The fascinating thing about this album... Try to imagine that once there was a time, in 1967, that this was an anonymous debut by a band nobody had ever heard of, called 'The Doors'. And that you buy it, let the needle down on side A and that you hear 'Break on through'. What a debut. It's magnificent. 'Light my fire' is probably one of the best psychedelic songs ever. Did you ever realize that the Doors are probably the only rock band everyone knows the name of the keyboardist of, and hardly anybody the name of the guitar player? That's fascinating. And yes, there are some weaker moments. And yes, there are other highlights like 'The crystal ship' and 'Alabama'. It's simply a fantastic debut, with Jim Morrison's thing still inside his pants. 9 out of 10.

First of all: I'm totally unfamiliar with Swift's music. Wrong generation. Her success and especially devoted fanbase surprise me, in the sense that she apparently is very popular among people (mainly women) who usually listen to much more challenging (alternative) music than pop. This could have been a rather good pop album, but the production is truly awful. And I mean: awful. It's way too loud and everything sounds so disgustingly synthetic.... It's supposed to be bass guitar, but it all sounds like coming from a computer. The singing is also obviously f*cked with. This point is clearly illustrated by the bizarre cover version that Ryan Adams made of this entire album. The hits are clearly better in the Swift versions, but Adams' album sounds so much better, so much more musical. Fascinating: this illustrates perfectly that Swift indeed is a talented songwriter. Highlight of the album is beyond doubt 'Style'. That's a great song, and yes, probably the least synthetic sounding.

Most songs are really very boring, nothing's happening. However, since I am not into hiphop, it was a bit better than expected (not much). The Shiznit and Gz and Hustlas are the best songs.

It's an okay album, it's missing a really strong energetic song. But there is one incredible highlight: the song One is probably one of the most beautiful guitar based pop songs of the nineties. I would give it a 7/10.

This album kicks off with a great start. But after a couple of songs it becomes one big blur to me, with a sound totally dominated by fatiguing slide guitar and harmonica. 5 out of 10.

I actually liked this better than I expected. There's tons of energy and some songs, especially Climbatize, I do like. Oddly enough it's the hits that I really can't stand. What I absolutely loathe about this album is the 'singing', shouting, vocal horror-thingy.

Yes, well, that's a great album. Sex machine is really too long and some of the tracks are a bit too poppy, but this is clearly a great and influential piece of music.

This is truly horrible. I cannot understand how this has made the list, it really sounds like nothing, and no, that's not a compliment. It's just ridiculous, talentless would-be music. Bweuh.

An absolute killer album. Masterpiece. Everything works. By far the best album I've listened so far and probably one of the best albums of the eighties. And certainly Tom Waits' best.

Generally a very strong album, with pulsating rhythms, a lot of variation, catchy songs. But I have a problem with it, a big one. Opening track 'I Zimbra' is horrible with bizarre, ugly vocals, closing track 'Drugs' is possibly even worse. I don't know what's that supposed to be. It's simply bweuh. Strange. Too bad, without these two tracks I think I would have liked this much better than other Talking Heads albums that I own. Now I don't know.

It's a bit of a surprise to me, I can stand this quite well. I genuinely like 'Everloving', I can stand 'Why does my heart feel so bad?'. It's an interesting nowadays take on blues and gospel. Once again, just like The Prodigy, the best known songs are my least favourite.

I was afraid of it. Man, this is horrible music. Having said that, I can understand and acknowledge that this is probably a very fine album in its genre. The instrumentations are fine, carefully and well done. There's even one song that I, no, not like, but can listen to: 'Pyramids'. The absolute horror is 'Thinkin bout you'. And of course, the latter is far more popular that the former...

Pfff... I think the singing on this album is rather unbearable. Problem: it's all about the singing. It's way up front in the mix. Musically - as far as anyone can tell - it's not really exciting. One exception: Break it up, thanks to a guest appearance by Television's Tom Verlaine. Nah. Not for me. Not extremely bad either. Just meh.

Well, this is a lovely album. But it's also a bit too lovely, it's all going slow, all moody, all bedroom-like songs. You simply want to shout 'hey guys, eat some jalapeños and get going'. A bit more variation in speed, mood, whatever would have spiced things up considerably. I know this was on purpose but still: seventy years on we're in a different mood than Ol' blue eyes was when recording these songs. Also, I really doubt if this is the type of music that suits Sinatra's qualities with his impeccable timing best. Not, I suppose.

I don't think I've listened to this album very intensely often. It's quite a good album, it's got a number of strong songs. Most of them are very well known, but my absolute favourite is the very strong 'Wherever I may roam'. But there are also quite some pretty mediocre songs. Nothing's really bad, it's just not happening in for example 'Holler than them', The struggle within'' and a couple of others. Oh, and, well: it's not really the Metallica from the eighties, is it? But that's their choice, it isn't forbidden to change your style. It's just not as good.

This is horrible. Truly disgusting. It's got nothing to do with music whatsoever. This is not an album (and it isn't even op Spotify). It might work in a club, on a rave or whatever horrible surrounding, but not as an album that you listen to at home. You know what? I even fell asleep while listening the second time. 0 stars, but unfortunately that's not possible.

Oh dear. This is really not very good. How can people listen to this? In every song madam goes completely berserk on the microphone. It's a continuous bunch of vocal bombast. And the music, well, there hardly is any music. Nothing happens, nothing at all. The only song that has a bit more to it is 'River Lea'. The hitsingles 'Hello' and 'When we were young' are worst in terms of sounding like the air alarm during the Battle of Britain.

I think I can see why people like this. It's fairly monotonous but exactly that works. It's a bit too long, like many nineties-albums. This time the track I like best is also the biggest 'hit': C.R.E.A.M. The best hiphop-album so far. Although I liked the musical elements better on Snoop Dogg's album, I certainly think the rapping is much better here.

What a pleasant surprise! I don't own and even don't know this album. The image of Anthrax din not appeal to me. And I think I listened to one other album when I was of the right age, but that wasn't my thing. This is! The star of the album is absolutely drummer Charlie Benante. His drumming is phenomenal, he really carries the band and leads them through the tempo changes smoothly as grease. Best songs? I guess the obvious ones: Caught in a mosh, and Indians - that has a nice hommage to Iron Maiden. And maybe the medley. Great!

A fantastic album. The five star albums are coming rapidly now. I didn't know The Cars before I bought this album, after I read about it in the 1001 Albums-book. They are as good as unknown in Europe. I thought they were a kind of plastic keyboard-driven bubblegum-pop act, but this turned out to be a very very strong album. It's obviously very carefully made, all the songs contain surprising and original details. And there are some great melodies. What more do you need? Highlights? 'Just what I needed', of course, 'You're all I've got tonight' and 'All mixed up'. Nice one.

Pfff. I neither really like nor dislike R.E.M. It's too much middle of the road for me. And that's exactly what I think of this album. It's like pleasant background sound. You keep hoping that something will happen, whether it's a really hard rocking song or a beautiful ballad, but nope, it's like a gentle river bubbling along the countryside. I really don't understand ''You are the everything'; the instrumentation doesn't work and the singing of Michael Stipe is truly unbearable in that song. 4 stars is really too much honour. It's a bleak 7 our of 10 but that translates into 4 stars. But I just can't do that. So I ignore the methodology and adjust to 3 stars.

This is a strange album. It kicks off really well, what's probably side A of the vinyl album has good songs, good singing, nice guitar sound. But then things are going wrong with hard to listen to, very sweetish pop songs sometimes even maimed by silly female vocal choirs. Fortunately closing track 'You will never be no good' gets us back on track. This album would have been much better if at least 'Are you ready to be heartbroken' and 'Andy's babies' would have simply been left off the album. But they didn't do that. I could have given a pop album 4 stars if they had, but no.

What a fantastic album! And what a contrast with Adele I had to listen to less than a week ago. This lady knows how to sing and knows how to use her voice. But perhaps even more important: the instrumentations are fantastic. The highlight of this album (no, certainly not preacher man) is the astonishingly beautiful 'The windmills of your mind'. That song has more variation and more instrumental interesting elements than a whole disc of Adela. Probably: more than the entire discography of Adele. 'Breakfast in bed': that singing is truly magnificent. Yes, I can truly like pop music.

The songs are too long, not enough is happening. 'Ye ye de smell' is quite okay. But whose idea was it to add a 'la la la'-chant to 'Egbe mi o'? That's silly. Watch out when listening this at Spotify. O totally unnecessary SIXTEEN minute long drum solo was later added to the album, in itself kind of weird because it was recorded in 1978, seven years after the album. Weird.

What a terribly boring album. It starts off quite okay with the first two tracks, then it becomes just a pile of bleep bleep without any music. 'Chico's groove' is once again rather listenable. But that's not enough. Really really boring.

Well, this is a pleasant album. It kicks off really well with beautiful guitar work by Carlos Santana and Bonnie Raitt, as well as Robert Cray. The guest appearance by Canned Heat is typical, but Los Lobos really steals the show. Unfortunately the rets of the album is not so good. The guest appearances by George Thorogood and Charlie Musselwhite are less interesting, and the three songs without guest are a bit of a candle burning out. And the production is really eighties. The singing sounds like it's been recorded in the cathedral of Amiens. Boy, that's bad. Still, overall a good one.

The fascinating thing about this album... Try to imagine that once there was a time, in 1967, that this was an anonymous debut by a band nobody had ever heard of, called 'The Doors'. And that you buy it, let the needle down on side A and that you hear 'Break on through'. What a debut. It's magnificent. 'Light my fire' is probably one of the best psychedelic songs ever. Did you ever realize that the Doors are probably the only rock band everyone knows the name of the keyboardist of, and hardly anybody the name of the guitar player? That's fascinating. And yes, there are some weaker moments. And yes, there are other highlights like 'The crystal ship' and 'Alabama'. It's simply a fantastic debut, with Jim Morrison's thing still inside his pants. 9 out of 10.

I really don't understand what this album is doing in this list. It's utterly boring. Most songs are based on one - sometimes rather okay - sample and that's repeated for the entire length of the song. The scratching isn't original and becomes really boring. That's what this album is: boring. Utterly boring. Listen to 'N.Y. State of mind'. Hee, that piano sounds okay. It's repeated, unchanged, maybe forty times or so? The only song that I like a bit better is 'Represent'. But "like" is very very relative.

A perfect example of an album that's been horribly mutilated by eighties production. It sounds awful. The dreams are hilarious, but the keyboard sounds - especially in 'Nick of time', 'Love letter' and 'Have a heart' are nothing but disgusting. This isn't anything like blues, what I expected. It's 90% pop. Listen to that ridiculous 'woo woo woo' chorus on 'Nick of time'... The closing songs are probably the best, ' I will not be denied' at least has some proper singing, 'I ain't etc' is a rather okay piano ballad (with - it's incredible - a piano that actually sounds like a piano) and 'The road's my middle name' (cliche alert) at least has a blues feeling. I'm a bit friendly because this is what albums sounded like at the time. And the second listen was better than the first one, except for 'Nick of time'. That's really a very bad song.

I really don't understand this music. And I really don't understand why this album is included whereas Grandaddy's 'Under the western freeway' isn't. This is a very very mediocre rip-off of Grandaddy. Grandaddy has rock elements included in its music and those are completely missing here. It's a grey mass of boring music possibly suitable for a wellness facility. Musical wallpaper as we call it in the Netherlands. So yes, you can listen to it, hence for the 2 stars.

What a fantastic album. It's one of the best of the list. I mean, you just have to listen to the opening title track, no, you just have to listen to the intro of the opening track. How great can music be? It's the added value of Mutt Lange's production that gives this album so much more than its predecessors. Most characteristic are the backing vocals choirs. Those are magnificent. And this album has one of the greatest songs ever: 'Touch too much'. It hardly has any flaws, every track is enjoyable. Can I give 6 stars? 10/10

This is a surprise. I already owned this album but hardly had any memory of it. It's really excellent. Although it is supposed to be the birth of glam rock, this is far beyond any cheap, cheesy or bubblegum-like music, this is very well thought through rock. It is characterized by a jumpiness that keeps your attention. The arrangements are really strong. And yes, like more often, the big hit (Get it on) is probably the poorest or least interesting track of the album.

An album that played a big role in my life. It came out during my university years and I was totally into alternative rock, so yeah, how could I not like this. It's not perfect because it has some weak moments (Neon wilderness???), it is way too long including a stupid hidden track. But the great moments are so strong that it still deserves a 10 out of 10. 'Sonnet' is one pof the most beautiful songs of the nineties. Well there are many excellent songs, let's mention 'Space and time'. I love it.

This is obviously a very fine album. But somehow I'm missing something, I'm not really getting it. I always have that with Elvis Costello. It has excellent dynamics - 12 very varied songs in 32 minutes. And it has surprising musical features for an English 1977 album - listen to the jazzy guitar in Allison, or the sixties-vibes of No dancing. But to the end it becomes a bit blurry. Closer 'I'm not angry' makes up for that - it might be the best track of the album. 7/10

Once again an album that's part of my collection but never got much attention. It's a strong album though. It starts off really well and punky, reaching a high point in 'The wait'. But then we have to listen to a totally unnecessary and weak Kinks-cover, 'Stop sobbing' How could they make this their debut-single? 'Kid' is pretty weak too, with some country-vibes. But 'Private life' is excellent, as of course 'Brass in pocket' is. The closing songs are good too. Great album, almost five stars if it weren't for the wek songs in the middle.

This is an okay album. There are just too many songs that are a bit 'nothing happens'. However, 'Enjoy the silence' is a truly beautiful pop song. They should have changed the order of the songs, the first two are slow and boring. That's also part of the deal of making an album...

Oh dear... The opening track of this album, 'Fine Time', is probably the most appaling sonic attack I have had to endure during my first 35 albums. What on earth is that? I've got a couple of New Order albums and of course all Joy Division albums, that's nothing like this. It's a really weird album. In fact, it seems to consist of two albums of two different bands mixed randomly together. One band makes uninteresting electronic kind of danceable music, the other one is the New Order I know - though not necessarily in top form - making almost straight ahead pop music with the well known great bass lines played by Peter Hook. The only track where these two bands sort of meet is the closing track 'Dream attack' - and that's by far the most listenable track of the album. Experiment failed...

Music I totally didn't know. My first association was the Doobie Brothers, and hey, there's a cover on this album! But it definitely has a Funkadelic-vibe. Especially because of what makes this album the most interesting: the sometimes great guitar work with a markable fuzz-sound by 17-year old Ernie Isley. The use of ARP and Moog synthesizers is also noteworthy. Less noteworthy: it's a bit weird that, while they are certainly able to pen their own songs - and were once even covered by the Beatles - four out of nine songs here are covers. Summer Breeze is possibly the best song, though, because of the guitar. A rather pleasant surprise.

I do own and I do like this album, despite the fact that it's not really my genre. Upon careful listening I see three reasons. 1 The music is based on the extremely sturdy disco four-to-the-beat of the seventies. Even I can dance to that. 2 This is real music, not just dance music. Interestingly, the book mentions exactly this (I never read the book before I make my review). 3 the extensive use of analogue synthesizers, adding to the second reason. The more extreme songs I like best. 'Around the world' is honestly very boring. The biggest problem: it lasts for more than 73 minutes. Oh dear. Never do that.

What a great album! The opener is truly fantastic, what an energy, what a speed, what great melodies. This album contains a lot of beautiful melodies, accentuated by the great chants. Listen to the chorus of the most famous song: 'Gary Gilmore's eyes'. There's not a real weak moment, maybe it can become a bit too much but fortunately it's only 36 minutes. Definitely one of punk's greatest moments.

This is a really weird album. Whereas most popular music is white folks playing music inspired by music from black culture, this one is the other way around. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Bye bye love is definitely a step up from the Everly Brothers (who didn't write the song, by the way). Songs like 'I love you so much it hurts' simply did not stand the test of times. These absurdly sweet choirs, you cannot listen to that anymore with 21st century ears. And there are plenty of those. That's not really fair of course. But it's not the most exiting music ever anyway.

A very fine album. Some of these songs are even more well-known or popular in different versions, illustrating the song-writing capabilities of Paul Simon. It's very nicely arranged too, maybe just a little too soft on the ears.

Well yes, I like this one better than the hiphop-albums so far. It's got much more variation. 'I'm destructive' is really okay, even mentioning Dutch death metal band Gorefest! However, it's way too long like so many albums of this era.

Oh dear. I don't know if I dare to say this. I'm just not really into Hendrix. No doubt about his music-historical meaning and influence. But his music just doesn't do it for me. This album is also a bit ramshackle, you can hear it's not really a unity. And the sound is not optimal, especially the odd stereo-mix. Yes great songs and I want to mention 'Third stone from the sun' that isn't well known but that I like very much.

It's a bit too obvious what's going on here. Hey, we've got a hiphopband and let's let them rap over a (hard)rock background so white folks will listen as well. It does work, however. 'Walk this way' is a great novelty hit. I don't feel the same about 'It's trricky' - based on the fantastic 'My Sharona' - because the spirit of that song (fantastic guitar work) is totally missing. This album is dominated by an extremely ugly drumcomputer, it's almost unlistenable. Bweuh.

Well, that's a weird one... I had really never heard of this band, although it kinda fits my taste. This is really obscure, and no, you can't find it on Spotify (but you can find it on YouTube). It's a 6,5/10 for me and I'll round that to a four-star-rating but that is a bit too positive. It's really erratic, that's my biggest problem. Oh no, that's not true. My biggest problem is the opening track: 'Firefly'. That's by far the weakest track of the album, I would almost call it horrible. How could they choose this as an opening track? These were the old days that people went to a record store and tried listening to them... Some songs are genuinely nice and beautiful, 'Blue and grey shirt' is probably my favourite, 'Pale and skinny girl' is very nice as well.

My god, this album is way too long. If they would have skipped the last two deadly boring songs, totaling 26 minutes... And I really can's stand the singing: especially 'I used to' is incredibly out of tune. On a positieve note, the JM Jarre-like 'how do you sleep' is rather okay (but again way too long), 'emotional haircut' is a punky energy-song and the best song I think is 'call the police'.

There is no doubt this album is pure genius. It's very well thought-through. It sounds like a suite, no matter which tempo and chord changes there are throughout the songs. Motives are coming back all through the album. And the arrangements are as complicated and fine as can be. Having said that: the composition is in my humble opinion better than the music. For me it's just not happening. And it's a little outdated. That's not fair criticism, but these barbershop choirs, well, that's an acquired tasje. I haven't acquired it.

Maybe it's odd, but I had never listened to an album of Muse. In the nineties I was totally into this kind of music, but in 1999/2000 I turned my attention to jazz and no longer payed attention to alternative rock. So we just missed each other;-) And that's a pity. I think this is a very strong album. Yes, it's very like the early albums of Radiohead, especially because of Matt Bellamy's voice that resembles Thom Yorke's voice extremely. Kudo's to Muse: they succeed in what Radiohead didn't manage. On this album electronics are introduced as an element in the music, but they add something in stead of destroy everything. 'City of delusion' is my favourite track.

It might be a controversial opinion, but I think this is my favourite Steely Dan album. There is plenty of spontaneity here and some edges to the music. I totally love it, it's a masterpiece. Brilliant songwriting. Yes, it must be your cup of tea, well, it is mine. I mean, the opening of 'Do it again' on itself is enough to secure Steely Dan's place in (modern) music history.

Oh dear... This is truly horrible album. I tried to listen to this unprejudiced. I guess I was in my first year of gymnasium when this album came out and I really hated the singles of it. No I listened to the entirety of it and I really hated it. I do really appreciate the singer-songwriter Paul Simon. Just look at my appreciation of 'Bookends'. Bur this is... let's say: appalling. It's an attempt to blend African music with modern popmusic, but it doesn't work. They remain two world apart and the results are ridiculous. I mea, just listen to 'I know what I know'. This can't be serious? 'That was your mother' is not much better, with a totally fucked up accordeon and the ugliest sax solo ever. What on earth were they thinking? Yes, I know it's not really fair to listen to mid eighties music and its horrible production with nowadays ears but this is not just production. This is pop music at its worst.

Totally unknown to me... Certainly topping the hiphop-albums so far. There considerably more music here. I kinda like 'So appalling' and 'Who will survive in America'. I really don't understand why they open the album with the appalling - pun intended - 'Dark fantasy'. Why, tell me why? Interesting thought: how many of the people responsible for over 1 billion Spotify-streams of 'POWER' have listened to the original '21st century schizoid man' (with 37 million streams)?

What a beautiful album! I had never heard of Richard Hawley, this is total very pleasant surprise. It's truly beautiful music, for me most resemblant of Tindersticks - a band that certainly should have been in the book with any of their first three records. Or all three of them. Anyway, back to Hawley. This is a must hear. The arrangements are fantastic with a very tasteful use of baritone guitar, his voice is in the middle between Stuart Staples and Bryan Ferry - yes, my girlfriend was immediately interested;-) Most of all: the song 'The Ocean'... That might be one of the best songs on the 51 albums I have listened so far. Stunning.

A perfect example of an album that has been standing in my record closet for decades and that I never really listened to. and that's a shame because it turned out to be a really great record. I have a bit of a troublesome relation with Bryan Ferry as a singer - that strange vibrato... I don't like Brian Eno, but he had already left the band. The result is an album that meanders between very energetic and swinging rock and strange, very arty songs that sometimes seem to be inspired by thirties German cabaret - a bit odd for an English band in 1974 but certainly okay. The highlight of this album is easy to find: the songs 'All Want is you' and 'Out of the night' are linked in between. The former is a great rock song, the latter is a fantastic rock song. I should have given this album more attention!

My first time listening a Kate Bush album. For pop music, it's rather pleasant. At least enough is happening and there is plenty of variation, in tempo, song structure, arrangements. This is clearly an album with one masterpiece: Running up that hill is accountable for 87% of Spotify-streams and yes, it's an excellent song. The first five tracks have 97% of all streams and that is understandable as well. After these songs, the candle of this album is all but blown out. Furthermore, the at times horrible eighties production gets more and more disturbing. I must mention the absolute low of this album: Waking the witch. My dear, what happened there? Sorry, but I can't give higher than 6/10 for an album that has this song on it. Oh dear oh dear. I'll just listen to 'Running up that hill' one more time, giving it an even higher percentage of streams.

Well, what to do with this one. It's a five star rating, that's clear. It's a brilliant album, no pun intended. But I think it's really an odd one on this list. Together with Charles Mingus this is probably the only hardcore jazz album on the list. Apart from some jazzrock-albums, most jazz albums are of the rather listenable kind. Thelonious Monk isn't listenable. It's all about dissonance and bizarre complex song structures. You need to be a trained jazz amateur to enjoy this, I think. And even then... But man, listen to his solo performance 'I surrender,dear'. To me that's the highlight of this album. There is a reason that one of most popular releases was a compilation of his solo performances. He is so brilliant. He seems to master the basics material a straightforward standard, that he can do with it whatever he likes. The melody is never stated, he picks it up, turns it around, destroys it and at the same time embraces it in the most loving way, he's out of this world. It's exceptional. Another gem is the strange Pannonica with the odd celesta played by Monk. Well, it's on the list, so a well deserved five star rating. But in fact I think it should be on another list.

This is unmistakably a very influential album. On this album, that I never heard before, I can hear a lot of things that I know from other albums. For example, one of my favourite bands, Indochine, clearly have this album in their record closet. I know 'Joan of Arc' very well - I loved it as a little child. I don't know how long it had been since I last heard it, but I still love it. It has a beautiful melody. And what a surprise, I always thought that this was synthesizer music but the reason that song has such a melancholy feel is that is is played on a mellotron. Almost the most non-synthesizer instrument thinkable. It's not great across the board, though. Nice songs and a couple of not so interesting ones.

A very bleak 4 stars, in the regular scoring system a 7/10 but on the low side of 7... My problem with this album is its inconsistency. It's a mixed bag of ideas and not all of these ideas work. I mean, '...And in every home', come on! A misplaced Burt Bacharach kind of song. I like the Costello of 'Beyond belief' much better. And a very exciting moment is the intro - repeated a number of times - of 'Human hands'. The Dsus4-F6 chord progression is incredibly exciting, that is truly a marvel.

I'm really sorry, but I don't really like this album. Yes, the title track is one of Bowie's best songs. But the rest.... No, I kind of like the experimental Eno-tracks but I can's stand the opening dup 'Beauty and the Beast' and 'Joe the lion'. My god, who thought these ugly choruses were a good idea? And Robert Fripp's guitar sound - mangled through a synthesizer, I think - is ugly as hell.

What a strange album. Why on earth they decided to make a studio album and add audience and even more strange: an MC to it? Why didn't they just make a proper live album? Or a proper studio album, instead of an album that has loads of flaws in sound quality - most absurd in 'Roadblock' (an outtake later added, but indeed a studio recording) The quality is very inconsistent, not just the sound quality. Best songs are of course 'Piece of my heart' but even more so 'Summertime'. That's vintage Janis Joplin. But on the same album we find 'Turtle blues'. Pfff.

Obviously not my cup of tea but I do have respect for this album and its maker. Michael wrote all the music, plays a load of instruments en of course sings. He wasn't just a pretty boy, he was a genuine and talented artist and multi-talent. The success of this album is incredible. Six hitsingles out of nine songs. I had never heard the album but of course I had heard almost all the songs plenty of times. Hey, this is the time I grew up, minor gymnasium years. At the time I hated it, I a a lot more nuanced now. The two songs that stand out for me are 'One more try' and 'Kissing a fool' - both of them are characterised by Michael's singing, where in a lot of the other tracks he sometimes appears to rather whisper that sing. 'Kissing a fool' is a weird song on this album - it is a truly acoustic song where all other tracks are defined, and a bit destroyed, by very synthetic eighties-sounds. Not my favourite album of course, but no punishment to listen to.

Oh dear... For the largest part, this is a pleasant album with attractive semi jazz, very mainstream but well made and as always with Astrud Gilberto just nice (easy) listening. But there are two gigantic failures on this album. Parade (a Banda) - or the title reversed - is really ridiculous. It's out of place, it's not nice, it's just laughable. But that's nothing. The duet with her six year old son Marcelo... Come on! The singing is so horribly out of tune, it's simply awful. I repeat: awful. Maybe she shouldn't have recorded eight albums in four years. By the way, the cd version - that I own - is extended with a number of songs with Walter Wanderley, which makes it a better album.

An underrated and neglected gem. Yes, I have it, but I could only buy it long after my Neil Young-era. It simply wasn't released on CD until 2003. And that's bizarre, because this is possibly one of the best if not the best - consistent - album in Young's catalogue. It's truly beautiful and extremely depressing to listen to. But there are such gems on this album: 'See the sky about to rain' with that wonderful arrangement of Wurlitzer e-piano and steel guitar, astonishing title track and the utterly painful 'Ambulance blues' - it's truly fantastic music. 5 stars and a welldeserved 10/10

Once again an album, or even a band, I didn't know that turned out to be a pleasant surprise. I guess I did know 'Everybody knows' (except you)', that must have been on the playlist of the alternative music station I listened to anno 1997. It's not the best song of the album, that's beyond doubt 'Someone'. Closing track 'I'm all you need' is also a gem. The music is very Scott Walker-like. Just a little less edge to it, except 'Someone' - that's why it's the best track of the album. In its weaker moments it also reminds you of Neil Diamond and even John Barry-style James Bond songtracks. Weak point is 'Wimewatching' - it never comes off the ground. It grew on my every time I listened to it. So yeah, good album.

Clearly a very classic, very important, seminal album. Any serious music lover should have this in his or her collection. Having said that, in all honesty, the reputation of the album seems to be primarily based on the three long (jam-)tracks. Although it kicks off pretty well with 'Statesboro blues' the next two songs are rather forgettable; and well, you need to love slide guitar. But then the magic starts to happen with 'You don't love me'. Clearly 'In memory of Elizabeth Reed' is magic. Maybe 'Whipping post' is even better, this is glorious music. Truly fantastic. So for me it's a 8,5/10. Could be either 4 stars or 5 stars, because of the historic significance of this album I'll go for the 5. But it's tight.

What a bizarre album. It starts pretty solid. Then we get a number of very weak songs - I really can't stand Beth Orton's voice - and then we once again have a very strong song. But it's a total Kraftwerk rip-off. And I really mean totally. It becomes even worse, because we get one more Kraftwerk rip-off and two utter Can-rip-offs. These are the strong songs of the album, the other songs are unbearable. Except for the opener 'Silence' which seems to be original and is okay. But this deserves penalty points.

An incredible album. When listening to 'On the beach' I thought: maybe I like this even better than 'Harvest'. No I don't. The problem of this album might be 'Heart of gold'. Every normal human being simply heard that song too many times. By the way, it's far from the best song of the album that's so much drowned in melancholy. There are so many highlights: opener 'Out on the weekend', the title track, 'A man needs a maid', 'Alabama', 'The needle and the damage done' and closer 'Words'. All of these tracks would probably be the best track on most albums. But not on this one. Because there's 'Old man'. That might be the most beautiful song I know. And yes, indeed, 'Out on the country' and to a lesser extent 'There 's a world' are a bit less fantastic than the rest. It's forgiven.

And yet another great album. It's great how Cash plays with his audience, how he fires things up with his characteristic shuffle, but even more so with a couple of very sentimental songs, 'Give my love to Rose' especially. 'Folsom Prison blues', 'Cocaine blues', 'I got stripes' and 'The wall' are truly great songs and performances. There's also a lowlight, with 'Jackson' and to a lesser extent the silly christian 'Greystone chapel'. Sorry ma'am, but I really can't stand June Carters (Cash') singing...

What a mess this album is. But its highlights are truly highlights. I like the long jam-like songs 'Voodoo Chile' and '193 (A merman I should turn to be)' best, but 'Crosstown traffic', 'All along the watchtower', 'Gypsy eyes', the superjazzy 'Rainy day, dream away', 'Burning of the midnight lamp' and 'Voodoo child (slight return' are brilliant. But there's also crap. The first two tracks, the bizarre 'Little miss Strange' and the soundscape 'Moon, turn the tides... Gently gently away' - oh man. This could have been a single album with nothing but highlights of music history.

This could have been a fantastic album. But is isn't, it is way too varying in quality. Let's be clear: the highlights of this album are possibly some of the best music of the eighties. Yes, 'Sunday Bloody Sunday' is a fantastic song. But it completely bleaches next to 'New Year's Day'. That is such a fantastic song! There are a couple more very strong songs on this album, but also some very weak ones. Lowlight is definitely 'Red light'. You gotta be kidding... It's horrible. The beginning sounds like a Mylene Farmer song, not exactly what you expect on a U2-album. It could - and should - have been a fantastic album. Nevertheless, this is an album that proves how good of a band U2 could be. Didn't mention it, but this is probably The Edge at his best.

This is possibly the best album of Zappa's career. And maybe I should say: I'm a big Zappa fan. This absolutely a must hear. It's one of the first and one of the best jazz fusion albums ever. And what a pity it is, that Zappa never really returned to this style. Yes, obviously jazzrock was an important part of his style, certainly in the George Duke/Ruth Underwood time of his career, but this is hardcore jazz fusion and his only album as such. Ian Underwood is incredible here. But Zappa himself even more so. I think this was the first time in his career that he really showed himself as one of the best and highly original guitar players ever. Later on he would issue three-disc-sets with only guitar solos, but here his guitar work is an integral - and important - part of the music. The long solo in Willie the Pimp and even more so on 'Son of Mr. Green Genes' are fantastic. Very renewing in tone as well. But there might be an even better performance on this album: Don' Sugarcane' Harris' electric violin solo on 'The gumbo variation' is beyond unforgettable. Fantastic album.

I don't know.... It's not my thing. It's a bit in between pop and alternative. The arrangements are very original and interesting, the music has enough variation and is interesting enough. But I miss the necessary sharpness for alternative rock, and at the same time I can't really stand the singing. Especially Régine Chassagne's singing in the closing track 'In the backseat', that's... No, I'll leave it at that. Quite an okay album that I didn't know, but not a standout album.

It's horrible. In my teen years I hated the song 'It's a sin'. It's the best song of the album. No, not because my taste in music changed so dramatically (it did, by the way), but because the rest is so horrible. 'I want to wake up', 'One more chance'... Come on. 'It's a sin' and 'King's cross' are the only bearable tunes on the album.

With the benefit of hindsight, this is a fascinating album. It's got all the elements that would make 'Swordfishtrombones' such a master piece. The elements, yes, but not the concept as a whole, and not the greatness. But is a very good album with hardly any weak moments - 'On the nickel' is a bit over the top for me. The highlights for me are 'Downtown' and the overlay sentimental 'Jersey Girl'. Yes, unbearably sentimental, but as such a guilty pleasure. Strong, just missing it, the pieces that would fall together so brilliantly on its successor.

This might be the best pop-album that I've ever heard and it contains maybe the best popsong of the eighties: 'Shout'. What an incredible song that is. I'm always complaining that there's not much happening in popmusic, but on this album that's far from reality. The compositions are very strong, the build-up in the songs - listen to the intro of 'The working hour' and neglect the sound - and the arrangements with.a very clever mix of (sometimes ugly) electronics and real instruments - it's alle great. There are five very strong songs on this album. The three hitsingles in order of quality 'Shout' Head over heels' and 'Everybody wants to rule the world', whereas the almost proggy 'The working hour' and the rather sharp 'Broken' - that's fantastically intertwined with 'Head over heels' are very strong. An album containing these songs would deserve a 10/10. But unfortunately the remaining three songs are much much weaker. 'Mothers talk' is ugly eighties music, ' I believe' is a misplaced George Michael ballad and closer 'Listen' is too long. Nevertheless, it's still a solid five star. I might buy this one.

It's probably my bad. I have never been able to get it, concerning Echo & The Bunnymen. Yes, I quite like the music, it's okay, like a less commercial - which is good, of course - version of U2 with maybe a better singer, but it just doesn't grab me. I've listened five times. And I still hardly can remember any of the songs, except for the opener 'The cutter' which might be the best track of the album. The rest just rolls along, no weak points, no strong either. Sorry.

There's no need to say a lot about this album. Just listen to the first 30 seconds of opener 'Disorder' and you know you are listening to a classic. It's haunting in every way. It can be quite something to listen to if you're not in perfect mental shape... The star of the album to me is Peter Hook. His bass playing is unlike anything done before. Together with guitar player Bernard Sumner with his arpeggiated chords he lays the foundation that lets Ian Curtis shine - shine in a very dark way, unfortunately. Absolutely fantastic album.

I really don't understand how Van Morrison could have turned into a famous singer. His singing is unpleasant to say the least... This album has a big highlight and a very low lowlight. The highlight of course is the title track - that is a fantastic song. But why on earth is that wonderful bassline played on an electric bass????? This screams for a double bass. The lowlight is very clearly 'Crazy love' - that's horrible. A meager 5/10. Because of 'Moondance', the song.

Well, obviously not my thing. The album kicks off with horrible autotune-vocal sounds (can't call that singing). The music is as far away from what I like as is theoretically possible. Songs like 'Put it down'... come on. I can't find any highlight. I want to give some credits to the concept as a whole, the alteration between women's tales and songs. And yes, possibly for the message, but I never give any attention to lyrics. Second positive remark: for the genre the songs are rather varied. Just enough for a two star review or 3/10.

Can anyone explain to me why this earned seven Grammies? This is dreadful easy listening music. Musical wallpaper. And to be honest: I don't really appreciate Jones' singing.

A great album but it could have been a perfect album. It's simply way too long, with a number of songs that can be regarded as fillers. However, the highlights are fantastic: 'Them bones', 'Darn that river', 'Down in a hole', 'Rooster', the incredibly sexy - probably the most sexy song in 79 albums so far - title track 'Dirt', and of course 'Would?'. Typically 1992: almost filling a cd. In 45 minutes this would have been a total killer.

A fantastic album. The first twelve songs - of fifteen - are brilliant, all of them. It's simply a release of an atom bomb of energy, smashing you against the wall in the most positive way. I think I might have heard it maybe once the past fifteen years, but already the first time listening I was chanting alone from the first to the last minute. It's great. Just listen and enjoy.

Jesus Christ, what on earth is this? I didn't know what to expect and I still don't know what I have been listening to. I mean, 'The faith healer' is a fantastic song, reminiscent of Can, truly revolutionary for 1973. But the album follows with 'Giddy up a ding dong', not just a stupid title but also an absurd Racey-like glamrock or glampop-song. In Next we get German cabaret, 'Swampsnake' is a straight ahead blues rocker, 'Gang bang' a boogie-type of song. Closer 'The last of the teenage idols' is three songs in one, ending with something like crooning over a shalalalala-choir. Seriously. Yes, it's an eclectic mix. But if you can make a song like 'The faith healer', why not make a couple of those and fill an album with that?

Well, this is definitely a great album. It took a number of listens, though. You need to get into it. There are a big number of typical Ray Davies jewels to be enjoyed. 'Animal farm' and 'Village Green' - starring a prominent oboe and a harpsichord - are maybe the highlights. A couple of weaker songs as well. It's sentimental as hell. Put it on and drown in sentimentality, for which there is much more reason nowadays.

Again an example I have had in my closet for fifteen years or so and never liked a lot. I was wrong. It's full of gems, the songwriting is incredible and the performances sometimes beautiful. I love the obvious jewish influences, most of all on 'It's lonely at the top'. But the absolute highlight for me is the wonderful 'Memo to my son' - what an astonishingly beautiful melody, however simple (it's an E-chord). I can understand why I never really liked it. Newman is obviously a better songwriter that a singer, and 'You can leave your hat on' for me has been totally f**cked up by the horrible Joe Cocker. But this is first class songwriting.

First of all: I'm totally unfamiliar with Swift's music. Wrong generation. Her success and especially devoted fanbase surprise me, in the sense that she apparently is very popular among people (mainly women) who usually listen to much more challenging (alternative) music than pop. This could have been a rather good pop album, but the production is truly awful. And I mean: awful. It's way too loud and everything sounds so disgustingly synthetic.... It's supposed to be bass guitar, but it all sounds like coming from a computer. The singing is also obviously f*cked with. This point is clearly illustrated by the bizarre cover version that Ryan Adams made of this entire album. The hits are clearly better in the Swift versions, but Adams' album sounds so much better, so much more musical. Fascinating: this illustrates perfectly that Swift indeed is a talented songwriter. Highlight of the album is beyond doubt 'Style'. That's a great song, and yes, probably the least synthetic sounding.

I really don't understand the charm people apparently see in this album. I'm not a big hardcore fan anyway, but in this album I can see anything that appeals to me. It starts of with a 31 second song. Congratulations. In total there are 14 songs in less than 16 minutes. Hardcore is like a stripped down variant of speed metal, without the guitar solo's (admitted, there's at least sort of one on this album), without the tempo changes, with screaming as vocals and without the funny lyrics about satan or rotting corpses. So it's basically speed metal without everything that makes it fun.

I feared this album. It features the awful 'Sledge Hammer', very bad memory of my youth. And what I didn't know: 'Don't give up' as well, another awful memory. So far I was wrong. The first three songs, including the two I mentioned and opener 'Red rain' are actually pretty good. They even sound rather okay for a 1986-popalbum. But then... It gets worse and worse, every song more awful than the last one with an absolute low in 'This is the picture'. What on earth is that? This must be one of the worst songs in 86 albums so far. Eighties production is almost laughable of all the songs bar the first three. In 'Mercy Street' and the aforementioned 'This is the picture' nothing at all happens. My god. On the original vinyl 'This is the picture' was the closing track. People must have been so relieved they could start a new album... But on cd and cassette and since 2002 also on vinyl there is a different closer and that's a lot better: 'In your eyes'. The funny thing is that this album is saved from a very bad review by the two hits I had such bad memories of.

Fantastic. Simply fantastic. What an incredible band, what a team of musicians. The real stars of this album are not Blackmore and Lord, no, Paice and Glover are rockin' like nothing else. Glovers bass work on 'Lazy' is incredible, just like Paice's drumming on 'Space truckin''. These two tracks are the highlights of this album, not the much more famous 'Smoke on the water' or 'Highway star'. It's all good, 'Pictures of home' should be mentioned as well. The B-side 'When a blind man cries' that was later added to the album is also noteworthy, although it's almost over the top. What a musicianship.

This is really weird. I had never heard of this band, although it is clearly linked to one of my favourite bands of all times (TC Matic) and although I have always been totally into European music and certainly French speaking music. This obviously borrows a lot from TC Matic and especially their debut album. Makes me wonder even more why that album is NOT on the official list (it's in the Dutch edition of the book, though). That album is so refreshing, influential and timeless... This is a lot less refreshing because of its industrial influences. It reminds me of Godflesh. The thing is, it's original - listen to the musette-like 'Charlotte' placed in between two industrial metal songs - but it's also too electronic. All instrumentation is done by sampling and that makes songs monotonous. No, not all, there is a real drummer but his drums (midi-drums? not sure) sound very synthetic as well. Last remark: the voice of Franz Treichler reminds so strongly of the voice of Arno at a later age, it's almost bizarre. Kudo's for the innovative character, a rather tough listen though. Just listen to (the album) TC Matic

I had no idea what to expect. Turns out to be singer-songwriter-pop. Yes, definitely pop. And as usual in pop music, according to my taste there's not much happening. But that's not my biggest problem. That's the production choices, and in particular I mean the sometimes horrible backing vocals, the choirs. 'The one you love', 'Gay Messiah', "Crumb by crumb'. Dear Lord, why on earth? It destroys the music. But that's still far from the low point. 'Old whore's diet', with an annoying latin-like rhythm, has truly horrible guest vocals by Anohni. It's not about their voice - it's the appalling vibrato that they use. I can't listen to that. This could have been a better album, the songs aren't bad.

I know this is sacrilege. I'm not into this. It's nice, it's okay, but nothing happens. The standout songs are 'The weight', 'Chest fever' and 'This wheel's on fire' (famous as title song for Absolutely Fabulous). But it's rather telling that I have owned this album for fifteen years or so and that I recognized or remember only one song (The weight) from earlier listenings. Boring.

This is a nice album. I love the use of - at the time - innovative key instruments. The Fender Rhodes sound in opener 'You are the sunshine of my life' is truly one of the most beautiful e-piano sounds I know. The Hohner Clavinet, especially in 'Superstition' is fantastic. Most songs are strong, up to closer 'I believe (etc.)'. 'You and I' is a beautiful piano ballad that some of the famous artists of this day (ms. Adkins) should listen to. But I have to mention 'Maybe your baby'. That's horrible.

Of the six albums of Costello on the list this is without doubt the one too many. It's really not a strong album, I don't understand at all why it's in the book. The album kicks off pretty okay and the second song, 'Kinder murder' is by far the strongest song of the album. That's a true classic. But starting with the fourth track, 'This is hell', songs are only mentionable because they are weak. 'You tripped at every step' or 'Still too soon to know"? Pffff. '20% Amnesia' seems like a nice remembrance of Costello's early days, but the production is horrible. It's only drums, a bit of piano and some Swordfishtrombones-like guitar where punky, distorted guitars should have sounded. Six albums on the list is a lot, and this one doesn't belong there. I guess a couple of the early albums that aren't mentioned should have been more in place than this one. It almost seems like Dimmery and his team have a bit of a knack for Costello...

This is a really difficult album to review, or appreciate. My ears are totally untrained for this type of music. I guess the sitar-improvisations by Ravi Shankar are exceptional, but I have no reference. Also, the lack of melody and droning nature of the music, the total absence of structure (except the raga as basis) make it hard to distinguish the 'songs'. It's just there... Having said that, I liked this a lot better than I expected. The sitar playing sounds impressive, I like the tambura. It's just that I can't stand the sound of tabla. It makes me nervous as hell.

It seems that some people, distinguished music writers, value this album to death. I really don't understand. Musically nothing is happening. I'm listening to James Brown shouting in a mic for 31 minutes. Nothing is exciting. Even worse: in the intro we hear painfully false notes. The saxes in 'Try me'... oh boy. Yes, the charm of a live album, but it's a pain to the ears. Low point is 'Lost someone'. It's eleven minutes of call and response, except that nothing's happening. Not my cup of tea.

Well... It's been long since the last hiphop album. So, here we have the next challenge. Public Enemy was really big in my defining years in my circles. Surprisingly - or not - teens like me, metalhead, started listening Public Enemy and even wearing their shirts. Music press in the Netherlands was pushing them. To a certain extent, I can understand this. Public Enemy to me is a bit the heavy metal-act among the hiphop I've listened this far. (Unfortunately) Not because they use a lot of metal-samples, but because of the nature, rather overpowering, of the music. What I like best is definitely the voice of Chuck D: that is one hell of a voice to start rapping. What I like least is that the album as a whole is first of all waaaaaay too long (it's 1990...), well over an hour, and secondly that there aren't that many highlights. Very few of the songs really stand out. Surprisingly, the most streamed songs are also the ones I like best: 'Fight the power' and most of all 'Welcome to the terrordome'.

I have a troublesome relationship with Joni Mitchell's music. Take this album. There's truly beautiful music, the musicianship by the quite impressive list of studio musicians is astonishing, the production is great, it sounds fantastic. Opener '...In France they kiss on Main Street' and 'Shades of Scarlett conquering' are the highlights. But you would wish that they sometimes break loose, it's all too restrained, too, I don't know, beautiful, too shy I would almost say. Well, it's not all beautiful. 'The jungle line' is a total miss, it's a dreadful song. It's these Burundian warrior drums - quite suitable since I am writing this during the cycling WC in Rwanda - with merely a bit of Moog sounds on top, there isn't even a melody. It could have been 8/10 but because of that song it's a 7/10.

I believe Radiohead was one of the best bands of the 1990s. Their albums The Bends and OK Computer are, in my opinion, two of the greatest of that decade — with The Bends being my personal favorite. I see them as milestones in both the decade and in alternative rock. But when Kid A came out in 2000, I was left confused and disappointed. It felt like the band abandoned everything that made them great, replacing it with electronic bleeps and experimental sounds that didn’t resonate with me. Although some tracks, like Everything in Its Right Place, The National Anthem, and Optimistic, had some structure or echoes of the old Radiohead, most of the album felt aimless to me. I know many critics later praised Kid A as a masterpiece, even calling it the best album of the decade — but I just don’t get it. I respect the band's right to evolve, and I pride myself on having a wide and adventurous musical taste. Still, I find Kid A lacking in the qualities I value in music. In the end, I’m left with one question for the band: Why?

When I listened to Lauryn Hill’s album, I found it unbelievably bad. On the first play it got under my skin so much that I almost quit, but I forced myself to listen again. The second time was slightly less awful, maybe because I was distracted. Still, the whole album feels like one long low point. “Superstar” stood out negatively, and the cover of Can’t Take My Eyes Off of You was, in my view, ruined beyond belief. The only track that made me pause was Final Hour, because it has a flute that actually sounds musical. Carlos Santana also plays a short acoustic guitar part, but it gets buried in the rest. I simply can’t connect with this modern version of R&B at all. Sorry.

This album, which came before Bookends, is seen as Simon & Garfunkel’s real breakthrough. The music is often stunningly beautiful. It opens with Scarborough Fair / Canticle, a gorgeous arrangement where their combined vocals have never sounded better. My favorite moment is Homeward Bound. The beginning is unbelievably beautiful—one of Simon’s finest songwriting moments, with its simple vocal line, plucked guitar, added harmony, and bass foundation. Unfortunately, the chorus is a bit too poppy and cheesy for my taste. Other highlights include the lovely The Dangling Conversation and the sharper A Simple Desultory Philippic, which adds some welcome bite to an otherwise gentle album. Overall, it’s a very good record with no real misses—except perhaps the closer, 7 O’Clock News / Silent Night. The concept is clever, but the execution feels overdone.

I came to this Billy Bragg album - number 100, hooray - knowing only the basics: English, guitar, politics. All true, as it turns out. What makes this record distinctive is its setup — varied instrumentation but no drums. That absence defines the sound: Bragg’s clean electric guitar dominates everything, ringing and chiming for nearly forty minutes without much relief. It’s a sharp, jangled tone that starts out bracing but grows fatiguing. His voice is just as defining — nasal, raw, and steeped in a thick Essex accent. At first I thought of Paul Weller, but Weller sings with far more finesse. Bragg’s delivery feels more like a statement than a performance, and after a while it grates. The album opens well. “Greetings to the New Brunette,” featuring Johnny Marr, is bright and melodic, and “Train Train” carries the manic rhythm its title promises. But after that, the energy fades. The brass flourishes in “Levi Stubbs’ Tears” and “The Marriage” give things a peculiarly English (Purcell) flavor, though they never quite work for me. “There Is Power in a Union” feels like The Pogues stripped of their spirit — more protest chant than song. But the real misstep is “Honey I’m a Big Boy Now,” a painfully off-key piano piece that seems to mistake awkwardness for authenticity. It’s not a bad album, exactly — more an earnest one that wears itself out. I started with a six, but after a few listens, I’m dropping it to a five.

This is Dylan at the height of his powers, when the world was at his feet. Often cited as his masterpiece — and one of the most influential albums ever — it’s also said to be the first rock double album in history. At 72 minutes, it tests the listener’s attention span but mostly manages to hold it together. By this point Dylan had already scandalized the folk scene by plugging in at Newport in 1965, a move that branded him a traitor among purists. For this record, he went into the studio with The Hawks — the band that would soon become The Band — minus drummer Levon Helm, who’d briefly quit. Even without him, the playing here is sharp and vibrant, far tougher than the syrupy debut The Band themselves would later release. You can hear Dylan fully joining the rock revolution, his words and sound perfectly tuned to the pulse of the era. Robbie Robertson’s guitar often steals the spotlight, especially on the bluesy “Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat” and the driving “Most Likely You Go Your Way (and I’ll Go Mine).” Other standouts include the swinging “I Want You,” the hazy “Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again,” and the haunting “Visions of Johanna” — the song that inspired the name of Dutch band Johan. The album opens with the raucous “Rainy Day Women #12 & 35,” a kind of proto-punk brass romp that’s more curious than great, and closes with the eleven-minute “Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands,” lovely but languid — a long fade rather than a grand finale. Still, it’s a towering achievement. The Nobel laureate earned every musical, not literary accolade that could be given for this one.

Sometimes I wonder if Radiohead were following a kind of musical version of Marxist theory: first destroy everything in order to rebuild a new and “purer” order. After conquering the world with some of the finest alternative rock of the 1990s, they tore it all down with Kid A and Amnesiac. On the ashes of those albums came this one — a blend of the old, guitar-driven Radiohead and the new, electronic, deconstructed version they seemed to have always wanted. To me, the electronics dominate — perhaps because I dislike them so much that I can’t ignore them. Still, there are traces of the earlier brilliance here: melodies, atmosphere, moments of beauty. Yet where classic Radiohead thrived on haunting melodic lines — the kind that jazz pianist Brad Mehldau or full orchestras would later play — this album feels restless and agitated. Tracks like “Bodysnatchers” and “Weird Fishes/Arpeggi” make me tense; opener “15 Step” is even worse, with its messy hybrid of real and electronic drums. I’ve listened to this record many times, trying to form a fair, objective opinion, but most of it simply doesn’t stick. The songs slip away the moment they end — except for “House of Cards,” which has a touch of the old Radiohead magic, that same fragile beauty of “Street Spirit” or “Exit Music (For a Film).” The middle of the album is stronger — “All I Need,” “Reckoner,” and “House of Cards” stand out — but it’s not enough. By the time “Jigsaw Falling into Place” brings back that frantic drumming, I’m exhausted. In the end, despite flickers of greatness, it’s a disappointing record from a once truly remarkable band.

This album comes from one of the only three children of Fela Kuti — which is remarkable, considering that Fela at one point had twenty-seven wives simultaneously (for partly political reasons, apparently). It was released in 1995, just two years before Fela’s death from AIDS-related complications — a disease he and his widow insisted did not exist. The album, not Fela’s death, was Femi’s big breakthrough. Still following? For me, this kind of music is difficult to “analyze” in the usual sense. Maybe that’s the point — there isn’t much to dissect. What I hear is a deeply convincing, relentlessly grooving collection of long, jam-like tracks, built on call-and-response vocals and dense rhythms. It’s infectious, no question about it. The main problem is also obvious: it’s a 1995 album, which means it runs for an exhausting 73 minutes across just ten tracks (well, nine — there is a 31-second intro to “Nawa”). That’s simply too long. The extended jams fit the style, of course, but by the time I reached “No Shame,” the seventh or eighth track depending on how you count, I found myself checking my watch. The endless call-and-response stretches could have been trimmed, and the closing percussion solo feels like an afterthought. With tighter editing, this could have been an eight-out-of-ten album. And since I’m complaining: on “Plenty Nonsense,” the drummer chops away so aggressively you could heat a Finnish cabin winterlong on the splinters. Still, it’s a strong, highly listenable record. The standouts for me are “Frustrations” and the excellent “Nawa.”

This album is a monument in itself. Often hailed as the greatest live record ever made — and certainly one of the most influential — it captures The Who at their most feral and combustible. The band that never really fit in at Woodstock — too loud, too aggressive, too fond of blowing things up — set out to make a live album that bottled their onstage chaos. What they delivered was Live at Leeds: raw, explosive, and, let’s be honest, a glorious mess. Everything about it feels deliberate, even the shambolic packaging. The sleeve was designed to look like a bootleg — a plain cardboard cover with a crooked sticker — a wink to the underground tape culture of the time. A style icon of a live album was born. The original 1970 LP contained just six tracks and ran a lean 39 minutes — half of it taken up by a sprawling medley built around “My Generation.” Remarkably, it included barely a trace of Tommy, the rock opera they were touring at the time. Over the years, the album’s scope ballooned through reissues and deluxe editions, eventually swelling into a four-disc behemoth that includes complete performances of Tommy from Leeds and Hull. From six songs to four CDs — excess, meet rock history. I’m sticking to the original release here. Half the tracks are covers: “Young Man Blues,” “Summertime Blues,” and “Shakin’ All Over.” It’s an odd choice for a band that already had four albums under its belt, but no matter — this is loud, snarling, blues-drenched music, brimming with manic energy. Even much of what later passed for “heavy metal” sounds like nursery music in comparison. The highlight, of course, is the “My Generation” medley — a 15-minute descent into instrumental mayhem, with John Entwistle’s distorted bass soloing like a lead guitar, Keith Moon attempting to destroy his drum kit by sheer force, and Pete Townshend veering from clean arpeggios to full-on sonic detonation. It eventually morphs into fragments of Tommy — mainly “See Me, Feel Me” / “We’re Not Gonna Take It” — and becomes something close to transcendence. The finale, “Magic Bus,” is another seven minutes of glorious racket, capped by Roger Daltrey howling into a harmonica for good measure. It’s not perfect — too chaotic, too uneven, too dependent on covers — but perfection was never the point. Live at Leeds is the sound of a band at war with its own limits, and that’s precisely what makes it monumental.

I actually liked this album a lot — much more than I expected to. From the opening and title track I was impressed: a fine melody, offset by what I think is a xylophone (judging by the credits), giving it an uneasy, almost dissonant edge that works beautifully. Great guitar tone too, and the vocals don’t bother me at all. That guitar sound really comes into its own on The Glorious Land — almost clean, but warm and full of character. Where Billy Bragg’s metallic hollowness always grated, this is perfect. Credit where due: John Parish, PJ Harvey’s long-time musical (not romantic) partner, deserves a mention here. All and Everyone is even better — wonderful guitar tone again, a haunting melody, lovely touches of organ and trombone, and superb singing. A fantastic song. So far, so good — until On Battleship Hill. Melodically it’s fine, even slightly country-ish, but Harvey’s vocal choices are baffling. She suddenly leaps into some operatic register — higher than Maria Callas on a good day — and it’s painful. The duet with Parish is nicely done, but if she’d just sung an octave lower it could have been genuinely moving. England continues the misstep, oddly flamenco-tinged and not much better. I don’t get it. Thankfully, the record recovers. In the Dark Places is another strong, stirring song, and Bitter Branches is among the album’s best. Without that unfortunate midsection, this could’ve been an easy 8, maybe even a 9 out of 10. As it stands, it’s a fine record undermined by its own excess — but it’s done enough to make me curious about the rest of her work.

I’ve given this album a fair number of listens. I just can’t connect with it. I was leaning toward a 6 out of 10, but then Spotify’s algorithm shut the door for me. I let it play on after the album ended, and it served up a bunch of tracks by obscure bands in roughly the same genre — and every single one of them sounded better than anything I’d just heard. Worse, two of those songs were actually by The Gun Club themselves, from their second album Miami, and both were clearly superior to anything on Fire of Love. The main reason those Miami tracks worked better is also my biggest problem with Fire of Love: the sound. It’s painfully thin and monotonous, dominated by a tinny guitar tone that tries to be clean but just ends up grating. It doesn’t help that there’s a lot of slide guitar — and as faithful readers will know by now, I have limited patience for that particular sound. That slide guitar makes sense, of course, since this is essentially a twisted form of blues — punk blues, or blues punk, take your pick. But it doesn’t do much for me. I actually own The Las Vegas Story, their third album, which I bought after reading some breathless reissue review in what I think was NRC. I couldn’t see what all the fuss was about then, and after this deeper dive into their debut, I still can’t. If I have to name a highlight, fine — opener “Sex Beat” sets the tone reasonably well. The most striking song is probably “She’s Like Heroin to Me” (substance references not coincidental — frontman Jeffrey Lee Pierce reportedly drank like a fish and likely indulged in a few other habits not compatible with a Tour de France lifestyle). As for low points: well, that would be the entire 40-minute slab of stubborn, grinding blues-punk that makes up the album. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not terrible. If it were, I’d have given it a lower score. It just leaves me cold. And there you have it: proof that not all guitar-heavy music automatically works for me. Though, frankly, I already proved that with my Circle Jerk's review.

This is an odd album. After Pet Sounds — still one of pop music’s great miracles — the Beach Boys somehow stumbled their way here, five records later, to Surf’s Up: uneven, intermittently brilliant, and often baffling. Brian Wilson was still around, but mostly in spirit; the lush harmonies and meticulous production that once defined the band are largely absent. His presence flickers to life in the final three tracks, though — and when it does, you remember just how far ahead of his peers he once was. The title track remains magnificent; “A Day in the Life of a Tree,” sung (rather alarmingly) by their manager, is merely… memorable. Still, there’s much to enjoy. “Long Promised Road” is a genuine highlight, full of that bittersweet Californian glow the band once bottled so effortlessly. Less successful is their sudden bid for social relevance. Manager Jack Rieley apparently urged them to tackle serious issues — an odd idea for a band that built its empire on surfboards and sunshine. The result, “Student Demonstration Time,” is a clumsy blues-rock detour, complete with sirens and moral confusion, crashing through the album like an uninvited guest. Oddly, its message — penned by the now-MAGA-inclined Mike Love — seems to be that it’s better simply not to demonstrate. In the end, Surf’s Up is a curious mix of beauty and misfire — flashes of the old magic, shadowed by strange choices and the growing sense that the world, and the band, had both moved on.

When this album appeared in 2001, it hit the zeitgeist with unnerving precision. The crowd that had once spent the late eighties and early nineties in a chemically enhanced blur on the dancefloor had, by then, acquired mortgages, toddlers, and a deep yearning for sophistication. Lounge music — that gentle collision of house beats and tasteful melancholy — was the perfect solution. You could feel worldly and hip again, just without the pills, the sweat, or the 4 a.m. regret. This record became their soundtrack. It replaced Buena Vista Social Club as the go-to background for semi-upscale restaurants where you could just about hear yourself say “we really should do this more often.” For a while, it felt as though every restaurant in Europe owned precisely one CD — and this was it. The idea, to be fair, is ingenious: take danceable beats and drape them in tango. Instant atmosphere. But as actual music, rather than mood lighting, it wilts fast. On headphones it becomes fifty-seven minutes of politely hypnotic repetition — the sort of music that makes you wonder whether you’re supposed to tip the percussionist for persistence alone. And the execution doesn’t help. The bandoneon player sounds permanently on the verge of panic, the percussionist seems intent on starting a small regional conflict, and the singer — who faintly resembles Dani Klein of Vaya Con Dios — manages to drain all the sultriness from the room. There are flashes of what might have been: “Tríptico” almost works, and the cover of Last Tango in Paris finally delivers a sliver of genuine drama. But most of it remains the sonic equivalent of mood lighting — pleasant, repetitive, and ultimately disposable. Still, it’s a perfect time capsule. You can almost picture the scene: the couple out for their long-overdue dinner, the waiter reciting the specials, and this music softly purring in the background — a soundtrack for people who once danced until dawn and now just want to make it to dessert.

Tim Buckley never made things easy for his audience. Where his son Jeff turned aching vulnerability into pop gold, Tim wandered straight into the deep end — ambitious, challenging, often strange, and occasionally brilliant. Happy Sad (1969) may well be his masterpiece: an album steeped in melancholy and experimentation, where folk, jazz, and something more elusive blur into one hypnotic whole. It opens with Strange Feelin’, a clear reimagining of Miles Davis’s So What — the cool jazz influence unmistakable. From the first bars, you’re struck by the sound of the vibraphone, which gives the album its shimmering, dreamlike atmosphere. It’s an instrument almost never heard in rock or folk, and its presence makes the record both distinctive and, at times, impenetrable. The highlights come early: Buzzin’ Fly, buoyed by Buckley’s supple voice and a flowing melody, is perhaps the album’s most direct moment. Love from Room 109 at the Islander (On Pacific Coast Highway) is sprawling and strange, with bowed bass and shifting textures that shouldn’t work but somehow do. And Dream Letter — an aching message to his estranged wife and young son Jeff — offers a glimpse of the emotional intensity that made Buckley such a singular figure. It’s not all flawless. Gypsy Woman, a twelve-minute suite of wails, improvisations, and sharp-edged guitar, pushes its luck — fascinating in intent, exhausting in execution. But then, that’s part of the album’s charm: no progress without a few derailments. Happy Sad is beautifully melancholic, sometimes difficult, often mesmerizing. It’s a record that asks for patience and attention — and rewards both. For those who only know the son, it’s well worth spending some time with the father. The voice is different, the mood deeper, and the risk-taking far greater.

This record is the sound of a nervous breakdown disguised as art. Suba’s São Paulo Confessions — a collision of synthetic beats, bossa nova traces, and late-’90s club pretensions — feels less like music and more like an endurance test. It’s the sort of album that makes you wonder whether your speakers are broken or your patience. The idea was, apparently, to modernize Brazilian music. What we get instead is a relentless blur of electronic percussion, digital gloss, and occasional Portuguese murmuring, all of it radiating the sterile heat of a malfunctioning espresso machine. “Antropofagos” sounds like a warehouse rave hosted by an MDMA enthusiast with a conga fetish; “Felicidade” resembles a chemical hangover set to a drum loop. There’s history here — Suba (born Mitar Subotić) fled Yugoslavia, settled in São Paulo, and produced Bebel Gilberto’s Tanto Tempo before dying in a studio fire. That Gilberto album at least had melodies and charm; this one just has anxiety and a pulse. To be fair, there are moments — brief ones — when the synthetic textures almost coalesce into something interesting. “Segredo” is the least manic track, and for a minute or two you can imagine what this might have been if anyone had remembered to write actual songs. Otherwise, it’s a 61-minute assault of slick emptiness — music for people who believe nightlife is a spiritual calling. Give me death metal any day; it’s calmer.

This album is a masterclass in sequencing — a lost art, really. Back when records still had sides, the order of the songs mattered; an album wasn’t just a playlist but a journey with a beginning and an end. Who’s Next proves that The Who understood that structure better than almost anyone. It opens and closes with two of the greatest songs ever written in rock music. “Baba O’Riley,” with its legendary Lowrey organ intro (not a synthesizer, despite what most people think), is one of those tracks that instantly justified the price of the LP — the kind you’d decide to buy after hearing the first 30 seconds through the headphones at the record shop. And then, at the other end, there’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again” — a thunderous, cathartic closer that still sounds like the end of an era and the birth of something new. Between them, “Behind Blue Eyes” stands tall: tender, then explosive, a prototype for the rock ballad before the term even existed. The rest of the album, though, doesn’t quite reach those heights. “The Song Is Over” exposes Roger Daltrey’s limits as a singer, and some of the material feels uneven, more like connective tissue between the giants. Still, the peaks are so extraordinary that they cement The Who’s place — unfairly overlooked, at times — among the true architects of modern rock. They even toyed with early synthesizers here (“Going Mobile”), something virtually unheard of in hard rock at the time. It’s another small sign of how far ahead they were willing to go. No, Who’s Next isn’t flawless. But when it’s great, it’s as great as rock music gets.

In 1955, Frank Sinatra poured his heartbreak over Ava Gardner into In the Wee Small Hours — an album so cohesive it’s often cited as the first true “concept album.” It’s a masterpiece, but a monochrome one: an extended sigh in blue, all midnight gloom and lonely cigarettes. A year later, he re-emerged — libido restored, swagger back — with Songs for Swingin’ Lovers!, and it’s like someone threw open the curtains. The joy in this record is infectious. Nelson Riddle’s arrangements shimmer with effortless grace, and Sinatra sounds untouchable, completely at home in this universe of winks, charm, and brass. Sinatra may not have had the prettiest voice in the technical sense — Stuart Staples of Tindersticks, say, has a richer baritone — but no one has ever phrased like Frank. His performance on “Old Devil Moon” is jaw-dropping: the way he bends and dances around the melody is as free and daring as Charlie Parker on sax. He doesn’t so much sing the songs as play them, using language the way a jazz soloist uses notes. Cole Porter’s sly wit is tailor-made for him — “Anything Goes” practically purrs — and even the ancient chestnut “Makin’ Whoopee” becomes deliciously risqué in his hands. (Ava Gardner, after all, once quipped that of Sinatra’s 119 pounds, nineteen were... well, censored.) It’s an album that radiates pleasure — sophisticated, a little naughty, endlessly listenable. Maybe it’s a touch too smooth to be perfect, but honestly, who cares? Songs for Swingin’ Lovers! is pure joy on vinyl — a tonic for melancholy, a reminder that charm, when done right, is its own kind of genius.