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.
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.
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.
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.
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... Overall, however, this felt more like mood music than active listening... which would likely be fine if that were your aim, but the repetition does wear a bit if you're fully present. I guess I neither love nor hate it.
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, I'm giving it a 5 because, as an artform, it's on point. Plus, several of these tracks were featured on the Golden Girls, so that's pretty much an automatic win.
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.
No.
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.
Only really half-listed to this... too much going on... but from what I heard, it sounded like it was only worth half-a-listen, to be honest... I'll give it a free star for my lack of effort, but I'm fairly certainly it doesn't deserve any more based on their lack of effort...
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.