relevance of this artifact like I respect, say, Pong; I just wouldn't want to voluntarily spend my free time playing it.

My first impression was that this was pretty meh... then I read all the rave reviews on Wikipedia (and here) and gave it a second, customary playthrough to see what I missed. My opinion didn't change. In fact, now I'm even more sure that it is, indeed, as mehsome as they come. Seriously, there's not a single standout track here. Nothing about this is interesting or memorable.... other than maybe those last two tracks being way longer than they should be. I can find no value in this, and I'm puzzled why it's so highly rated.

Stop Dat! No, really... please stop...

This ultimately left me feeling super disappointed. I usually love dark, moody electronica, but I was never able to get any sparks to ignite here despite a few playthroughs. Overall, this felt kinda boring & forgettable... and even mildly annoying at times - I'm lookin' at you, "Strugglin'". Sigh... not even Alison Goldfrapp could save this, but I'm required by law not to completely fail anything she had a hand in, no matter how small.

From the twang to the hay bales, everything about this screamed, "RUN!" However, setting my disgust for the genre aside, I think the lyrics and storytelling are actually quite good at times. This isn't really music to be enjoyed - it's more witty observations and wordplay put to (regrettably) country music. I'm shocked, but I'm giving this a 3. Despite its cover and chosen medium, I appreciate the content of the book.

I'm coming to the realization that "Progressive" is just an efficient way to say, "Pretentious strung out suckfest". Seriously... the concepts covered on this concept album range from stomach turning to eyerolling... to call it "cerebral" is laughable... and a bit sad.

Man, do I hate jazz. And big band is basically the hard rock of jazz.

More like System of a Clown. This is what Rage Against the Machine would sound like if they did comedy... poorly...

*Shrug* Playthrough was fine, but there was nothing drawing me in for a second pass.

I can't say this exactly floored me with its greatness, but I still enjoyed it more than most other albums on this list. While I do have Peter Murphy's "Cuts You Up" in my library, I hadn't heard of Bauhaus before; so, I'll definitely be adding them to the (sadly small) list of interesting new groups uncovered by this challenge -and that's worth a bonus star.

The only negative is that I won't be discovering any new music today.

This is OK, but we ONCE AGAIN have a questionable selection from an artist with a ridiculously large library of better options. There are a number of must hear albums by Tom Petty, this just isn't one of them.

Not a perfect album, but its innovation and influence more than make up for its few, minor flaws.

Other than 'Yellow', I hadn't heard (or at least consciously retained) anything by Coldplay before today. The only thing I knew of them was that, like Nickelback, they were the target of much hate. So, now I've heard a full album and... well... I'm not impressed... It's hard to describe this. It feels like a non-thing. Perhaps being an ethereal non-entity of sorts was the intent? I don't know. And it didn't much inspire me to care, either. Nonetheless, I did give it a second full playthrough, though, to see if anything would stick, and sadly, the most memorable moments I'll be taking with me are the cringy falsettos which were outright obnoxious. So yeah, not a great experience, and I feel like I've now wasted more time on this review than the album deserves. Conclusion: the haters were right.

To quote my review of Sonic Youth's last album: "There are some good ideas here, but they're corrupted by and ultimately lost to all the unnecessary dissonance." And frankly, given the abundance of better music in this world, I'm unmotivated to dumpster dive for a few salvageable scraps.

Sorry, Yes - it's a hard No.

Hard to be objective with the two hits - they're ingrained classics. The rest was new to me, and it was OK enough. As a whole, this is a solid 4.

Oh, boy - I'm sure this one's going to go over like a lead balloon with this crowd... Having lived in a college town in France in 1999, I can confirm that this is an apt example of what was playing at the time - everywhere. For lost and confused university kids at the turn of the century, this totally resonated. For middle-aged adults just trying to get through their album of the day, probably not so much. For what it is - specifically, a late 90s time capsule of Euro dance music - I think it's a good representative of its genre, and I personally enjoyed most of it.

There's a lot going on here, and I think this is probably one of those albums that requires a lot of work to really pick up what's being put down. Unfortunately for Mr. Costello, his overrepresentation on this list has created knee-jerk disgust, and not many listeners are going to bother putting in the required time (myself included). I did give it a couple of full playthroughs, though, and I'm willing to toss it the benefit of the doubt.

Where's UNCAT when you REALLY need it? Dude needs to fucking put down the harmonica, and I'm not even kidding. Seriously, what can be said? It's a double album by someone who already has too many albums on this list. Unnecessary.

This had the benefit of being a weekend album, which gave me time to play through it a few times and let it sink in. I think it would take this extra bit of investment to really appreciate it. It's definitely not an immediate top of the pops album. It's subtle. And a bit melancholy. The B side is weaker than the A side, but overall, it's still not bad.

Feels 3ish, but per the bylaws, anything featuring Kanye gets an automatic one-star deduction, as does anything produced by Kanye. For the purposes of calculating a final rating, each type of offence must be separately considered and assessed. Hey, I don't make the rules.

Ah, the delicately smooth vocals of Springsteen. Said no one ever. When he sings - or even whispers - it's OK, but man, does that raspy death shout cut right through me. And the harmonica and sax don't help the situation. This is the second album we've had by him and the second 1 I'm assigning. There are a few alright moments, but they're too overshadowed by the boring and painful ones to give this any sort of recommendation. I know Bruce has got some decent stuff, but this challenge has thus far done what it can to avoid said stuff.

This is the album I would use to describe how difficult smalltown American life was in the early 90s when there was a song you absolutely needed to own (e.g. 'Under the Bridge') and the only access you had to music was Sam Goody at the local run-down mall and had to make the choice between shelling out $7.99 for the single or $15.99 for the full album of seventeen tracks (one of which you vaguely recognize (e.g. Give It Away)) so you naturally do the math and conclude that the more expensive full album is the better bargain and then spend the rest of your youth lamenting your lost $8 and glaring at the CD on your shelf because it's complete unlistenable shit encasing that one song you just "had to have" and can't be bothered to skip to every time you want to hear it so you end up never listening to it at all and ultimately wasting your entire $15.99 and resenting the very single that started the whole sorry mess. Whew... it's been a long time since I unpacked that one...

"If you don't understand my record, you don't understand me, so this is not for you." Fair enough. But since I had to hear this before I died, I'll give it a review anyway. Maybe as an artistic statement this would be OK, but musically speaking, it's not particularly interesting nor enjoyable. I don't think we've had another album whose songs felt THIS samey over and over again. Furthermore, I get that the interludes are adding context to the songs, but if the songs, themselves, were stronger, then there wouldn't be a need to prop them up so blatantly. We've seen this interlude/skit formula a number of times now, and in all cases, it just ends up derailing the flow and detracting from the overall experience. So yeah, I guess I don't understand this; ergo, this was not for me. Here. You can have it back now.

Of the Morrissey/Smiths albums we've had thus far, this is the weakest and should be cut to make room for other deserving artists who don't have any representation on this list. Morrissey/Smiths already have enough entries (and better alternatives than this).

Once again, Bob Marley sticks to his lane and does what he does best. Unfortunately, he only ever does that one thing, so it gets pretty boring pretty quickly (though thankfully, this album is also fairly short). Bottom line: I don't hate this, but it doesn't excite me, either. *Separate shoutout to Annie Lennox for elevating 'Waiting in Vain' to the next level.

This was interesting. I really do enjoy the discovery of these lesser-known acts - and all the better when they're actually good! The only possible critique I would give this is that the tracks aren't particularly memorable. Even after several playthroughs yesterday, the only song I can conjure up today is 'Mama', and that's only because it was covered by Annie Lennox (exceptionally well, I might add). That little nit is minor, though, and certainly not a disqualifier. I see no reason to not give this a 5.

This was fairly terrible. And any hope of a merciful 2 was lost with that never-ending stunt of a last track.

There were moments in here that conjured up The Killers/Brandon Flowers - which should have been an easy win. However, nothing ever felt all that well put together, and I was left feeling largely bored, annoyed, or both. Perhaps I'd have a better appreciation for this with more playthroughs, but its length seems too high a price to pay for entertaining that notion. Had it been halved, I'd have given it a 2 (or possibly higher with attainable replays), but at 75-minutes, it's a flushable fail that I'd rather just forget.

An audible "Tch" was my literal reflex response. It's not that I hate Metallica; I just find them kinda predictable and safe. Although, I suppose that IS better than dangerously unpredictable metal. *shiver* Anyway, I gave 'Master of Puppets' a 3, and this seems no worse (nor better), so another 3 it is.

It's got some nice instrumentation here and there, but the rapping's often too fast to pick up what's being put down. What I could grab onto didn't resonate, so I'm obviously not the intended audience. Its general length, the tired interlude/monologue formula, and the longwinded finale slide it over from a 2 to a 1 for me.

More like sad trombones.. *womp* *womp* *wooooomp*

I enjoyed this and found myself tapping my fingers and feet throughout. It does get a bit samey, though, and the last track kinda loses its way, so I don't know that it quite deserves the coveted 5, but it's still good and SO much better than most of the junk on this list.

Maybe it's the fever from this flu taking over, but did this even exist? I just finished listening to it, and I remember nothing. When I'm not dying, I might give it a second playthrough to see if I can retain ANY of it, but based on the first listen, which I'm positive I attempted, it's a fail.

This works when you're in that angsty, existential-dreading mood. If you're not, then not so much. I like this (in fact, I own it), but I really must (once again) point out the fallacy in the album selection. This list doesn't need BOTH 'Pornography' and 'Seventeen Seconds'. One or the other would be more than enough to get a taste of what The Cure was doing at this point in their careers. Instead, drop one of these and (if you simply MUST have another album by The Cure) replace it with 'Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me' or 'Wish' (which are, frankly, better albums, anyway). This will give the listener exposure to both phases of the band rather than burdening them with two albums of dark miasma. Again, I do like this album, but I just don't think it's readily accessible nor worthy of the "must hear" label. My personal preference would be to give it a 3 or 4 (depending on how well it's resonating with my mood at the time), but I'm going to go with the protest vote today.

Yes, many of the songs run too long. Yes, a double album was unnecessary. Yes, I'm biased and will give this a 5 when it probably deserves a 4.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Considering that it hasn't been two weeks since we had to ensure the last Wilco album, this seems aggressively harsh even for this algorithm of auditory hatred. Look. This categorically sucks. It's the very definition of monotonous. The lyrics are shallow, repetitive, and poorly delivered. Often, the "music" devolves into garden variety noise. I'd be shocked by all the acclaim it's been given, but as I've pointed out before, the 00s were a trash decade where bad music was all you pretty much had to pick from, so perhaps this really was the best thing going at the time. *shudder* What a disturbing thought that was!

This was the first time I'd ever listened to a Tupac song, much less an album. Also, the last.

Less cacophonic than 'Surfer Rosa' but still pretty gristly. While there was only one song I found keepable on the former, this album at least has a few decent tracks (all be them still slathered in more noise than is necessary). This feels like a 3 to me. Less so as a statement of neutrality, and more as a net sum of the elements I genuinely enjoy brought down by the unfortunate noise rock, which I flatly hate.

This was pleasant-sounding enough, but it was also boring as Hell and overlong. If there was depth to the lyrics, I couldn't tell since the vocals, like the music, were blurry and undistinguished. It's pretty much a fail, but I've given out too many 1s already.

It's hard to evaluate Bowie when even his half efforts are so much better than most of the junk on this list. I guess the only thing I can fairly compare him to, then, is himself. And by that measure, this is good but not quite his best.

A bit uneven. There are some great tracks here (particularly on the A Side), but there's also quite a lot of generic-sounding filler. I'd be comfortable splitting the difference with a 3.

Well, this is a surprise... and one I can't see being overly popular with the masses... this challenge really should have included 'It's My Life' (or even 'The Party's Over') for accessibility... but here we are; so let's do this... First of all, I own this album, so I've already had a lot of time to sit with it - and it really does require that level of investment to appreciate it. If this challenge is the first time you're hearing it, and you're racing through it so you can get on with your day, I can't imagine it's going to be a very good experience for you. I've listened to it dozens of times, and parts STILL elude me on occasion (i.e. the post-rock parts). I do generally like this album, though, and, given my exhaustive experience with all five of Talk Talk's albums, I think a 4 is fair for 'Colour of Spring'. While that dreadful post-rock drivel is starting to rear its ugly head here, this album does still have SOME of the pop sensibility of Talk Talk's first two albums (which, let's be honest, weren't overly "poppy", themselves, but they were certainly easier listens). All that said, this album's required commitment to "get it" is a lot to ask, especially in an "album of the day" setting, so I completely understand any knee-jerk aversions it may elicit. Just be thankful it's not 'Spirit of Eden' or 'Laughing Stock' - those would have REALLY challenged you! I, myself, struggled for years with those two, and I ultimately gave up after coming to the realization that, for me, combining meandering noises and random silence isn't abstract art - it's pretentious slop - no matter how hard the snobs try to convince me otherwise.

Good on Robert for including something non-English on the list. But this? I question the authenticity of his efforts.

I was familiar with 'Today' (thank you, Beavis and Butt-Head), but otherwise, this was a new experience for me. It's a shame I didn't pick this one up in my youth - I think it would have hit pretty hard. Even safely tucked away here in my 40s, it was still able to speak to my long-buried teenage angst. I even got the tingles during 'Disarm'. If a song can do that on its first listen (and second and third), it's something special. So yeah, even though some parts of this album are a bit harder than the music I naturally gravitate towards these days, I really can't see giving this anything less than a 5. This is a great album.

I knew this day would eventually come. Everything about this album should be a fail with me - from the skits to the lyrics - and if I were hearing it for the first time today, it probably would be. However, I've been listening to 'The Chronic' long enough now that being objective would be nearly impossible beyond acknowledging that, yes, this is mostly just immature, profane, misogynistic, homophobic, at times overly violent, hyper-masculine posturing that, honestly, hasn't aged all that well. But I still dig it, 'G'. The sampling, mixing, and flow are top notch. There are several earworms on here that can creep up on me out of nowhere - even if I haven't listened to the tracks in years. I'd say that's pretty powerful stuff.

One of my goals for 2026 is to be less harsh with my reviews. I want to reserve 1s for only the most heinous of albums. Congratulations, 'Teen Dream'! That's you! Seriously. If I wanted to chill out to the delicate sounds of soulless non-music, I'd find some good ASMR. Note to admin: This is misclassified. It should be under shoegaze; not pop and definitely NOT rock.

Sorry, Tori... the role of Kate Bush has already been filled... by Kate Bush. This isn't terrible, per se... in the same way that some AI synthpop isn't terrible... I just prefer the real thing.

I think the most valuable lesson this challenge has taught me is that I simply need to avoid anything labeled "progressive" much the same way I've learned to avoid anything labeled "organic" at the supermarket. Truly. Anything on the white side that might have saved this album from failure (e.g. Roger Taylor's contribution) was more than wiped out by that egregious black side.

Sigh... so, now even soul's gone progressive? Yeesh... Look. If your song goes over 6 minutes, it had better have a very good reason for doing so, and I don't believe the offenders on this album had any justifiable excuses. Was this boring? Pretty much. Was it painful? At times (lookin' at you, sax). Was there ANYTHING I enjoyed? Not really. Does it deserve a 1? I guess so.

"Wow, that dude's really trying to sound like the guy from Blur." *Reads the Wiki* "Oh." This was OK, I guess. There were some good ideas explored here and there, but I'm not sure how well they coalesced in the end. Overall, the album doesn't feel like it has much of an identity outside of serving as the container for its relatively disparate parts. Buoyed by much worse things on this list, it lands somewhere in 2 to 3 territory. I guess I'll break towards 2 since, based on other reviews and the certifications & sales information on Wikipedia, this isn't their best album. And based on this album, I'm now not interested enough to go and explore that other album, so I'm probably missing out on what would have been a better experience. Robert, you really suck at this.

Fuck. This.

This sucked, but I'd rather have this than one 15-minute-long progressive rambling... on a double album full of them. Bonus star for brevity.

"Tell Me Why" some artists need so many albums on this list. Oh, right... because Robert Dimery couldn't write a GOOD book called "250 Albums You ACTUALLY Must Hear Before You Die". He had to sell a terribly bloated book called "1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die". Got it. This was OK, I guess. I just wish it had merely been written by Neil Young and performed by other artists who could sing well. Speaking of, 'Don't Let It Bring You Down' is yet ANOTHER song from this 1001 challenge that appears on Annie Lennox's 'Medusa'. She definitely picked some real bangers for that album - and performed them better than the original artists! Now THAT'S an album you need to hear before you die! 3 Stars for Neil; 5 Stars for Annie.

5. Duh.

Being familiar with (and very much liking) 'Rockit', I thought this might be the first jazz album I didn't fail. I thought wrong. So, since I had extra time on my hands, I decided to audit 'Future Shock' to see if that album lived up to the greatness that is 'Rockit' (and to wash this 'Head Hunters' crap out of my ears), and while it didn't change my life, it certainly was the better of the two albums. But that's not what's being graded here... sorry, Herbie.

Yes, Bowie has too many albums on this list, but since I'm here, I might as well enjoy a day free of all the country, jazz, and 15-minute progressive tracks we've had to endure lately. Overall, this is a good album, with the B-side being notably stronger than the A-side. It reminds me of 'Low', which is probably his best album. As before, comparing Bowie to most other things would be unfair (he'd win nearly every time), so if I compare this to only his other works, it lands around a 4.45 - brought down only slightly by the somewhat mediocre non-singles on the front half and that dreadful sax on 'Neuköln' (what can I say, harmonica and sax are like salt and pepper to me: a dash can make the dish, but any more than that, and I'm ordering take out).

Based on just the title of the first track, I'll bid a blind nil. 200 points for me!

Nice beat... aww, fuck... there's a sax... lots and lots of sax... damn, I really hate sax... wait, this track is 12 minutes long?! I don't think I'll make it... oh, a voice! Thank God - something different! Uh... tinkling zombies? OK, I think we're done here. Fortunately, I listened to the original LP version and lost only 25 minutes of my day.

Lots of thoughts with this one. Let's try to map this out. On the one hand, I hate country music; but on the other hand, Dolly's one of the few country artists who's somehow able to bring her art into a more accessible arena. I appreciate that no song (nor the album, itself) overstays its welcome. The subjects are relatable and, through her skillful delivery, avoid falling into the tropes that repulse me about the genre. Her voice can pierce at times, but she's also great at storytelling and articulating emotion. If you don't feel anything when listening to the title track, you're dead inside. Dolly's also a wonderful human being, and while that shouldn't be a factor in album ratings, I've read enough Morrissey reviews to know that that separation isn't always easy to make. Put it all together, and I think we've got a strong 4 here.

This should have been an LP instead of a double album. Check that. This should have been an EP. Upon further reflection, I could have lived with just 'Kashmir'. Actually, just leave the iconic orchestral riff at the door and get out.

The six singles are all great and would have been an easy 5 on their own. Unfortunately, the four covers are mid, and the two tracks over 7 minutes should have been edited down to no more than half that length. Normally, that level of bloat would have been enough to downgrade the album to a 3, but those six singles really are solid.

Seriously, algorithm? Another CCR album? I'm having flashbacks to the Reign of Eric Clapton Terror you put us through last year. Fortunately, CCR is way more tolerable than Clapton (who pretty much sets and subceeds the low bar for human standards). Anyway, yesterday's review for 'Cosmo's Factory' applies here, too. The hits are great, but the cover song and tracks over 7 minutes bring down the experience. Furthermore, and unfortunately, the ratio of good to bad is decidedly worse here. Since I generously rounded up yesterday, I'm rounding down today. Tough break. Blame the algorithm.

Really, really odd choice, Robert. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this one. The music, itself, is pleasant enough, though a touch boring and backgroundy. The lyrics are the main attraction here, and unfortunately, I found it kinda hard to connect with the sad nostalgia they're trying to evoke. I think maybe it's because they often feel too weirdly specific and personal? I dunno. If I'd have been given this album earlier in this challenge, I'd have probably failed it for not feeling at all important enough to be on a list of essential listening material. However, as a somewhat seasoned veteran who's sat through WAY more horrendous things throughout this experience, I now have the perspective I need to more fairly rank this amongst its peers.

I gave their last album a 2, and this is pretty much the same repackaged product, so...

While I can appreciate the historical importance of this album, I was largely indifferent to it. Slight bump for being just over half an hour. Nothing worse than a mediocre album that overstays its welcome... as this experience has CLEARLY demonstrated time and time again.

Don't call it a comeback. Because it's not.

So... in order to meet their record label's minimum requirements, these guys stuffed this album with last-minute filler (including a blatantly overlong chant that takes up a third of the runtime), and this is somehow a must hear experience? Yeah. No.

For what this was when it was, it's probably fair to call it great - even important. However, listening to it for the first time ever in 2026, a lot of it feels kinda mid to me. Other than the few hits everyone knows, the only tracks that really made me perk up and listen were 'Tomorrow Never Knows' and, to a lesser degree, 'Love You To'. If they had leaned more heavily into that vibe, I'd have been much more interested in this. Three albums down, and it's becoming clear that, while certainly competent and undeniably influential, the Beatles just don't excite me much.

Bored now. Look, Bob Marley absolutely belongs on this list. He does not, however, belong on this list three times. Every album - every song is the same experience. I fairly gave his last two albums neutral 3s, but today it's the protest vote.

Both the Dylan quota for this experience and my tolerance for harmonica have been exceeded.

Decent. Catchy chords, understandable vocalizations, and not a harmonica in sight. Tracks are only a few minutes long; album is just over half an hour - everything a competent album should be. If I stuck with this long enough, I think some of these tracks would make their way into my long-term memory, but it's not quite interesting enough to inspire that effort.

I didn't really enjoy this, but the fault likely lies more with my tastes than the competency of the artists. I would have said the songs ran a little long, but honestly, they all sounded the same, so I guess where the cuts are is ultimately moot... and not understanding Spanish probably didn't help matters...

Hmm... On the one hand, music is universal, and from that perspective this was passable, I guess. On the other hand, if a track predominantly features lyrics, then those lyrics are part of the experience, and it's been too long since I've used my French to know what's being sung here to fully appreciate this. Didn't hate it, but didn't get much from it, either.

I'm having a colonoscopy today, and I'm worried that this could be the last album I'll ever get to listen to... though, in literal hindsight, the album cover IS appropriate for the occasion, I suppose... Honestly, as far as Springsteen goes, this is probably as good as it gets. It's not his fault the singles have been overplayed, but I do hold him unequivocally responsible for that raspy, strainy, howling sound he makes... which, incidentally, I may also be making shortly... Bottoms up!

We just heard the original 'My Generation' on the last Who album, 'Tommy' has its own entry, and ALL live albums are shit; so, this should not be on this list. Period.

Didn't get it. Very 90s grungy sounding - which is to say, more noise than music. Lyrically incompatible. I think the front half might have been better than the back half, but it pretty much sucked too much to give it a second pass to confirm. Contemporary comparison: I gave all of Nirvana's albums 2s, and this was worse than that.

I love when someone takes garbage and turns it into art. I hate when someone, posing as an artist, produces garbage and tries to convince you that it's art.

This challenge has officially jumped the shark.

Wow... an album that you actually SHOULD hear before you die. Good job, Robert. Here. Have a biscuit, mate.

Live. Jazz. Still haven't found anyone who could make either work for me (let alone at the same time). Props to Sarah for her ad-libbing skills, though. It was almost enough to bump this up a star. Almost.

Fuck Wilco, already... they don't have one essential song, let alone this many "must hear" albums....

Track 6; circa 10:20: Please, God! No more! I'll talk! Whatever you want to know! Just. Make. It. Stop! Seriously, Robert... the best representation of Indian music you could find for your list is an album with instrumental covers of well-known Western songs performed in cliché sitar? Way to really push your comfort zone, mate. It's a sad, sad day when I have to fail an album with so much Moog, but somehow this challenge found a way to ruin even that. Astonishing.

Comfortably dull. The very standard of a neutral 3 by which all other albums will now be judged.

Quite the humble title, that... It may not have been two years of torture, but it sure felt like it.

Not good. Incidentally, this once again proves to me that, despite the critics adamantly claiming otherwise, Duran Duran's 'Thank You' album offers an improved version of every track it covers (many of the originals are on this list). This album, however, is truly more annoying than enjoyable (which, by itself, would be a capital offence). Add to that EC's unjustifiably taking up 6 of these 1,001 seats, and there really is no other sensible score but a 1 here.

I can't say I overly enjoyed this, and a few of these tracks are in need of a radio edit, but compared to most of the albums we've had over the last few weeks, this was tolerable. If I were forced to listen to a second disc of this, I'd likely have given it a resentful 1, though.* Side note, I had heard their 'The Whole of the Moon' before today, and I do enjoy that song. I just listened to it again, and it's very clear that this album was a less commercial change of direction for them. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to the listener, but it certainly lowers its accessibility. *I believe the album pic needs to be updated on this one. Collector's editions should NEVER be your introduction to any band. Thankfully, I was able to listen to the original one-disc version on YouTube.

I'm sure this obscurity was a delightful find for someone. Unfortunately, I'm not that someone. I'm the guy giving this No. 2 a No. 1, baby.

Awful. But it's short.

This was my first time listening to Björk (besides 'Life Is Good'), and I MOSTLY liked what I heard (side-eye at the sax). Like 'Siamese Dream' (another newly discovered 1993 album from this list), I think this would have hit a lot harder if I had first heard it upon its initial release, though. Reviewing the Billboard Year-End Hot 100 Singles for 1993, this is FAR better than 80% of the garbage on that list. Seriously... this Billboard list is so bad... no wonder I was still hiding in the 80s... maybe this album could have helped me transition into the 90s... if only... Anyway, I regret missing the Pumpkins' 'Siamese Dream', and I regret missing Björk's 'Debut'. I wouldn't say the latter is quite as good as the former, and I do prefer The Sugarcubes' formula over Björk's solo sound, but even with its few rough patches, this album is still pretty decent.

Perfectly serviceable. Better than other albums of its time and genre. Their synth era was their peak, though. And I will die on that hill.

Based on its ingredients, I should have liked this, but I didn't... I thought for sure the synth-heavy albums on this list would be 5s, but damn, Robert sure did a great job of finding some astonishingly shitty synth-heavy albums, eh? I guess I expect catchy hooks, moody atmospheres, and/or mathematically mapped melodies with this type of music. This album, however, somehow manages to be spontaneously chaotic and repetitively boring at the same time. Kinda like its cover... it's moving, but it's not... it's flat and shallow with only the illusion of depth... Hard fail for being irritating... and hard jail time for flagrant misuse and wanton abuse of the synthesizer...

So... the skits have now crossed the Atlantic, eh? Smashing! Seriously, that cringe needs to be chucked into the nearest rubbish bin, mate. On the plus side, there are a few catchy beats here, and I do find the videogame-sounding samples quite delightful. Is that enough to save this from failure? Maybe barely. I think grime just isn't my genre... though I did find this album more tolerable than M.I.A. and Dizzee Rascal (which were, admittedly, very low bars to clear).

A situationally perfect album. If, however, you're not feeling particularly depressed on a cold & rainy Sunday afternoon, it's a little less impactful.

Another instance where I have to separate the (over-played) singles from the rest of the (new-to-me) album because the former have been so ingrained into my skull, it's hard to be objective. So, the "new" stuff is kinda mid. If that were all this album was, I'd probably give it a 2. But it's not. There are also those pesky singles to consider. And even though I've heard them enough times for two lifetimes now, they really are pretty solid. Guess it's a "split the difference" situation again.

This album's kinda like an Oreo... the top and bottom are alright, but it's really that creamy center everybody wants... That said, I don't think I'd like chomping down on just a wad of cream filling without the cookies; so, for atmospheric completeness, I guess the 26-minute, 9-piece intro-outro serves its purpose in the recipe. 4 stars as is; 5 stars with the sax replaced by a glass of ice-cold milk.

Great. Now I'll never be able to rewatch 'Time Squared' without wincing. Thanks for that. I love spacey electronica, so it's both puzzling and disappointing that I wasn't able to fully connect with this album. Maybe it's because this is less spacey electronica and more repetitive club music? Or maybe Orbital's just not my thing? I reread my review for 'Snivilisation', and I see it also left me feeling lukewarm. This time, however, there's no Alison Goldfrapp to save the experience.

Given the involvement of an alleged legend, this was a shockingly shallow and overall dull experience. The only things saving it are a couple of OK singles and my prior exposure to far worse things on this list.

This being released in 1980 is fairly face melting. And while I was listening to it the first time, I thought, "You know, this could really use some Kate Bush" - et voila! More face melting. This is one of those albums that kept drawing me back throughout the day, and the more I listened to it, the better it got. Perhaps I'd hand out higher scores to all albums if I listened to them multiple times - but then I guess the trick to that is having an album that makes me want to do that in the first place - and this one definitely has that hook.

My review for 'Superfly' could pretty much be used here, too: this is serviceable but forgettable with its strongest selling point being that it's short. And just like last time: TOO MUCH FALSETTO. I generously gave 'Superfly' a 3, but this gets a 2 for being "Superfluous" to this list. It does nothing better than the former, and even the former wasn't all that great.

Per my will, I'm to be buried with a few select items. This album is one of them.

Who needs waterboarding when you've got that voice?

This dude bro again? I honestly don't remember the other album we had by him well enough to run a proper compare (I only remember it being depressing and, generally, life sucking), so I guess I'll just have to judge this one on its own merits. Ahem. It's depressing and, generally, life sucking. Oh, and boring.

What's there to say? It's the best album by, arguably, the most talented group ever.

Another album I've got too memorized to be objective. Throwing it a 5 to spite all of the whiny haters on here.

Our fifth Dylan album on this list. They all suck. If he's so essential (he's not), then go ahead and waste two of the 1,001 spots on him - but this whiny, harmonica-saturated formula is the same thing over and over again, album after album, and it does NOT need to be on here seven times.

I'd buy this album and not regret it. That's enough to earn it a 5.

I gave it a few playthroughs throughout the day, and while it did get better with each listen, I think it ultimately leans a little more towards noise rock than art rock for my tastes. Both the percussion and lead guitar are a bit overbearing at times, the sax (though thankfully infrequent) is pretty dreadful, and the vocals... yeesh... I appreciate its relevance, though, and I'm glad this project brought it to my attention.

Competent. Other than the history lesson, though, it just wasn't able to grab my interest. The music's not my genre, and the language is obviously a barrier to appreciating the lyrics.

White Nike Air Monarch IVs as far as the eye can see... or maybe being from Boston, we're dealing more with an army of white New Balance 608s?

Rewatching season 4 of Buffy, and today's episode just happened to be "The Yoko Factor". Weird. Anyway, I think I may have been born on the wrong side of the Mason-Dixon line to truly appreciate this. It's by no means unlistenable, but if given the choice, I'd probably prefer not to listen.

Maybe it's the relief of this not being jazz or Bob Dylan talking, but I'm gonna be Lao Tzu at the vinegar tasting with this one and simply appreciate it for being what it is: an apt artifact of late 90s house music.

Another album ruined by the Tower of Babel. Musically, this is (somewhat) fine as an (overlong) ambience, but I strongly suspect the lyrics are critical to the experience; so, without a translation, this sadly falls flatter than the aforementioned tower.

So... uh... I guess I was wrong to give yesterday's cryptic Icelandic post rock a 1 when there are things like this in the world...

Didn't enjoy this as much as I thought I would... My guard was immediately up with the "live" production of the first track... weird decision, there... the second track hasn't aged well... and "Papa", while decent, is a disproportionately long monster... And then we have the high-pitched tracks on the B-side that are, frankly, terrible... I won't fail this, but I have to believe there's better material out there for a household name like The Temptations...

This is more a calculated marketing piece than actual art. By very deliberate intent, it's provocative and polarizing. I would describe the experience akin to taking a nice, hot, soothing shower with toxic sewage water. The rundown: (-) Shock value for the sake of shock value. Lame. (+) Transparent self-awareness about using said tactic. Respectable. (+) Beats and flow are tight and make you want to listen again. (-) Lyrics are trite and make you want to never listen again. (+) Overall production. (-) Skits. (+) Tapping into and exposing some very real, very ugly human nature and hypocrisy. (-) Ultimately being just another artifact in that pile of ugliness and hypocrisy. Even though it deserves it (practically begs for it), I'm actually not going to fail this since it DID achieve what it set out to do: prove that people are easily triggered and manipulated. Any points for aesthetics? Nah.

Kinda have to view this album as the three overplayed singles and everything else. The former are fine, but I really can't overstate the 'overplayed' part. The latter felt like filler filled with filler. Even with the singles, this feels like a 2 to me... and since I already gave U2 the benefit of the doubt with 'Achtung Baby', I won't be rounding up here.

I know I'm predictably easy to please when it comes to this genre, but seriously, even if this isn't your thing, you've still gotta have respect for that 1976 release date. The "I Feel Love" vibe on the 5th track predates Donna's hit by a year, and the smooth, almost house-like trance on track 6 is decades ahead of its time. The new age space chill of side A had me feeling 4ish, but side B cliched the deal.

Hmm... I'm not sure what to make of this. Compared to the other albums we've had thus far from the 00s, this is by far one of the most listenable (low bar, I know), but I just can't seem to get completely comfortable with it. Maybe my hang-up is the abrupt jumping in and out of the dreamscape-like atmosphere they create? For example, 'Troubles' and 'Rhododendron' are rather ethereal tracks with tranquil fadeouts. They're then followed up by the 'Suicide Blonde' intro of 'Out-Side' and the choppy dissonance of 'Liquid Bird', respectively. These rough transitions are unsettling and counterproductive (i.e. the calm bits now feel boring, and the upbeat bits annoying). 'Space Beatle' is a good example of a single song doing this back-and-forth energy thing. There are some genuinely good ideas here, but I'm struggling to think of a situation where I'd be able to fully enjoy this caffeinated lavender tea in its entirety.

I have no idea how the current me would objectively rate this if I were hearing it for the first time (or if such objectivity is even possible with something like this). I'm only able to hear this through my angry, angsty teenage ears. And there, you'll find nothing but complete resonance. Or perhaps I should say, complete Reznorance. An aside: it's positively obtuse that 'Pretty Hate Machine' didn't make this list, but we have seven Bob Dylan albums and six each from Elvis Costello and Radiohead. It is what it is, I guess, but what it is is wrong.

Undeniably an important album, but like all Pink Floyd albums we've had, the proggiest of prog parts keep it from perfection.

This album made me squeal like a pig.

I was offended by the suit even before pushing play... and then it got worse.

On the plus side, I can appreciate that this was a trailblazer in the field of sampling (this would have been mind-blowing in 1979-1980). And, honestly, it DID keep me toe-tapping throughout; so, unlike most other experimental albums we've had on here, it DOES have SOME musical quality. However... it does feel a bit rough around the edges... which I suppose is unavoidable given what it is and when it was made. It's not something I'd want to necessarily have on repeat, but it's more polished than, say, 'Duck Stab' (another experimental album I appreciated more for its pioneering groundwork than for its standalone content), and I gave that a 3, so this deserves nothing less for the same reasons. In fact, I'll round up to a 4 because this feels like a genuinely important step in technical development (and I did like it, besides).

If you've ever wanted to know what it feels like to have an aphasic seizure, this album is for you! Seriously though, once you stop trying to make sense of whatever the hell it is she's on about and just sorta let the album knead your left temporal lobe into pudding, the ambience is actually quite delightful. So, despite it taking several playthroughs (and some minor brain damage) to get there, in the end, I'm landing somewhere in 4 territory with this one.

It didn't knock my socks off, but it did make me want to wear dad shoes.

Picture it: Whiterun. 201st year of the 4th Era. A man walks into The Bannered Mare. A young female bard is gently plucking at a harp preparing for her performance. She begins to sing. An Oblivion Gate opens - releasing murderous Daedra upon the unexpecting spectators! Screams! The turning over of tables and chairs! The ensuing smell of blood and smoke is overwhelming! The man is utterly aghast by what can only be described as pure, wanton carnage! The bard's screechy warbling just won't stop! Oh, and the massacre perpetrated by the Daedra is pretty awful, too.

*Memories unlocked* I hadn't heard 'Brimful of Asha' since 1997 (honestly, forgot it even existed). Can't say I overly enjoyed it back then (plus, it was overplayed), but it still hit me in the nostalgia today. There are some nice grooves and samples here and there, but as a complete product, it's not all that compelling. Perhaps it's a bit too eclectic?

This is perfectly on par with 'The Queen Is Dead'. Again, it features some of The Smiths' best work but, likewise, is also stuffed with just enough filler to keep it from receiving top marks.

I failed Dusty Springfield for having an album of nothing but covers, and I'll do it again to Willie. In this case, though, it was much easier to do since this was also boring as suck and, frankly, irrelevant. A completely wasted entry that could and should have been filled by any of the so many other ORIGINAL acts missing from this busted list. That sounded a lot angrier than I wanted... but still... damn...

Exactly what I've come to expect of the Stones... a couple of killer singles floating in a vat of greasy filler...

This was mostly a subpar experience, but I do appreciate that it was also a Clapton-free experience. It's also not worse than yesterday's Stones album, so a 2 it is.

Ugh... third day in a row of 60's British rock... Look, the algorithm can't be held accountable for what's on this questionable list, but it certainly can be blamed for the order it queues this shit up. Do better. Of these last three albums, this is easily the worst - so, I can confidently toss this dross a 1.

Hmmm... this felt pretty manufactured to me... as if, perhaps unironically, the target consumer were, in fact, the American idiot, himself... It's not really punk... it's not really rock... it feels more like a (successfully) calculated cash grab than anything else... Personally, I wasn't able to find anything relatable nor even all that interesting here, but, like 'The Marshall Mathers LP' before it, I guess it still deserves a slight bump for achieving what it seemingly set out to do: make lots of mainstream money... the singles have certainly been brutally overplayed at any rate...

I'd heard of Arcade Fire before, but this was the first time I'd heard any of their material. I'm sorta on the fence with this. The first listen didn't impress me, and I was ready to hand it a 1 and move on with my life. But as with all Friday albums, I had a little more time to spend with it over the weekend, and I don't think I dislike it quite as much as I thought. The lyrics mostly miss the mark, and it tends to get a little too dramatic at times, but the instrumentation is competent and a few of the melodies are actually pretty decent. I'm willing to upgrade my score to a neutral 3 and, for now, keep an open mind about their other two albums that will eventually be coming up on this list.

Me: Why is this on the list? *side B starts* Me: Oh... Yeah, no.

Well, much like 'Debut' (and possibly all of Björk's albums?), there's certainly some polarizing material here. I'd say about half of these tracks are the auditory equivalent of Jackson Pollock drip paintings: interesting in passing, but too challenging to revisit often (or at all). However, and especially given the techniques that were utilized, the other half of this album is pretty damn amazing. While I regrettably can't award top marks due to the inaccessible drippings, Björk's vision & execution have nothing but my FULL respect on this one.

I guess it's only fair that all genres have representation on this list. But truly: fuck this.

I enjoyed not listening to this more than I enjoyed listening to this.

I can't remember how this sounded the first time I heard it, and there's no way to be objective now when I've got the entire thing memorized. It's getting a 5 from me. Maybe it deserves it, maybe it doesn't, but one thing's for certain: my rating statistics for the 00s could sure use the bump.

The Beatles may not be my thing, but I've still been able to give their albums 3s for being important and/or at least having catchy jingles. Until now. I honestly don't feel this album clears either of the two aforementioned hurdles. The only passable tracks are covers done better by others. Considering the Beatles already have sufficient, more relevant representation on this list, I would definitely pitch this one. Hard.

I admit it... I'm something of a cave dweller... this was the first time I'd ever heard anything by Taylor Swift (even the singles (half the album???) were new to me)... so, that is to say, I'm reviewing this from a place of true non-nostalgic neutrality... The verdict: Eh. Right off, I thought the opening synth on 'Welcome to New York' had potential, but it never got off the runway. And that's how I would describe my general feeling with this. Like I was indefinitely taxiing. Waiting in vain for some transcendental experience that never materialized. Nice guitar riff to open 'Style'... never takes off. Nice opening synth on 'Wildest Dreams'... never takes off. Etc. Etc. Etc. That's not to say this hasn't any value. Far from it. I live with a gay bear who, when he's doing things like yardwork and such, draws enormous amounts of energy from this music (or music like this, at any rate... most ultra-produced modern music sounds the same to me, honestly). At any rate, it definitely exudes plenty of catchy, clubby vibes that get the blood pumping. Plus, it's a fairly easy listen if you don't listen too closely nor expect too much. Alas, I DO expect too much. And so, I think I'm settling around a 2 with this one. I just listened to Lorde's 'Melodrama' again (the closest comparable we've had on this list thus far) because I gave that a 5, and the variance was curious. I think the difference is that 'Melodrama' feels darker, more authentic, and much more tangible to me. By comparison, '1989' feels, frankly, downright vapid. Guess I'm just a black jellybean kinda guy...

This is passable but, seriously Robert, get a grip. No, really. 'Get a Grip' really should be on your list, mate. It's more relevant and accessible.

I guess this is what happens when you travel as a member of Bob Dylan's Rolling Thunder Revue tour and become a frequent cocaine user. Take caution, children.

It took a bit of time to fully marinade, but once the spacey trances kicked in, this wasn't half bad. I just wish the ends weren't so burnt because the voiceless morsels in the meaty middle seemed pretty well done. While not the best meal I've ever had, it was still overall edible.

I'm not here. This isn't happening. I'm not here. I'm not here. Except it did happen. And it sucked.

Not sure how important or innovative this is, but the synth work is great, and that's obviously a win with me. There is something, though, that I can't quite put my finger on that feels sorta hollow about this. The vocals? The lyrics? At any rate, it's not a deal killer, but on a scale of Hate to Love, it's just a Like.

Not really my genre, but this was alright, I suppose. Maybe a bit unremarkable. If this came up on the radio, I probably wouldn't mind... or notice. I'd question what makes it "special" enough to be on this list, but based on what we've encountered thus far, it's clear the criteria used to compile this list is the blackest of black boxes anyway, so whatevs.

Much like their debut, I appreciate the sampling. However, unlike their debut, none of these tracks feel particularly compelling. Can hip-hop be progressive? Because this sure sounds like what hip-hop would sound like if it could be progressive. I honestly can't think of a reason to ever listen to this again.

This album is nature's way of telling you something's wrong... and it's this very album.

ANOTHER hour+ R&B debut with skits? *eyeroll* I gave it a generous two playthroughs, and sadly, the part that got me the most excited was the PlayStation boot up. I recognize the well-done production, and there are, indeed, a few good melodies here and there... but the lyrics are unrelatable and the length is unjustifiable for what's being offered. Several tracks feel like straight up filler, 'Pyramids', itself, is in desperate need of an edit and, yes, those pesky skits could and should be cut... though then I suppose we'd also lose the part that got me the most excited... *sigh*

Unholy shit, that was rough...

On the one hand, I want to commend Robert for stepping out of the extreme Anglo-bubble he'd have us believe is the only music worth listening to... On the other hand, this really isn't the most riveting alternative to suggest... While I didn't outright hate it (high praise, indeed, for any live album), I also can't say I felt particularly connected to it, either. The xylophone and accordion can be fun supporting instruments, but to have them be the stars for an hour? Yikes. In a normal world, I'd have failed this, but I can't stress enough how much I appreciate not having to listen to another subpar psychedelic, progressive, country rando act Robert just happened to pull outta his rolodex. Though, in all honestly, this does feel more like a token representative of an obscure genre than an actual "must hear" experience.