1001 Albums Summary

Album #1 Not a jazz or big band fan. Still, some of this was great. The rest was technically good, and I see why this is a highly regarded album, but I lost interest multiple times. Until the squealing trumpet brought me back. Highlights: Black and Tan Fantasy Diminuendo and Crescendo in Blue

I never heard of them before this. My first thought is that they wanted to sound like the Beatles, updated to the 80s. It's good enough that I added it to my library, but not an all time great. The 8+ minutes songs are too long and repetitive. Favorites: I Wanna Be Adored Bye Bye Bad Man This is the One

I never bothered to listing to Jimi Hendrix. I thought I wouldn't like it. I was wrong. Favorites: Spanish Castle Magic, Wait Until Tomorrow, Little Wing, Castles Made of Sand

My thought process before listening: Oh, Paul Simon. This will be ok. I've heard a few of these. There's not a bad song on here. It seems I like the African rhythm. Favorites: The Boy in the Bubble, Graceland, Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes, You Can Call Me Al, Under African Skies, All Around the World or the Myth of Fingerprints

The first album I got on this site where I already had something from it in my library. This should be something I like. It's ok. Nothing bad, nothing great. Maybe that's because all the songs sound the same. It's good background music.

So I probably just don't like jazz that much. There is obvious talent here, but it's just background music to me.

First thought: Weird. But it's Bowie, so that's not surprising. I've heard Bowie's hits, but nothing from this album. It started as a 3 for me, then moved to a 4. I needed a second listen, and now it's a 5.

So I got this right after Bowie's "Low". Coincidence? There was definitely influence from "Low" here. Too bad none of the talent came over with it. This sounds like an AI tried to copy Bowie. There's no emotion here at all. Unless vaguely unsettling is an emotion. Cars saves this from getting a 1. It's actually a decent track.

I haven't really listened to a Tribe Called Quest before. I'm a bit surprised I missed out. It's groovy fun hip hop. The album is too long, though. It drags at the end. Favorites: Luck of Lucien, Bonita Applebum, Can I Kick It? It's a 3.5, but the great outweighs the ok, so I round it up to 4.

Early Coldplay is great. Yellow has been in my rotation for years. Trouble and Spies are favorites too. It's all good mellow pop/rock. 4.5, rounded down to 4.

Dark, broody rock with a gospel choir and some blues influence thrown in. It's also a bit pretentious Nothing here is bad, but none of it is particularly interesting to me either. Ok, now it'd dark broody ballads with piano. Worse than part one, but not by a lot. Again, nothing particularly interesting. O Children isn't bad, it's just not someone I'm interested in. In the end, not one of these songs made me want to add it to my library. But none of them made me want to turn them off.

I got into R.E.M. with "Automatic For The People". I've only listened to the hits from the 80s albums. So I knew Stand and Orange Crush are great. It turns out most of the album is great. It's not quite "Automatic" though. 4.5 rounded up.

Bitter Sweet Symphony is incredible. The rest, not so much. I took a break after 5 songs where I thought everything after Bitter Sweet Symphony was uninteresting. The next day - Bitter Sweet Symphony - awesome. Everything else - meh. Nothing here is really bad, it's just forgettable. I also got the feeling that every track is about 2 minutes too long.

This just isn't for me. The music isn't bad, and there are some good guitar riffs, but the vocals are just bad.

What the hell did I just listen to? I'm really regretting my decision to listen to all of each of these albums. Waits is not funny, and I hate every moment he is talking (and singing, but there is much more talking). +1 for the decent bluesy/jazzy music which I could probably like as an instrumental. +2 for the bassist who is way too good for this. -100 for the talking (and singing).

Another late 70s/early 80s experimental mashup of different genres. The experimental isn't too far out there. It actually works. I've heard of Talking Heads, but never paid attention to them. It seems I should have. Of course, I've heard Once in a Lifetime many times before. 4.5 - I think this get rounded up. Once in a Lifetime is that good.

Never heard of them. I wish I could continue to say that. Obscure indie rock. Boring, but in a loud, in your face, obnoxious way that means you can't just leave it on as background music. Why is it even on this list? 1.5 - Golden Skans isn't too bad, and there is a minute here and there with decent music and no noise. It gets rounded down to 1 because, while not completely terrible, the annoying parts are VERY annoying.

This album is so very early 90s. Not that that is bad. I learned my musical tastes in the early 90s. The title track is great. Then the album goes into a bunch of mediocre dance music with rap that is on the bad end of mediocre. None of the tracks are bad separately, but put them all together, and it's just too much.

The first album I got where I knew it would be a 5 before I started. Automatic For The People was my introduction to REM back in the 90s. I knew it was great, but a fresh listen makes me think it's probably the best REM album and maybe the best on this list. Drive to Everybody Hurts is the best start to an album I've heard in a while. Man on the Moon, Nightswimming, and Find the River may be the best ending to an album ever. The middle drags a bit, but it's relative. There isn't a bad track on the album. I get some of the lower ratings. You have to be in the right mood for this. It's slower, emotional, and somewhat depressing at times.

Another "experimental" album. This time at least it's weirdly different. The number of times I've used the words weird and experimental in these reviews is way more than I thought I would ever need, and I'm only 20 albums in. This time sci-fi hip hop. That's new. The first few tracks had a decent beat at times, but nothing else good. Then I zoned out and the rest of the tracks blurred together. I guess that means nothing was terrible enough to stand out.

I thought I didn't like most 70s music. It seems I just never gave it a chance, especially bands like T.Rex that didn't last into the late 80s/early 90s when I started figuring out what I liked. I've never heard anything on this album before. It's surprisingly good. There's some filler too, so it's not perfect. Favorites: Metal Guru The Slider Rabbit Fighter

So, the cocaine album. Yeah, I hear that. I had not paid much attention to Bowie before starting this. I was only familiar with some of his hits. After getting Low as my first Bowie album, I started looking at the rest. I think Station to Station may have sounded better if I heard it before Low. After the first listen, I was debating on whether this is a 4 or a 5. Like Low, I needed a second listen, and now I'm convinced it's a 5. It's not as good as Low, though.

It's not really what I like, but it's not something a would turn off either. Her voice is great, though. Son of a Preacher Man is a keeper.

Bland is the best description I can come up with. Forgettable background music. Like other albums before it, if it fades into the background but isn't offensive enough for me to notice, it gets a 2.

This is interesting. I thought I hated most music before about 1977. I was pretty sure I couldn't stand 60s/70s folk/soft rock. I've already decided that I haven't given 70s music a chance. I guess now I have to do the same with folk. Rating this is a bit difficult. I already knew I liked Fire and Rain at least a little. It's actually much better than I thought. Sweet Baby James and County Road are great too. The tracks I didn't like, I really didn't like, though. Oh, Susannah? Really? It's a 3.5. So 3 or 4?

My first Pink Floyd album on this list, and it's the one I'm supposed to like because it's the greatest album of all time. I've never listened to The Dark Side of the Moon before. I have heard some of The Wall, and I don't hate Pink Floyd, I just never bothered to listen to them before. It's good. This might be the first album I have listened to that had to be heard as an album. That alone ups the rating for something on an album list. Time and Money are the only tracks that do well without the others. That may be why I liked them the best. Best album ever? No Will I listen to it again? Yes, but not often. It's not background music. It demands attention. It is worth giving a 5? Yes

I seem to be getting a lot of 70s art rock and prog rock lately that need multiple listens just to get an idea of what to rate them. Aqualung has a couple of great tracks, a couple of clunkers, and a lot that is just good. It's about a 3.5, but I'll round up because the flute somehow fits in well.

I guess I'm a Pink Floyd fan now. This is why I started going through this list for. I found a masterpiece that I had never heard before. The only bad thing I can say is that I liked Welcome to the Machine a bit less than the rest of the album.

The music isn't terrible, and the harmonies are kind of nice, but this album is terribly dated. I guess it is possibly to be sappy and misogynistic at the same time. It's short at least, and it feels like every song cuts off early. I guess I can hear some of what influenced music later in the 60s here. It doesn't keep this from being boring, though.

That voice is incredible. I don't care for jazz all that much (or live albums either), but the vocals carry this album. It's can see myself listening to it again if I'm in the right mood. The scat singing on the last track nearly knocked it down to a 3 though.

An artist/album I haven't heard of. It's interesting, but just average to me. It kept my attention for the most part, so it's not boring. None of the tracks caught my interest enough for me to want to listen to it again. I have no idea why it's on the list.

This is so very much the 60s. Sunshine Superman is pretty good, and I was surprised by how much I liked it. Then it all went downhill. Renaissance faire lyrics with what sounded like only bass and sitar for music. I don't guess the music was all that bad, but for almost every track? Too much. The lyrics were definitely not my thing, though.

Well this is a surprise. I haven't consiously listened to Cat Stevens before, but I have heard of him. I've heard Wild World before. I had to listen to this twice. The first time, I'm deciding between a 3 and a 4. Then I get into the second listen and it goes right past a 4. There's a not a bad song here, and the worst is still above average. Maybe I'm just in the right mood for this at the end of the day. It's a 4.5, but Father and Son alone makes me round up.

Rap is not my favorite genre, but I don't hate it either. Eminem is probably my favorite rapper, but it's the Eminem more than 10 years in the future of the one that created this album. The older Eminem has mellowed a bit and exorcised a few of his demons. This Eminem, hiding behind a Slim Shady mask, is way too full of anger and hate for me to enjoy any of this. There is certainly talent here. Eminem has a way with words that is unique. My Name Is was everywhere when this album came out. By itself it's pretty good, but not quite up to what Eminem would do later. Guilty Conscience is more cringey than shocking. 97 Bonnie and Clyde is disturbing, but I don't think I'm finding it disturbing in the way it was intending to be. The rest is bass, rhymes, misogyny, and shock value with no point. So this is another instance where I wish there was a 10 point rating scale. I reserve 1s for albums I don't think have any redeeming qualities, and 2s for albums I don't like that I can at least see some talent in. There is talent here, but it's way overshadowed by the shock and hate. 1.5, and I'm rounding it down because I don't think I enjoyed a second of listening to this again.

Do I like Radiohead? I honestly don't know. The few hits I've heard are good, but nothing on this album is doing anything for me. There are a few tracks that are above average (not great) and a few that are annoying (but not to the point of skipping them). The whiny vocals got to me after a couple of tracks too. It's a 2.5, but I'm rounding down because as an album it wears out it's welcome less than halfway in.

It's strange. I generally hate sappy late 50s/early 60s doo-wop style albums, but The Beach Boys are pretty good. This album, though, isn't their best. The harmonies are there, but the album is just uneven and didn't really catch my interest other than Help Me, Rhonda. RIP Brian Wilson

It's the single biggest influence on 90s music (and probably beyond). It's at least in the top 5 most influential albums of all time. It's a 5 just because of that. But beyond that, it's just an exceptional album. Every single track is amazing (let's just ignore Endless, Nameless). I was 17 when this came out, so it's impossible to be unbiased, though.

There is so much great music from the UK. Even with the author's UK bias, why is this on the list? Because it influenced arguably better bands in the 90s? I'm getting sick of Britpop pretty quickly. Yeah, I've heard There She Goes. It's good, not great. Everything else ranges from fades into the background to actively annoying.

Too long. Way too long. This is another one of those albums I'm not turning off, but I don't really care to listen to again. There are a few good to very good tracks, and a few that are annoying. Nothing great, nothing terrible.

There's a little of everything here. Grunge, alternative, metal, prog, 60s psychedelic influences. I love the layered guitars and wall of sound. It's not quite perfect, though. Silverfuck is too long and nearly derails the album. It's one of the top 10 albums of the 90s. I got Nevermind a few days ago, so I guess there must be a comparison. Nevermind is more influential, but I think I personally like Siamese Dream more.

I don't really get jazz that much. This, though, is pretty good. Maybe I just need a good rhythm to go with the jazz. I'm going to have to listen to more Afrobeat. Digging into the Wikipedia articles on this album and Fela Kuti was really interesting. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but I don't think it was protest music you can dance to. Fela Kuti was an influence on The Talking Heads "Remain In Light", which I (re)discovered on this list last month. Well that makes sense why I like this, then.

What genre is this exactly? There's country, blues, rock, folk, and this doesn't really fit any of it. I guess it's more country than anything, and I'm not big on pre 90s country. This album is frustrating to listen to. There's some great stuff here if you are in the right mood (and as I'm listening to this it's as close to in the mood for this as I'm ever going to get): Misguided Angel is incredible, Blue Moon Revisited has great vocals even if it's too slow, Sweet Jane and Walking After Midnight are good covers. The rest is just so, so slow. It's too slow even if you are in the mood for slow. That completely overshadows the good to great vocals on most of these tracks.

This is terrible. After reading Wikipedia, I get it. Give an amateur a drum machine and this is what you get. I can't point to a single thing I like here.

Blitzkrieg Bop is pretty good. At least a 4. Wait, I've heard this before. Is the track looping? Yeah, every song is the same, just with different nonsensical lyrics. Then it slows down (I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend) and it somehow gets worse. Oh, good, we're back to Blitzkrieg Bop with different lyrics.

The music is maybe a bit above average, but nothing special. Who thought having this guy be the vocalist was a good idea? Is he trying a fake accent or just intentionally mumbling everything? I had to pull up the lyrics to understand what he's singing. They also need a new songwriter.

2.5 for the music. As an instrumental, it wouldn't be bad in the background. 1 for the creepy guy whispering French words I don't understand in my ear. Seriously, don't listen to this with headphones (or at all). -1 for the explanation of the French I got from Wikipedia.

I'm not even 50 albums in and this is my 3rd REM album. What I have discovered is that I love REM more than I thought I did. All 5 stars so far, but Document is below Automatic for the People for me.

There is way more overdubbing than live here. It feels more like audience noise was dubbed into studio recordings, but with the quality of live tracks recorded in the 70s. So not great. The music is generic 70s rock. Not great, not bad. I don't mind listening to it, but I wouldn't choose to listen to it.

One thing I have leaned with this list is that I absolutely hate Tom Waits voice. Without the "singing" this may be decent background music. This is better than Nighthawks at the Diner, but that's really not much of a compliment.

4 for the guitar. I enjoyed the instrumentals more than the singing. 3 for the rest. Folk isn't my favorite genre. It was good, but not anything I would choose to listen to.

Paranoid is the only song I've heard before. I've been missing out apparently. I love 80s Ozzy but didn't go further back. But I still instantly knew the riff in Iron Man. This album sounds more 1985 than 1970. It's an easy 5 as the blueprint to every metal album of the 80s and 90s.

It started off pretty good with Kicks, but everything else was just an average 60s pop album, which I don't like too much as a genre. 2.5, and I'll round it up to 3 because the grade bacd sound is a step above normal 60s pop.

It's good. Not great, not bad. There are a couple of very good tracks, then a whole lot of the same thing, average 90s rock. 3.5

Not great, not bad. I feel like I keep repeating myself. It seems I'm getting a string of average albums, and I really shouldn't on a list of albums I must listen to. I'm not turning this off, but no, I don't have to hear this. Take Me Out is the best thing here, but it's still just above average. At least they managed to make each track sound different.

My expectations were low and it met them. It wasn't terrible, but it's just not anything I would want to listen to again.

They have one trick, but it's a really good trick. This is just great metal. But it's live, and from the early 80s, so the quality is terrible. Even with that, you can feel the energy.

It's different at least. I enjoyed the music on about half the tracks, the other half were either annoying or boring. I really don't like his voice. It bothered me even on the tracks with good music.

I love RHCP. I'm not sure if I like this album or Californication the best. So this is a 5. It's not perfect. Like most early CD era album, this is too long. Cut the last 4 tracks and it would be nearly perfect. The white guy rap/rock is really dated and juvenile. This is better than most of it from the early 90s, though. So 4.5/5. Still I have to round up. I lovbass, and Flea is the best.

Well, I certainly wasn't expecting that. Folk is generally not something I like (although this list is testing that somewhat). There is folk here, but also rock, gospel, maybe a little blues. The first half is quite good. Love the One You're With has great backing vocals. Church (Pt. of Someone) has a gospel-like feel that works pretty well. Old Times Good Times and Go Back Home made me think this may actually be a great album. I suspect that's mostly because of Hendrix and Clapton. Then the second part comes and it's average at best. Nothing was terrible, but none of it caught my interest. So 4.5 for the first half and 2.5 for the second half. 3.5 rounded up.

I think this is too 80s. There's a lot of new wave that still sounds good today, but this isn't it. I'm sure I would have loved it if I heard it in the 80s. Dumb Waiters caught my interest, but the rest is average.

Side 1 is great. I'm really not sure if I like Funk, or if I just like The Temptations doing it. It was also nice hearing a cover of I Heard it Through the Grapevine that wasn't trying to sound like Marvin Gaye. 5/5 Side 2 is standard Motown soul. Nothing wrong with it, and The Temptations are definitely near or at the top of my list of favorite Motown acts, but as a genre, it's not something I listen to often. 3.5/5.

Judy Blue Eyes and Long Time Gone are good. Very good even. There's a bot too much hippie and folk in the rest for me to like it. I'm not coming back to the album, but will probably play a track again at some point.

I'm confused about how to categorize this. Punk/post punk/new wave? All 3 at once? The first 3 tracks are more punk, I think, but with better guitar than the punk I've heard so far. I don't particularly like punk based on what I've heard on this list so far, but this is above average. Marquee Moon (the song) sounds more prog to me, although that may just be the length. It's incredible. The second half sounds like art rock mixed with 80s alternative (or rather 80s alternative sounds like this album). Again above average, but not incredible. This album evidently inspired multiple artists I have already rated as a 5. I can hear that, but other than the title track, this is more of a 4 to me.

What the fuck was that? This is the 3rd time I have found the worst album on this list (so far). I suspect there will be something worse later though. There were a couple of flashes of music that accidentally made it on this album. If I go out back and stab a duck, will it sound like this album?

Rikki Don't Lose That Number is great. Any Major Dude Will Tell You is good. The rest of the album is either forgettable or too jazzy for me.

Raw and jarring are what come to mind when I try to describe this. I feel like I might enjoy this more if the guitar wasn't hurting my ears. The drum and bass parts sound great. I enjoyed Damaged Goods.

More British Folk Renaissance Faire music. It's not bad, but it's not anything I'd listen to again.

Bono has an ego that can blot out the sun. But he can sing. This is the first time I've listed to this entire album in probably 20 years. It's better than I remember. Not a single bad track here, and most are incredible. Easy 5.

This is much more Country/Soul/R&B than it is Rock. Elvis can certainly pull this off, though. There is too much country filler here for a 5. Elvis makes the average sound great though. Still, I was getting bored until In The Ghetto and Suspicious Minds. Those 2 songs are incredible.

Raw, angry, unsettling. It's obvious in hindsight that Kurt Cobain was in a bad place when this was recorded. It's hard to rate this. The best tracks (Heart Shaped Box, Dumb, All Apologies) are easy 5 stars, as good as or better than what is on Nevermind. Everything else ranges from uncomfortable to unlistenable.

Socially concious rap. The message is good, I suppose, but the delivery is too preachy. The beat is generic early 90s hip hop, so nothing special there either. 4 tracks are unavailable on every service I looked at, but I don't think I'm really missing anything.

Yes, every song sounds the same. That just means every song sounds like Highway to Hell, which is an all time classic. The rest of the tracks run together, but it's all good. Back in Black is better.

No. Just no. There's a bit of a riff and some mumble talking on top of it. Rollin Dany is the only thing here that sounds like a song, and it's a cover.

That's not quite what I was expecting. Immigrant Song is the best here, everything after is a slight letdown from that. I'm impressed that so many different genres are on this album, and they are all done well. 4.5

So what is this? Prog pop? I'm surprised. I was expecting a below average to average album. This is somewhere around a 4. It's interesting how a lot of the reviews mention who Supertramp sound like, and there's quite a variety. For me it started at Pink Floyd, then Elton John, maybe a little Rush, and finally Genesis. Only not quite as good as any of those.

It's ok. All I Need was pretty good. Everything else was standard early 90s rap and blended into the background.

It took me too long to really listen to Black Sabbath even though I've liked Ozzy's solo work for a while. A whole lotta cocaine can make a great album, I guess. It's not quite as good as Paranoid, but very close. RIP Ozzy

It started off reasonably well. Not great, but not bad either. It started going off the rails with Rene. I have no idea what was going on with side 2. Side 1 - 2.5 Side 2 - 1.25

This is another one of those completely average albums. Nothing stood out, and nothing was terrible. The guitar was solid, but I found the singing slightly annoying.

Interesting. That was better than I thought it would be. It's definitely a product of the early 80s, and maybe a bit too experimental and pretentious, but it somehow works.

Really nice improv piano. Jazz usually leaves me bored, but this was easy to listen to. Maybe because the improv part is jazz, but the sound is more modern (contemporary?) classical. I'm not sure it's something I will come back to, but I enjoyed it.

Dark, broody, depressing. I believe I like this more than I thought I would. It's not something I would want to play all the time, and there are some duds on the album, but I do like it overall. I think it's the drums that drew me in.

This sounds a lot like one of those sleep music playlists you listen to when you can't get to sleep. There's nothing bad about this music, it's just not something I would want to listen to unless I'm wide awake in a dark room at 3 AM.

So let me see if I understand. These friends from Ireland form a band, get signed, but are not good enough to get anything recorded. They are dropped from their label and depressed, so they decide to visit California. They find some idiot to sign them and record an album. It turns out they are 35 years too late to be the next Beach Boys. It also turns out that they can't write songs or harmonize anywhere near as well as Brian Wilson either. Somehow, this snoozefest gets released anyway. I mean it's not terrible, but I'm kind of amazed at how incredibly boring it is.

Four tracks. That's what it took for me to break my resolution to listen to every album all the way through. Congratulations, I guess. This is terrible.

Easy 5. It's been a while since I listened to the whole thing, and it holds up well, although it definitely sounds like the 80s. Peter Gabriel turns to 80s pop while keeping some of the arty prog sound from Genesis and his 70s solo albums. It works surprisingly well.

I started getting La Grange in the algorithm after listening to other 70s albums in the list. I haven't heard anything else before. The first 2 tracks are great, then it drags to La Grange, which is also great. It's a solid 4, but too much filler to be higher.

I think the best thing about this list so far is that it got me to dive into Bowie's catalog, when I was only familiar with the hits before. It's funny that the tracks I like are the ones the other reviews mention. Life on Mars is the best song I have heard from Bowie. It may well be the best of the 70s. Queen Bitch is a top 10 Bowie song. Changes and Pretty Things are great, just below the other two. Everything else? Above average, some really above average, but that's it. Hunky Dory is below Station to Station and Low and below what I have heard of Ziggy Stardust and Heroes. Which still puts it above most of this list. 4.5, but I'm rounding up for Life on Mars.

Nice groove. I think I may be starting to like 70s soul a little. Billy Jack was a great start, but the rest faded into the background.

Mother really is as bad as everyone is saying it is. This album is pretentious, which shouldn't be surprising with Sting involved. I can separate the artist from the person with him, though. First half - 2.5 - Synchronicity (both of them) are good, the rest are ok to terrible Second half - 4.5 - Every Breath You Take is one of the best songs of the 80s (and creepy). Tea in the Sahara and Murder by Numbers are great too. 3.5, and I'll round up because the highs are a bit higher than the lows are low.

I still don't get jazz. I like prog pretty well, but this was too much jazz and the tracks were too long. 20 minutes is just too much. It ranged from actively annoying at worst to fades into the background at best.

Ray Charles has one of the best voices of the 20th century. I'm pretty sure he could make anything worth listening to. Which is exactly what he does here. These are country songs from the 40s and 50s redone with some soul, a bit of jazz, and a whole lot of big band. This sounds like it comes from 1948, not 1962. Big band isn't really my thing, but this is more interesting than most of it. I don't particularly like the backing choral singers. I also don't particularly like this era of country music, so most of the songs are a bit boring too. I found it interesting that most of the songs I liked were originally sung or written by Hank Williams. I guess he was a better writer than most country musicians of this era. This would get about a 2 or 2.5 with most other singers. Ray Charles makes it a solid 4.

The best was background music, most of it was just boring, and the worst was at least slightly annoying. This just isn't my type of music.

The last time I got an album that sounded like music for insomniacs, I gave it a 3 for being background music. So how do you rate an album where that is the intention? This is the king of sleep music, and it's the first thing I would put on if I was wide awake in the middle of the night. It doesn't seem to be too bad as background music for reading either. So 3.5 instead of a 3, and I'll round up because it does what it says it does.

Below average 80s soft rock. Why exactly is this on the list? Holding Back the Years isn't bad, and that's about the best thing I can say about this album.

Once an album gets over an hour it generally wars out its welcome. So this ridicuously long 1 hour 45 minute album should start getting annoying, right? Every one of these tracks are not just "not bad", not just "ok", all of them are very good. Half or more are great. Stevie Wonder is a genius.

I don't generally like live albums. James Brown is probably an exception to that. The way he feeds off the crowd (and the crowd feeds off him) makes the usually annoying crowd sounds part of the music. This likely wouldn't be as impactful if it was a studio performance.

This is ... good? So far, I haven't liked electronic much. This is different. It's got melody and rhythm. In other words, it's music, not electronic noise. Upbeat enough to not put you to sleep, laid back enough to work to without demanding attention.

I guess this started as psychedelic rock. The title track was ok. Then it started going downhill. The middle soft of sounded like The Monkees, only without any talent. By the end ... what the hell is Toonerville Trolley exactly?

It's a classic. I don't generally listen to soul, especially from this era, and I've still heard What's Going On and Mercy Mercy Me, both of which are all time great songs. But it gets a little preachy, and I just wasn't feeling half the tracks, so it's a 4 instead of a 5. What was the deal with Save the Children? Good message, really bad song.

Sad love songs and crying in your beer. Country really has a stereotype problem. It hasn't changed much in the last 60 years. I really don't like the music, but Loretta Lynn has a great voice. 2.5. I guess I round up because it is a good example of the genre.

What a disjointed mess. It's also great. There is no way this should work as an album. It feels like they just threw a bunch of stuff together and called it a day. But half the tracks are incredible, and another 5 or so are good to great. It may have worked better as a single instead of a double, but I don't see more than 3-4 tracks that are not good enough. 4.5. I was trying to figure out how to round, but Tusk (the song) made up my mind. Round up.

Sterile and bland, but that describes most pop from the last 15 years. Almost boring but not quite. Musically, it's fine. I like the bass synth pop style. Lyrics are slightly annoying, but I'm obviously not in the target demographic. Lorde has a distinct voice, and that helps somewhat. This is something I wouldn't turn off if I'm listening in the background while working. I'm not going to seek it out, though.

This is what would be playing at a pretentious hipster coffee house, isn't it? The best of it faded into the background. The worst (which was over half of it) was actively annoying.

This album is very 80s, but half of it is stuck in the early 80s. They don't seem to be able to decide if they should be doing synth pop or dance/house. Nothing here is bad, it's just a bit boring and none of it really grabbed my attention. 2.5

This sounds like a therapy session was recorded and set to music. The music is pretty good. Experimental with strange percussion. The lyrics aren't terrible, but I really don't like the talk/sing delivery at all. Music - 4 Vocals - 2

There are flashes of brilliance here, but it just didn't click with me. That likely has something to do with me being too old and white. I'm guessing I'm not supposed to get it. Still, telling a story in a rap seems like a good format.

Nice smooth, funky bass. Nothing terribly attention grabbing, though. It feels a bit dated, solidly in that late 70s early 80s disco era. Good background music, but that's about it.

That was surprising. So far, I haven't found much on this list post 2000 that interested me. This album is definitely interesting. There are so many genres here that it shouldn't work as an album, but it does. Everything fits together well. There were a few tracks that stood out, but most are above average. It's a very good album, but not quite a 5.

This album is very 80s, although it didn't age as badly as a lot of the synth heavy albums of this era. It's hard to believe that this is the same band that did Tres Hombres. Very different albums, but both good. In fact, I can pretty much copy my Tres Hombres review for this one: the hits are great, excellent even, but the rest just seems a little repetitive and a touch robotic. There is just too much filler to give it a 5.

Triangle Walks was pretty good. The rest was ok if a bit boring musically. The singing was a bit annoying, though. This probably would be worth listening to again as an instrumental.

Average 60s pop/rock. One or two songs above average, one or two below average. The Beatles comparisons in other reviews make sense, but this just doesn't hold my interest like a Beatles album does.

This is a surprise. I've had it on my to listen later list for a month or so but hadn't listened to it yet. I knew it would be good, but it's incredible. I didn't know George Clinton did rock. Eddie Hazel's solo in Maggot Brain is one of the best I've ever heard. Maybe not quite up to Hendrix, who obviously inspired it, but close. I'm not exactly sure what is going on in Wars of Armageddon, but given the quality of the rest of the album, I'm going with "I don't understand it" rather than "I don't like it".

I don't think I can say anything that hasn't already been said. Is this the best Beatles album? Probably, although I think I like the White album more. Is this the best album of all time? Maybe? The medley doesn't quite work for me, but the rest of the album is flawless. I think it's the best I've heard so far, but I still have 900+ albums to go.

There's some great music here, but the sound effects/weird percussion ruins a few of the tracks. It sounds like a modern Beatles album, but that may just be because I listened to Abbey Road yesterday.

There's a little bit of everything here. There are a couple of great songs, a couple of annoying songs, but the rest is just average 60s folk rock. Maybe a bit above average. 3.5, and I guess I will round up since I generally enjoyed listening to it. I don't think I'm coming back to it, though.

I think I am starting to like George Clinton. Definitely funky, but it seemed like a couple of tracks dragged on too long.

There's definitely a B-52s vibe here. The music is pretty good, but the singing is annoying. This would be a 4 without Bjorks wailing.

This is the 3rd Tom Waits album I've gotten on this list. The first was the worst album I had heard at the time. The second was very slightly better. Surprisingly, this one isn't terrible. It's not great, but the majority of the tracks moved up the scale from terrible to annoying. There were even a few tracks that made it to weird, but listenable. I'm never going to be a Tom Waits fan, or even listen to this again, but it's a bit better.

The music isn't bad, although it is generic, slightly boring, early 90s rock. The lyrics and singing are terrible. I'd break up with him too.

This one is a bit hard to decide on. It's too long and drags in parts. Looking at each track separately, over half of them are filler or bridges that don't stand by themselves. But the rest are some of the best songs I've ever heard. So I put it aside and came back the next day. This time taking it in as a whole, not 26 tracks. This is obviously how it's meant to be done. It's still about 20 minutes too long, and the ending (after Run Like Hell) kind go lost my interest. Still, this is probably the best concept album ever. So 4 or 5? I think I have to give it a 5, but it's a step below Wish You Were Here and Dark Side of the Moon. Still, Part 2, Hey You, and Comfortably Numb are better than anything on those albums.

I know there is better "World" music than this. The entire album feels like the music was toned down for Western audiences. It's fine musically, just completely bland and boring.

This one started out good. Groovy, funky, it was great. Then it started falling apart a few tracks in. I love the funk, but the tracks that are more jazz like were hard to get through. Badu's vocals were also a bit hit or miss with me too. Some were great, and others not so much. The raspyness can be slightly annoying. The album also suffers from the early CD era problem of being too long. I'd like it a lot better in about 20 minutes was cut off somewhere in the middle. In the end, I liked it overall, but it's not something I'll go back too much. So about a 3.5, but it was just annoying enough that I can't round up.

Once again, I still don't get jazz. This album is a bit worse than other jazz albums I've listened to on the list. It seems to be all over the place, like everyone is just playing whatever they want. The musicians are talented, but I just don't get the music.

That was the sloppiest good album I've ever heard. It's also the most Southern US sounding album by a British band I've heard. It sounds straight out of a dingy bar somewhere between New Orleans and Memphis. It's also too long, as a lot of double albums are. Cut a few songs out, and this could be a 5. As it is, it's a 3.5, but I'm rounding up because I mostly enjoyed it.

Renaissance Faire music for the modern audience, and a lot better than the 60s albums of the same type I have gotten so far on this list. It sounds like a mix of CSNY, Simon and Garfunkel, and The Beatles. I liked it a lot more than I expected to, but it's not quite up to a 5.

I honestly don't know if that was bad or just not a genre I like. There was influence from Motown, Stevie Wonder in particular, but it's buried under way too much overproduced crap music that I can't tell if the vocals are actually good. There were 2-3 really good tracks where I thought I heard good vocals, but the rest were just bad. And even on the good tracks, the songwriting was bad. Of course, that could just be coming back around to this isn't my genre.

That was better than I expected. I don't think the lyrics were all that great, but the beat is what makes this album.

14 year old me thought this was the greatest thing ever. Old me thinks it somewhat holds up well, but it's flawed. I love and hate parts of it. A couple of ways to rate this: The Hits - 5 Everything else 3-3.5 or maybe Slash - 5+ Axl - 2 My enjoyment of each song directly related to how much Axl's wailing annoys me. Still, it's good overall.

I like prog. I realize prog is extravagant. This is just excessive though. It's just too experimental and out there. Half the time, they seem to be just trying to top themselves on how weird the sounds can get. At that point, it pretty much stops being music. There are a couple of good parts, though, so it doesn't get a 1.

There is some great music here. I've liked Killing Me Softly since it came out, but I didn't pay any attention to the rest of the album. Some of the tracks are good, some aren't, and the skits are terrible. Nothing else grabbed my attention like Killing Me Softly. It's about a 3.5.

That was different at least. I disliked some of it, I liked some of it, and the rest is just there. Nothing stood out as particularly great or terrible. I think I just don't really care for this genre.

Rolling in the Deep is one of the best songs I've ever heard. Rumor Has It, Set Fire to the Rain, and Someone Like You are great too. The rest .... it's all good, just a lot of the same thing. I can't quite give it a 5. The best of it is up there with the best of all time, the rest is a modern generic soul album.

I can't help but compare this to Songs in the Key of Life, Innervisions, and Talking Book. Looking at it that way, it comes up short. But it's still Stevie Wonder, so nothing here is bad. I didn't enjoy this as much as the other albums while recognizing that this is still a great album.

This seems like something I should at least like. All I got out of it was boredom. The vocals are the problem, I think. Too monotone. The music wasn't bad, though,

The bass is good. That's the end of the good part of the review. The random noises and guitar screeching on top of the bass occasionally worked but mostly are just annoying. The vocals are absolutely terrible and ruined the little enjoyment I was getting from the music.

So this is rock? folk? country? Southern white guy soul? It's pretty good, whatever you call it. Cripple Creek and Dixie are the best. The rest range from ok to good. It's about a 3.5.

The fast songs were pretty good. The slow ones had me losing interest. It should be obvious by now that Jazz isn't my genre. This was good for a jazz album. 3.5

Dated and boring. Back to Life saves this album from being completely uninteresting.

I'm pretty sure this is what you would get if you asked AI to create a generic 80s pop/rock album. Boring, bland, inoffensive. It didn't actively annoy me, so it gets a 2.

Not bad for a live album, but it's still a live album, too long, and has too much filler. The singles and a couple other tracks are great though. Cut out the filler and this could be close to a 5. As it is, 3.5, but I'll round up because I generally enjoyed it.

This is too dark and heavy for The Beach Boys. I guess this is what you get when you cross The Beach Boys with psychedelic rock and the politics of the early 70s. It ends up being pretty good. Even the cheesy songs like A Day in the Life of a Tree work well enough. Til I Die and Surfs Up are the best of the bunch. And yes, Student Demonstration Time really is terrible.

The title track gets a 4, and that's a bit generous. The riff is great, it's way too long. The rest is generic late 60s rock, some of it bad, some of it boring. Overall, probably around 2.5.

That was enjoyable considering rap isn't my favorite genre.

This album is weird, but in a great way. I really didn't expect to like this as much as I did. It's way ahead of its time. I would have put it in the mid to late 80s if I hadn't seen the release date first. It sounds like it is the inspiration for half the synth-pop and new wave 80s and 90s music. The good half.

There's not much to say that hasn't already been said. It's pretty much a perfect album. Definitely in my top 5 if not the best.

An album consisting entirely of samples. Art or just coasting on the work of others? An interesting question. The result is basically background music, although more interesting than the normal ambient type of instrumental music. A couple of tracks even make it to interesting while actively listening. It's still a 3 like most background music, but a high 3.

Blues rock that is hard enough to be metal before metal was a thing. Too bad the somgwriting is bad. I see how they could have influenced early metal bands, but Hendrix was doing the same thing at the same time, only better.

I'm not really a big fan of country, but it's impossible not to like Willie Nelson. The music on this album isn't bad. Just a guy telling a story with his guitar. Willie's voice takes it from average to really good.

Pop punk that is a bit more pop than punk. It's perfectly average. Nothing stood out to me and nothing was bad. I'd leave it on if it was playing, but I wouldn't start playing it.

That was a great album. I'm amazed that Beck can pull from that many genres in one album and not have it sound like a disjointed mess. It's not perfect. There's bound to be a genre you don't like in something like this. That said, nothing was bad. My least favorite songs ended up being average. It's a 4.5, but I'm rounding up.

This would probably have been better without the vocals. It's good background music, but the vocals are corny in a way only 60s pop can be.

The music is generic rock, maybe a little punk if punk had existed at this point. Nothing special, but not bad either. The vocals range from ok to fingernails on a chalkboard annoying, though.

Double albums almost always drag on way too long. This is no exception. I have no problem believing that cutting this down to a single album would make it one of the best albums of all time. It is pretty much there as it is. This is all over the place. Every track switches genres. The genius of The Beatles is that they make it work. Sure, there are a few duds (and 2 maybe 3 tracks that should have never been recorded), but the rest are nearly perfect. When I got Abbey Road earlier this year, I said I couldn't decide which album of these 2 was my favorite. I listened to both back to back, and it's definitely Abbey Road. The filler in the White Album puts it back a step. On the other hand, While My Guitar Gently Weeps is my favorite Beatles song.

Better than I thought it would be. it's a nice relaxing album.

(US Version) Paint it Black is a great start to the album. Lady Jane is pretty good too. The album then falls off to generic blues rock that all sounds the same. Then Going Home ends it on a slightly better note. It's a 3.5, but I'll round up for Paint it Black.

Wow. This is bad. It's cultural appropriation at best and plagiarism at worst. But even beyond that, it's just put together terribly. A few of these tracks would be ok on their own, maybe on albums by the artists it was appropriated from. I see a lot of comparisons to Graceland. I guess they are both 80w albums with "World" influences. Paul Simon at least made the appearance of working with the artists he narrowed from. He also has talent, which is very much lacking here.

Another dark, broody Cure album. You have to be in the mood for it. Evidently I am today, because it's a great album. It does a great job setting a dreary mood.

There's just enough decent music here to raise this to a 2. The vocals and sound effects are terrible.

I'm still not the intended audience for Kendrick Lamar, but he certainly has talent. This is more varied than MAAD City, and I like it better.

The energy here is great. Even though it is a live album, it's a nearly perfect listen all the way through.

This one is difficult. Some of the tracks are great 90s alt/indie rock. Some are pretty good music with annoying vocals. Two or three are just straight up bad. It's about a 3.5, but I'll be generous since the good tracks were enjoyable.

A nearly perfect metal album. Actually, it's a nearly perfect album period.

I don't like Christmas music. I really don't like it after Christmas. At least it isn't terrible Christmas music.

That sounded like Bowie trying to do an Elton John album. It's a good album, but a notch below the other 70s Bowie albums on the list. I'm not really into the improvised jazz piano either.

Hey look, it's another British New Wave band that had one or two halfway decent albums in the early 80s then disappeared. Yay. This is ok background music if you like New Wave. It's also somewhat boring, but not really annoying.

Yet another jazz album I don't get. It doesn't even work as background music. The minute you start drifting off grooving to the bass, here comes a piano note that clashes with everything else (but then somehow works). They obviously are talented, it's just not for me.

This is how you do a live album. The audience energy makes the whole thing better instead of being distracting. Cash's interactions with the audience might just be better than the music.

Another album full of background music. Nothing bad, nothing stands out. It sounds like the Beatles, only without anything that made them special.

This is following the pattern of the last 2 Stones albums I got. 2-3 absolutely outstanding songs and a bunch of generic blues rock filler for the rest of the album. In this case, the filler is a bit higher quality, making this a high 4 instead of a low 4.

That was some funky jazz. Chameleon is incredible. Watermelon Man is great, even with the weirdness at the beginning. The second half is more jazz than funk, and a little less interesting to me. It's still the best jazz I've come across so far.

I really don't like Neil Young's voice, but somehow he makes it work. The music and songwriting are great, and I enjoyed this a lot more than I thought I would.

Christina Aguilera has a great voice. It just seems mostly wasted on mediocre pop albums. This one is dressed up with jazz and soul. That is better than most generic 00s pop, but it doesn't stand up against the real thing. In the end, this is overproduced pop that works well enough as inoffensive background music.

It's a good, even great, double album that could have been one of the greatest of all time as a single album. Everything up to Kashmir is the best opening of an album that I have ever heard. Then up to Ten Years Gone isn't quite as good compared to what comes before, but still great. Then it falls off a cliff into experiments and mediocrity. Cut the last 5 tracks and you have one of the best. As it is, it's a low 5 that hurts for being a double album.

The entire album is consistently high quality. I love the organ and Morrison's voice. But it isn't quite up to the highest level for me. Maybe it's a bit dated.

3 double albums in 4 days. The generator must hate me. This one is all over the place. Stills is good when he leans more toward rock than folk, at least for me. I could do without the country/bluegrass. It's good enough for the genre, I just don't enjoy it that much. I'm not sure cutting this down to a single would help a lot. There may be half an album of great songs here. The rest are just ok.

One of the best pop albums of the 80s. It's also Madonna's best album. It doesn't seem quite as strong to me now as it was when it came out. It's a high 4, not quite to a 5.

I don't mind good New Wave, but does there have to be so many mediocre New Wave albums on the list? The first track is the only one that grabbed my interest in a good way, and it only barely did. There's some good bass here, but the vocals are just bad.

My experience with The Stones on the list so far has been that they have 2-3 really great songs on an album with the rest being mostly ok or slightly good. This album is different. It's almost perfect. Every track is great, even the ones with the fake country twang (somehow). They finally get a 5 from me.

AC/DC only have one trick, but they are the absolute best at that trick.

The title track is great. The rest is background music. It all runs together and sounds the same. 3.5

It's Thriller. There's no way this wasn't going to be a 5. It's a cheesy McCartney duet away from being a perfect album.

Sinatra has a great voice. I can appreciate that this is good music, it's just not the type I generally like. The songs kind of ran together, none of them stood out.

It started out pretty good. I liked the funk, but the improv jazz and spoke word parts weren't very enjoyable. It's also dated, very much a product of its rime.

Overindulgent and cheesy in only the way a bad musical can be. So I'm surprised it's not a musical soundtrack. The combination of voice, lyrics, the delivery of the lyrics, and the huge amount of instruments behind the vocals is terrible, although I can't exactly point to which part is terrible (except possibly the lyrics). I've been fighting turning this off through the entire album.

A great rap album that manages to sound classic and modern at the same time. Socially conscious lyrics that don't sound preachy. Great beat.

Yes it's self-indulgent. That's pretty much mandatory for prog. I like prog, so I see it as a good thing. Side A is one of the best prog tracks ever even if the story is weird. A Passage to Bangkok is great too, but the rest of side B is weak. Moving Pictures is better.

The music isn't bad. I may even like it. The vocals, however, are quite annoying to the point that I can't just sit and listen.

Respect by itself nearly gets this album a 5. But everything else on the album, while not quite as hard hitting, is just as good. Aretha has a legendary voice.

This is more folk than psychedelic I think. It's ok. It's not bad, but nothing stood out either.

Meh. Yet another Britpop album where it's just ok. Nothing stood out either way.

I was expecting bland 90s soft rock mixed with a little soul or jazz. And that's what I got, but it's better than I expected. This is exactly the kind of album I'd put on when I want to listen to music while concentrating on something else. 3.5

Another great RHCP album. Like most 90s albums, it would be perfect after cutting out 3-4 tracks of filler. 4.5

There's some decent beats here, but overall I found it repetitive and annoying. I pretty much just don't like the genre. 2.5

Dated 80s jazz based soft rock. Smooth Operator still sounds good. The rest works as background music, but is boring if you are actually concentrating on it.

Starting with Cohen's swan song probably isn't the best introduction to him (other than already hearing Hallelujah), but here it goes. Before: This will be terrible, won't it? After: Huh. I liked that, and I have no idea why. Everything I know about my musical taste says I should hate this album. Poetry isn't my thing, and this is basically a poetry reading with background music. I hate the speak-sing thing when Tom Waits does it, but it works here. A couple of possibilities: Cohen is an excellent writer. His deep gravelly voice works well with both the subject matter and the music. I suspect I won't like his other albums as much, but this one is good.

That was a bit more laid back than I was expecting. It's incredible that this was done in 1974. It sounds a bit dated now, though. It's good, but I liked The Man Machine better.

Relax is good. The title track has potential if it wasn't so long. (synth prog pop? Really?) Overall, it's too long, too full of mediocre songs that shouldn't have made the album. Why are there so many covers on here when it's already too long? It feels like they threw together everything they had and hoped something worked. The problem is that there is some good stuff here, it's just presented badly. 2.5

Of course it's cheesy, dumb pop metal. What exactly was everyone expecting from an 80s hair metal band? It's decent music and fun. Photograph rises above decent. 3.5

That was not an easy listen. I'm not angry enough to properly appreciate it. I do find it amazing how well emotions are conveyed through songs that are often more noise than music. It's impressive, but not anything I'd want to return to, I think, other than Hurt, which is a great song (even if Johnny Cash ended up doing it better). 3.5

Completely, totally average. Nothing good enough to take interest in, nothing bad enough to want to skip.

I must not be getting why this is rated so highly. It's nice softish rock, but not anything special. Pale Blue Eyes is pretty good. Also, what the hell is going on in The Murder Mystery.

There's a lot more blues rock (and just plain blues) here than in their earlier albums. Too bad a lot of it is just boring. LA Women is great. Riders on the Storm is even better, it pretty much makes the album worth it by itself. 3.5

Too repetitive, too loud, too fast, too much.

Dusty has a great voice, but this isn't doing anything for me. The other Dusty album had a couple of great moments. This one doesn't. The music seems to be the problem. It just sounds lifeless compared to the vocals.

Funky. Not quite as good a Maggot Brain. Too bad it doesn't seem to be available on any streaming services. It is on YouTube, though.

Willie Nelson singing standards with a bit of country flavor. That's not something I would have ever expected even existed. It's good for at least the first half. Willie has the right voice for this (although it does seem a bit too low and slowed down at times). The arrangements are great. But it gets a little boring by the end. Georgia On My Mind is the only song that I really loved, and that may just be because I love the song. Ray Charles does it much better, but Willie's version is different enough to be great in its own way. 3.5

Ella Fitzgerald has a great voice. The Gershwins are great songwriters. There is nothing bad about listening to a few of these tracks in a row even if it's not a musical style I am interested in. That said, I do not need a box set of this. Yes, I listened to the entire thing. It was great background music to put on while I was doing something else, but it would annoy me to no end if I wasn't doing something else.

I didn't realize The Bee Gees had albums before disco. After listening to this, I'm not sure I wanted to find that out. This album ranged from "ok" to "what the hell is this?". Nobody needs a concept double album of The Bee Gees trying to sound like The Beatles or other popular 60s bands. 2.5

Repetitive ... (Repetitive). Not just the "lyrics" but the beats are also repetitive. Some of them sound good for about 10 seconds. Then repeat. Most of the tracks are also annoying. Praise You is actually decent, and it raises the score up to 2. Barely.

I think this album is what would happen if you put every popular 90s genre in a blender just to see what happens. The songs that lean towards grungy pop rock are pretty good. The ones that are more electronica aren't. 3.5

Not bad. I need to pay more attention to outlaw country. 3.5

It's not exactly bad, just boring. It's not background music either unless you are trying to go to sleep. 2.5

200+ albums in before I get my first Dylan album. Bob Dylan to me was this singer with the funny voice that sang rambling wordy songs. I still think that's pretty accurate. I think this is the first time I have listened to a full Dylan album, and it's a double. Yay. So first thought - yes, Bob Dylan has a whiny, nasally voice. I don't particularly like it. Second thought - the music and lyrics are very good. Third thought - too much harmonica. I mostly liked this album. I'm just not exactly sure why. Dylan's voice and the excessive harmonica ought to make me hate this (much like I have hated every Tom Waits album because of his voice). I think the blues rock (which I generally like) and the great songwriting overcome the bad singing (much like Leonard Cohen for me). It started dragging toward the end. I'm not sure if that is because the last 5 or so tracks are weaker, or if there is just so much I can take of Dylan's voice. 3.5, and I'll round up because it's more enjoyable than not.

It sounds like the typical early 70s glam album (like say Bowie's Aladdin Sane, only not quite as good). It also sounds like something from a decade later in the middle of the synth pop craze in the early 80s. I thought it was good, but very little of it was great. 3.5

That was very weird. I like prog, but I still think this is a bit out there. I was really not liking the title track (Part I), but the album got better as I got deeper into it. I'm listening to Part I again, and it's a bit better, but still sounds too much like each instrument is playing a different song. I imagine a few listens will either make me like it more or hate it. I'd say the album is probably around a 3.5-4 for me at the moment.

I feel like you have to be in the right mood for an entire album of reggae. I stayed in the mood for about 4 tracks. No Woman No Cry is really good. By the end, I was just bored. 3.5

Decent late 80s rap album. Maybe a bit above average.

Experimental? I'm either going to love it or hate it. Jazz? Don't really get it. I have found a few jazz albums I like, but I don't enjoy most of them, Experimental Jazz? Hell No This is just noise. There are a couple of tracks near the end that approach sounding like a jazz album.

It's ok. I don't love it or hate it.

This album is a bit frustrating to rate. I prefer the funk to the ballads. Superstition is here, and it's the greatest of Stevie's songs to me. I Believe is up there too. But there are a lot of sappy ballads here that are just too slow and boring. Too many to be able to give this a 5.

This is some seriously pretentious self indulgent bullshit. Let's just switch things up every 10 seconds with some talking and wailing thrown in. The really bad part is that I would hear something that sounded good which would immediately switch to something that clashed with it. It definitely sounds like they can actually play the instruments and this crap was a conscious choice. Not a one of them can sing though.

Too boring and too much mumbling. 2.5

Perfect classic metal album. Everything is great. Smoke on the Water is incredible.

Too much Irish folk punk. It was mildly interesting for about 3 songs, then mildly annoying.

Come On Eileen is a very very good song. Everything else? Not so much. Definitely a one hit wonder. So how do they have 2 more albums on the list?

My introduction to Nick Cave was Abattoir Blues, one of the first albums I got on the list last year. My thoughts at the time was dark, broody, pretentious blues rock. I listened to it again before listening to Henry's Dream and liked it better. Henry's Dream is dark, broody, pretentious bluesy punk with the odd dark, broody, pretentious folk song thrown in. And I liked it. It's certainly not the best thing I've ever heard, but the dark and broody is growing on me. I wonder what variety of dark and broody I'll get on the next Nick Cave album.

In general I'd say that I don't like this type of soft mellow folk and give this a 2 or a 3. And it is too mellow, but the songwriting is great. It's the harmonies that make me actually want to listen. I'd hate Scarborough Fair if the harmonies weren't incredible.

This is really dated. It's also average at best and a little annoying. The title track wasn't bad, but the rest gets old fast.

I feel like I could just copy paste reviews for all these late 90s Electronic/Dance albums. Repetitive. Very repetitive. Loud, annoying, and uninteresting too. It's just not my genre.

Without You is a great song. The rest of the album has variety, but it's basically just ok and a little boring. Except Coconut which is ridiculous instead of boring.

This is the best Cure album I've heard so far. It's one of the best albums I've heard so far by any artist. It seems more broody and atmospheric than the dark depression on Pornography. Which makes it easier to listen to if you aren't depressed.

Didn't I listen to this last week? Oh, so you're telling me that The Pogues somehow got 2 albums on the list despite being completely average and a bit annoying and I somehow got both of them a week apart? Ok. Since they sound exactly the same, I'll copy my other review: Too much Irish folk punk. It was mildly interesting for about 3 songs, then mildly annoying.

I don't care how influential this album may have been, I don't like it. Every song sounds the same and the vocals are annoying.

On one hand, I don't particularly like live albums. On the other hand, this is a great album and it likely wouldn't have quite the impact without the crowd noise. You can't help wanting to move to this music. But there is a bit too much of the crowd noise and Sam interacting with the crowd to give this a 5.

I'm not sure exactly where to go with this. Good message, questionable execution (at least for me, but I don't think I'm in the target audience). 4-5 tracks in, I was thinking that the beats are pretty good and the lyrics repetitive. 5 tracks later and the beats are also repetitive and the repetitive lyrics are getting a little annoying. 20?! tracks that are mostly the same, 4 or 5 that I like, 4 or 5 that I don't. I guess that makes it a 3.

This album has Green Onions which is really great. It also has Mo Onions, which is the same song but less great. Then there are 10 covers that get the Green Onion organ treatment. Those are ok. Some are good ok, some are boring ok. This is an album built around one track.

More blues rock like LA Woman. There are a couple of tracks that stand out, but not to the level of the best on the other Doors albums. But the filler is better here too. It ends up being the same rating. 3.5

Smooth, pleasant. Too much so really. It's a little boring and just kind of slides by. It's not quite interesting enough or bad enough to notice.

Pretty good background music. I'm evidently not able to appreciate jazz enough to go deeper than that.

Great album. I'm not sure what swamp rock is exactly, but this is definitely it. John Fogerty somehow easily convinces everyone he's from Louisiana instead of California.

I was sort of expecting this to be good, but it's actually great. The first 3 tracks are incredible. Then Halloween is a miss. The rest of the album doesn't quite hit the highs of the beginning, but are all good tracks.

I really don't know what to think about this. Clapton may be a terrible person, but he can certainly play the guitar well. That's the best part of this album. The vocals range from ok to damn that's bad. He's singing a Ray Charles song and actually trying to sound like Ray. Then there's the one where he's singing about the infamous Mississippi prison. These are white dudes from the UK. Really? It's about a 2-2.5, but I'll round up because Clapton can certainly play guitar.

The more folky tracks are really good. The jazz influenced tracks are not. Multiple 7+ minutes songs overstay their welcome a bit. Overall, it's a keeper.

I just got Bluesbreakers 2 days ago, so I already had my fill of Eric Clapton doing the blues this week. And this is a double album. Lovely. Clapton is an incredible guitar player, but that's not enough. There's just not enough emotion in these songs. Technically, they are very good, I'm just not feeling it. Every song is at least 2 minutes too long. Every song has Clapton doing the guitar solo thing to show the world how awesome he is. Layla is far and away the best thing on this album and even it is two minutes too long.

This is definitely one of the most influential albums in early rock and roll. Looking at it nearly 70 years later, it can't help but sound old. That'll Be The Day and Not Fade Away still sound great, but the rest is just a bit boring now.

It was ok. Sounds a bit more early 90s than 80s, I think.

The music is ok, not good not bad. I really don't like the vocals or her voice. And I really don't like the speak-singing. 2.5

Jazz is background music at best and actively annoying at worst for me. This album is on the background music end. Great musicians, but I wouldn't choose to listen to this.

I have not heard Frank Zappa before. I was assuming I wouldn't like it based on "experimental" and "jazz" near each other. I don't seem to have a problem with jazz-rock as long as the jazz influence is the instrument choice and not the improvisation. So this album started out much better than I was expecting- guitar solos with jazz instruments backing it. It's great. The more jazz improv type music on the second half is fine. I'm ok listening to it, but it's background music. Overall, better than I was expecting.

So smooth I don't remember listening to it. Good background music, I guess.

This sounds like Nirvana and/or Green Day. I like Nirvana and Green Day. This isn't as good. Sure, there are a couple of tracks that played over and over on the radio in the mid 90s. They are ok. The rest is a bit too shrill and a bit more too annoying.

I thought Moon Safari was surprisingly good when I got it. This one just didn't work the same way for me. It feels more like pieces of a song than a full song. Good pieces, but still pieces. I'm guessing it's because this is a soundtrack.

The Theme from Shaft is as incredible as it has always been. So funky. The rest of the album sounds like smooth jazz. Not so incredible. Nice background music though.

BB King was an exceptional entertainer, and it shows on this album. It's one of the rare live albums that sound better because it is live. I don't listen to blues often, but this is one of the best blues albums I've heard.

This album has everything. Riffs that compare well to the best metal albums. Funky, groovy bass. Rap vocals that actually fit with the music and don't sound terrible. Not only that, the lyrics are important too. I would complain a bit about the lyrics being repetitive, but the number of people out there that listen to Rage and don't understand what the are saying is unreal. Maybe they need to repeat them more.

I'm not sure I can take a full album of reggae. This is the second Marley album that started strong and went to a bit above average. If I'm rating Bob Marley a bit above average I guess reggae isn't my genre. 3.5

This is everything I hate about country in one package. Boring, slow, every song sounds the same, completely uninspired harmonies, too much gospel influence. The mandolin is pretty much the only bright spot on this. 1.5

I was expecting one great song and a bunch of average alt rock for the rest like most other Britpop albums I've heard. I sort of got that. Common People is definitely the best thing on this album. The rest exceeded expectations though. Nothing else is really great, but most of the rest of the tracks are above average. It's worth keeping the album.

I'm surprised I haven't had this album before. It's pretty good. Nothing that stand out as great, but nothing really bad either.

There's some good funk here. There's also some drugged out improv funk/soul that is ok at best. Overall, a good album, but not to the level of a great funk album like Maggot Brain.

The organ certainly makes this different from other British punk albums. It's a weird combination of punk, The Doors, and early 80s New Wave. It's only half as annoying as most British punk too. 2.5

I have found out that I really don't like a lot of the punk albums on this list. I've heard and liked songs from this album before, so I'm hopeful. And it's great. A punk double album and it's getting a 5. So it's not punk I hate, it's punk albums where every track sounds the same and the band doesn't know how to play the instruments. London Calling is the opposite of that. 4.5 because it's still a double album and the send half isn't quite as good.

At least this is unique. Overall, decent background music with the occasional shift into something weird. 2.5

More generic Britpop. This list has way too many of these albums. Almost all of them are the same. It's ok, I have no problem listening to it, but it doesn't really register.

That's the second day in a row with Britpop. Why are there so many of these albums on the list? I like Gorillaz, so maybe this won't be too bad ... So Beetlebum and Song 2 are great. Everything else is ok to a bit annoying. The grunge like fuzzy guitars are not working with these pop songs. 3.25

This reminds me of Leonard Cohen. I think it's the deep voice and the speak singing. I don't like Callahan's voice or the lyrics as much though. The music isn't bad as background music.

Somehow I made it through. It certainly was ramblin. Part country, part folk, part comedy act, all terrible.

That was weird, fun, captivating. It was definitely one of the better 80s albums I've heard on here. Experimental usually means I'll love it or hate it. I love it in this case. I'm not sure I can explain why.

This may be one of the best live albums I've heard. It's raw, energetic, blues rock that doesn't let up. I listened to the full concert version (Deluxe Edition), but only the tracks that are on the 77 minutes CD version that seems to be commonly available for streaming. These tracks are all very good to great, with little distracting crowd noise. The banter with the audience is a bit much, and it drags a bit at points. This version is a 4. The 6 tracks from the original album cuts out some good stuff but gets the time down to the point that you can't get bored with it. It's a 4.5.

Epic is as good as it always was. I don't think I've ever listened to the whole album. None of it was bad, a few tracks were great. It seems they tried to add metal to every other genre imaginable. It mostly works.

Well, I wasn't expecting that. Mariachi blended with pretty much every other imaginable genre. This sounds like the soundtrack to a modern remake of one of those John Wayne movies filmed in Monument Valley.

It's still good, but not as good as I found it 20+ years ago. The angst is a bit much now. The best tracks are like In The End - letting the emotion of Bennington's vocals come though without a lot of the cheesiness. Some rap rock is ok. Even a little of the screaming works. There's too much of both on about half the tracks. Still, I enjoyed most of it.

It's Prince. There's no way this isn't getting a 5. It's one ok the best (if not the best) albums of the 80s. Not a single bad track on it.

This list has way too much Britpop. Do we really need multiple Pulp albums? Different Class surprised me in that it was better than the average Britpop album. This one - is exactly like the average Britpop album. One really good song (the title track in this case), a couple of slightly above average songs, and a bunch of filler (with the added bonus in this case of a couple of annoying songs too). One Pulp album was enough.

That was way too long. 21 minutes of random noise. That's just the opening track? Great. Now there's wailing. This Is A Bad. Yes, yes it is. 2 hours of this crap? I'm done.

This album has the best opener and.closer that I have heard on an album. Behind Blue Eyes is incredible too. The rest isn't as good. It's not really bad, just not up to Baba O'Riley and Won't Be Fooled Again. 4.5

uhhhhhhhhh. So this is labelled as "satire" and "concept album". It may be, but it sure does sound like he really wants to use the n-word. Often. It's either a great concept or it's not a concept at all. I honestly can't tell. The music itself is dated and a little boring. Maybe a 3 with better lyrics. Even if this is satire, the lyrics are too simplistic - and mean. I guess it gets a 2 because the music isn't terrible.

A 43 track punk album. My first thought was to give it a 1 and move on. I listened to the first few tracks and it was surprisingly good. Unfortunately, those first few tracks was one of two places where there were multiple good tracks in a row. There are a handful of good tracks, a handful of really bad tracks, and a whole lot of short punk tracks that are ok but all start to sound the same. Overall, it's not bad for punk. 3.5.

This isn't something I'd normally listen to, but it's not bad. It works well as background music. I'm not sure I'd want to actively listen to it for long.

It's good music, but not something I'd normally listen to. I doubt I'll come back to it. It's pretty good background music. 3.5

This is bad. Really bad. The music is ok, boring and generic, but tolerable to listen to. The vocals however, are absolute crap. I hate this guys voice. He sounds drunk and depressed, and the speak singing annoys me (unless it's Leonard Cohen, who I don't mind for some reason). This sounds like a bad Tom Waits impersonation, and I don't like original Tom Waits. 1.5 I guess because the music is tolerable.

More Britpop. Lovely. This time going beyond just being influenced by 60s rock to trying to sound more like it. It's ok I guess. A couple of annoying tracks, the rest forgettable and boring. I certainly didn't need to har this. 2.5

I think I'm starting to warm up to piano jazz. I wouldn't want to sit down and listen to this, but it's really good playing in the background while doing something else. Soft and relaxing.

This is definitely a fuck you album. The problem is that it doesn't make for a fun listen. There's just too much woe is me, look what she's doing to me in the lyrics. There's also a bit too much sameness in the music, which isn't really bad, just not interesting. When I zoned out (inevitable on a double album), the music worked ok as background music. The one interesting track on the album is the one that doesn't fit - the funky space sex song. Which was great in a this is hilarious way. Overall, it's depressing and too long - but it's Marvin Gaye, so not bad.

I've only heard Take It Easy, Witchy Woman, and Peaceful Easy Feeling before. They're all great. So now I can listen to the rest ... and they're all crap. I guess that's why I haven't heard them before. Well maybe they're not crap. They're safe and boring and a few are mildly annoying. 3.5

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out how to rate this. Every track is very good. The music is almost perfect for the genre, the lyrics full of emotion. The problem is I'm just not feeling most of the songs. There were 2 or 3 I enjoyed, the rest I can just acknowledge are songs that sound good. So a 3 for enjoyment and a 5 for technically great music. 4 it is.

More unnecessary Britpop. Yay. Although this sounds more like generic 90s alt rock than just Britpop. There's also the fuzzy guitar because all generic 90s bands had to try to sound like Nirvana to sell CDs. I noticed a lot of reviews say this sounds like Weezer. It does, only Weezer is much better. They could have put the Blue Album on the list instead of this. 2.5

It sounds like this album was shelved because it sucked and the band was falling apart. Then someone decided to release it years later. Shelving it was the correct thing to do. This album is half bad and half terrible. 1.5

Reggae just doesn't do anything for me. It's just there, I can listen to it as background music, but trying to actively listen is boring. This album does nothing to change my opinion. It's not bad, just boring.

The first side is bad to ok with the exception of Save the Life of My Child which is more rock than I thought Simon and Garfunkel was capable of doing. The second half is great. The last 3 tracks (especially Mrs. Robinson, my favorite S&G song) save the album.

I'm not sure what is supposed to make this special other than it's British and they needed to add something relatively recent to the latest edition to sell the book. It's ok. I didn't hate it, it's a bit boring. Krautrock vibes, which I liked. 2.5

Great harmonies, and you can't go wrong with Dolly. Dolly is one of a few country artists I like, but I still don't particularly want to listen to an entire album of it. 3.5

I grew up with this, so there's definitely nostalgia involved in this review. The synths put this firmly in the early/mid 80s. If you hate 80s rock, you'll hate this. I happen to like most 80s rock. I do feel like this is more heavier pop/new wave than hair metal. The difference between most hair metal bands and Van Halen is the other bands don't have Eddie Van Halen shredding every song. 4.5

So many people supposedly love this album that you kind of expect it to be great. And Hotel California (the song) is great. New Kid In Town and Life In The Fast Lane are pretty good. After that, the album is a bunch of mostly soft rock that is half ok and half boring. I'm still giving it a 4 just because of the title track.

This is a bit difficult. All 80s rap sounds dated and campy to some extent. The first 4 tracks are great up to Walk This Way (which is incredible, although I think that's more because of Joe Perry than Run-DMC). After that, it's dated 80s hip hop, a couple of tracks are ok, most are not. 3.5, and I'll round it up because of nostalgia.

The music was ok, but none of the tracks got my attention, so what I come away with are the negatives - the music was too busy and noisy at time, and I don't really like Elvis Costello's voice. Still, it wasn't bad background music.

This is a great album. A perfect blend of hip hop and R&B/Soul. The emotion behind each track elevates this to near perfect. The one criticism I have is the same as many 90s albums - it's too long. It gets a little repetitive in the middle. Just because a CD hold 76 minutes doesn't mean you have to use it all. 4.5

It noise and a lot of distortion. I get that is what the genre is, but I don't want to listen to it. The noise approached something resembling a song in some of the tracks, so it doesn't get the lowest score.

I've heard Karma Chameleon and nothing else on here. I now wish that were still true. Karma Chameleon is a great pop song. Everything else here is boring and slightly annoying. It's dated and the worst of the trends of the early 80s. Would anyone remember these guys if Boy George weren't so good at being Boy George?

I'm not a big fan of jazz, and while I like some hp hop, the ratings I have given out so far seem to indicate I really don't. So this shouldn't be good to me, but it is. What I do love is a good bass groove and every single track on this album has this. It's a near masterpiece. 4.5

I've managed to go decades without knowingly being exposed to Morrissey, so I can't comment on how big an asshole he is, but it's evidently massive. There are good and bad parts to this album. The music is pretty good, I'd call it above average 80s indie pop/rock. The lyrics at ok, I guess. Nothing that catches my attention. The vocals, though. Morrissey sounds like he's singing in an echo chamber. And the wailing gets old fast. Still, the music puts this slightly above average. 3.5. P.S. - Meat Is Murder (the track) is terrible.

This sounds like modern 60s psychedelic pop/rock. Definitely a Beach Boys vibe. The music is ok, but I'm not a big fan of the vocals. Too much droning, and the harmonies just sound off on a lot of the tracks.

George Jones has a good voice, and nothing on this album sounds bad. I just find country from this era a little boring.

There are some really good tracks on here, mostly the blues samples. There are also some really bad tracks. Overall, the good slightly outweighs the bad. 3.5

I'm not sure how Cohen's voice simultaneously sounds good and bad. I hate speak singing, but there are songs here where it isn't bad and others where it's annoying. There are great songs on this album and a few I don't care for. I'm just really not sure whether or not I like Cohen, but the great songs are more great than the bad songs are bad.

I've heard Lovefool, but not the rest of this. It's nice, mellow, somewhat weird pop. I like it more than I think I should. They turned a Sabbath song into something that belongs in a seedy off strip Vegas lounge act. Even better, it actually sounds good like that.

This is a really good blues album. My problem with blues is more with the genre in general - all the songs sound very similar.

There are a few great tracks on here, but the majority of this album is just ok. 3.5

Well, that's some shitty college radio rock from the 90s. The music is dull, the singing is bad, the "rapping" is terrible. Somehow, it's not the worst thing I've heard on this list so far. 1.5

So someone decided we needed American Britpop. It's just like every other Britpop album on here. Ok as background music to slightly annoying.

She does have a great voice, but I'm just not a fan of the jazz-like singing. It's decent background music.

My music journey started in the mid 80s with Genesis in the middle of their mainstream pop phase. I started working my way backward through their albums, getting more and more weird prog. Eventually I found Lamb and realized Peter Gabriel was there before Phil Collins. I knew him as the guy in the Sledgehammer video. It took me way too long to listen to his solo albums other than So. He's still the over the top showman from Genesis on this album. It starts with prog that would easily fit on Selling England By The Pound, then goes straight to pop with a little prog in Solisbury Hill, a masterpiece and the best track on the album. After that it gets stranger, but still listenable (except Excuse Me, what the hell is that?). Slowburn is better than average generic 70s rock. Here Comes The Flood is great and ends the album on a high note. Overall, a great album that is a bit too inconsistent and all over the place to get a 5.

It's strange how I generally don't like jazz that much, but jazz influenced hip hop is pretty good. This is an album with a few highs and a lot of the same thing that just goes on too long. Overall, it's above average. 3.5

This album ha some great tracks. It also has some just ok tracks, useless skits, and a whole lot of bloat. Cutting the bloat would make this an easy 5. As it is, I looked at where I was in the 24 (!?!) track list way too much for this to be great.

Did this just switch to a different album halfway through? First half - Incredibly good 60s/70s rock updated to what sells in the 00s. They took the best from Bowie and The Beatles and updated it in a way that it still sounds good, unlike the seemingly dozens of other albums like this that are on this list. 5 Second half - Exactly like those seemingly dozens of other albums. Updated psychedelic rock that sounds like every other generic indie album from this time. 3

Why is there so much shitty electronica on this list from the 00s? This one is a bit better than most of them. A few of the tracks made decent background music. 2.5

I think this one might be a little too British for me. The music is ok, but I just think it's boring. 2.5

Do we really need more "World" albums on this list that are put together by a white British guy? It's not the ripping off of other culture's music that is the problem really, it's that it is done so poorly. The music ranges from boring to bad, completely uninspired. The vocals are generally terrible, especially when Jah does it (Jah? white British guy). +.5 points for Visions of You, which is ok to good. I'm crediting Sinead O'Connor for that. Too bad it was the first track. It gave me false hope that this wouldn't be bad. 1.5

This is a really good album. Chapman's voice is great to listen to. The lyrics are very good. The music mostly works, but it all gets a little repetitive. The end of the album is not as good as the beginning.

There are some points where it sounds like this album is going somewhere, then it doesn't. A flash of a groove, then it's gone. Turn up the funk, turn down the jazz and soul, and this could be really good.

There's not a bad track on this album, and I don't even like folk that much. The harmonies are perfect, and the songwriting is pretty close to perfect.

This is a great album to just sit back and listen to the groove. I like the funk more than the soul, but it's all good.

This sounds like a soundtrack for a bad musical. Or maybe a bad copy of a Bond film. Too much orchestration and too theatrical for me.

Elton best album and an absolute masterpiece. The first half is nearly perfect (although I could do without Jamaica Jerk Off). The second half has a few duds, but it also has Saturday Night, so it balances out. -.5 for the duds. 4.5

In between Peter Gabiel's first solo album, where he is still doing the arty/proggy music like early 70s Genesis, and So, where he's gone full 80s arty/pop, comes this album where he's just arty. It's very Bowie with some Talking Heads, and still a bit of Genesis (complete with Phil Collins on drums for a few of the tracks). It may be in the middle of a transition, but it's a masterpiece. I think it's his best solo album, although So is close. Gabriel is the master of making experimental music sound mainstream.

There are some absolutely outstanding tracks on this album - Enter Sandman, The Unforgiven, and Nothing Else Matters are incredible. Sad But True and Wherever I May Roam are great. The rest? ok to somewhat good.

I've never heard of them. The description makes me think I'll hate it. And, it's pretty good. The music is really catchy. The vocals are good at times and a bit annoying at others. It is very Twee, but for some reason that doesn't make me hate it. It's a low 4.

This has some art rock, prog, arena rock, plus some fuzzy grunge guitars modernized a bit and wrapped in a big, bombastic, over the top package. It's incredible. 4.5

It's just like modern art, "art" rock I don't get. Sure there are a few good to very good tracks on here, but a lot of it is just noise. It seems overrated to me. I guess it's good that this exists to influence better artists and albums.

It's ok. Just ok. Not bad, but none of this is that interesting to me either. The problem is that at least a few other bands (who may or may not have been inspired by this album) did it better. There's also the late 60s issue with "wow we can record in stereo now, lets put two completely different instruments on left and right."

I don't think I had any British rappers prior to starting this list. I evidently hate British rap, or maybe I just hate Grime. This album is slightly better than the other I have heard. 1.5

My ears are fucking bleeding.

Rubber Soul seems to be the start of the transition for The Beatles from huge boy band (although with much more talent than any other boy band that has existed) to one of the best bands ever. There's still a bit of bubblegum pop on this album, and it knocks the score down a little. 4.5

More Britpop. Yay. Sort of punk this time. Like most of the Britpop on this list, it's completely average and shouldn't be on a list of albums you must hear. I didn't mind listening to it, but it's not something I'd go back to.

This is some great funky soul.

Just like the last Elvis Costello album I got, this is mostly uninteresting tracks and I still don't like his voice. This time there are 2 or 3 actually good tracks where I don't mind the vocals so much because the music is good. 3.5

They took all the drugs, didn't they? Mostly annoying with a few interesting parts.

The title track is great. There are 2-3 other tracks that are worth listening to. The rest is really dated synth pop. It probably sounded good in the 80s, but not now. 3.5

This is what experimental sounds like without any artistic vision. Or maybe you just need to be high to listen to this and get it. 2/3 terrible and annoying, 1/3 bad and somewhat annoying. 1.5

This may be the first Britpop album I've heard that kinda lives up to the "modern Beatles-like" sound that Britpop is supposed to be. It could be sort of like The White Album, all over the place and experimental, only not as good. There really a few really good tracks and a few that are a complete waste of time. 3.75 (almost a 4, but not quite there)

Somehow this is both annoying and good enough to be completely average.

Annoying with a few decent tracks. 2.5

There's nothing bad about this album, but the only thing I'd want to hear again is Time of the Season. Everything else is just ok. They sound like they couldn't decide if they wanted to sound like The Beatles or The Beach Boys, so they tried sounding like both. It didn't work out too well.

I thought this was great when it came out. It didn't age well at all. 2.5

How many bad British electronica albums can there possibly be? I'm pretty sure all of them are on this list. This one, surprisingly, isn't terrible. I was even mildly interested for a little while. Then I thought the album had to be near the end, but when I looked ... track 4. Of 14. This thing is way way way too long, but at least it isn't terrible.

I'm not sure I like industrial all that much. There are a couple of really good tracks and a bunch that are ok but nothing I'd want to listen to a lot. I suspect I need to be in the right mood to listen to this.

I'm not a big country fan, but this is Dolly. I noticed a distinct difference in the tracks that Dolly wrote, which are more varied and therefore more interesting, and the tracks written by Porter Wagoner, which are more traditional country. The Wagoner tracks are ok, mostly because I like Dolly's voice. I really enjoyed the tracks Dolly wrote.

I listened to this and don't remember a single track. My impression is bland, inoffensive, overly processed pop with a touch of country. So it sounds like Kacey Musgraves tried to go the Taylor Swift route to getting a lot of streaming listens/sales, but it's too generic to work. 2.5

I'm amazed I haven't heard this album before. That is some great prog.

What do you call this? Goth folk? I'm really not sure what to think about Nick Cave (other than dark and broody which describes every song of his that I've listened to). I had not heard of him before this list. One of the first albums the list gave me was Abattoir Blues. I really didn't like it. After I ended up liking Henry's Dream, I went back and upgraded Abattoir to "ok", but still don't like half of that album. So Murder Ballads is number 3. I shouldn't like this. The first comparison that pops into my head is Tom Waits, and I've hated every one of his albums that I have got so far. The music seems somewhat Cure like, which works well for me. The combination of incredible storytelling, Cave's voice, which works perfectly for this subject matter, and the goth-like music also fitting the subject matter perfectly makes this a great album. 4.5

This album starts off great, much better than I expected it to. Just the right amount of jazz influence in the soft rock. Then if does off fast after Reelin in the Years. Overall, it's better than I would have expected. 3.5

This is the most ridiculous over the top album I've ever heard. It's really good, and I don't know why. Just the right amount of piano rock, bombast, and camp all mixed together.

Two Steely Dan albums in three days is a bit too much Steely Dan. I'm honestly impressed that the first three Steely Dan albums sound like three different bands, all with a different mixture of jazz, rock, and pop with a bit of blues. They also all have 1-2 great songs, 1-2 good songs, and the rest ok. 3.5, and I guess I can round it up.

This album really doesn't belong on this list. Even Bowie doesn't need 9 albums, and this one is easily the worst one I've heard so far. "Worst" is relative though, this is still Bowie. For Bowie this is average at best. For anyone else, it's great. It's still one of the best 2010s albums I've heard on the list so far. The entire album sounds the same, after 14 tracks it is just a bit boring. 3.5

This definitely sounds like Queen and The Beatles (more Paul than John). It's a more pop oriented Queen. It's also more superficial than anything it sounds like. Not that that is bad, it's nice to just listen and not think deep thoughts.