Absolute crap. Some of the music/beats were good, but Ye can't sing, is a weak rapper, and is clearly a sociopath. I have no idea how he became popular. This is the crap that give rap a bad name

While not typically my style, I enjoyed this. Her voice was very good and the music wasn't the most simple 3-chord keyboard and cricket drums that are all over pop music these days. It won't likely be on my playlists, but I certainly wouldn't just turn it off like I would for most pop diva music.

Obviously, it's a classic album by a well-respected singer. It's just never been quite for me. Her soulful crooning is great and the harder rocking parts are good, but half the time the scratchy warbling throws me off. Bobby McGee is quite good. I've always thought Mercedes Benz was is a fun song, but honestly her voice grates on me and I never get more than halfway through it. The production is better than on her previous albums, but those rock a little harder, too. I do understand why people love her, but I never just think, "Hey! Let's play Janis Joplin."

I've only ever really heard the hits by them and never listened to a whole album. But even the non-single songs are pretty good. The guitars are really good and the rap vs singing call and response bits are unusually effective. Sometimes the longer bits of white boy rap falter and Chester does scream a bit too much. While I do like the singles and am ok with the others, I don't know that I'd just organically think, "Hey! I should listen to a Linkin Park album!"

Haven't listened to this album in over 20 years. Was surprised at how very mellow it really is. The first half is quite lowkey. It picks up by NIB, but I always recalled it being much heavier overall. Ozzy clearly doesn't have the best range or tone, but he was super Committed to the vibe. And that carries most of the songs. Let's be honest though, if this came out today, no record company would have given them an advance or a second album. Times have changed and it has to a banger and a seller or you are done. It's great to go back and listen to the originals as they worked to create heavy metal. The next two albums got chunkier and scarier quick.

Always wondered why the Ramones are so influential and memorable. I've heard some of their singles and they're... OK. 2 and 3 chord songs with good energy, but not really special. So I listened to this whole thing trying to keep my mind wide open, even trying to remember this was made 1976 and they were breaking ground for the punk movement. They do make a lot out of their simple song structures and the energy Is good. Admittedly way better than a lot of punks! But overall, it's too same-y throughout. tempo, energy, vocals, and the chuggy guitars all blend together. It almost sounds like one long song. If a song by them came on, I'd listen to it, I've even caught myself in the past singing "I wanna be sedated." But I sure wouldn't just decide to grab a Ramones album to listen to.

I find the Rolling Stones to be an odd band, in that every album has a single or two that are quite good, but the rest of the songs are mid at best and some are downright bad. Of course, it's hard to write consistently great songs for so long and you have to give them a lot of credit for having at least some hits on every album for 50 years. (Not in the last 10 or 20 as far as I know, though) This album is in their heyday and is always celebrated as groundbreaking. But almost all of the songs I find to be kind of same-y. Sure one's a little more country than blues, but it's still pretty close. The singles are good: Happy, Tumbling Dice, even Sweet Virginia. I'd listen if they came on. Perhaps these are the ones with a different producer?? Turd On The Run is horrible and Torn and Frayed grates on me. All of the rest are ok, like fine as background music or if I were at a bar and the band was playing these songs, it'd be fine, but I wouldn't throw money at them.

This is fun in small bursts. I've always like Frontier Psychiatrist. "You're crazy in the coconut!" But, like all purely sample based music, it gets too repetitive and annoying after just 2 songs. Can't imagine playing this album just to have a listen.

This was better than I expected as I thought they were just some indie punks or darlings that got a little attention then disappeared. But apparently they made more than a couple of albums and have somewhat of a following. I always appreciate it when people take chances and do experimental things as long as they keep some sort of melodic or memorable beat/riff/motif or something. Avant garde is good, but weird for the sake of weird is a usually waste. This is on that thin line for me. Most of it is listenable and interesting. Some cool bass bits and harmonizing. (But even that goes a little off-key sometimes.) "Ambulance" is annoying. It would be OK if the background people did a bit more, but it's just a horrendous roundabout that drives me bats. This is the most common problem on this album: they find a sound and just overdo it repeatedly. While a lot of it is fun or different, there's almost always one bit that is overdone. Most songs have a drone and it's OK when this is background music. But as an active listener, really looking for interesting bits and bobs, the drone somehow becomes more apparent and distracts. So, it's ok, but I don't think I'd ever just pull it up for a spin.

I was seriously doubting I'd like or even finish this album because of my previous listening to Pil. The "singles" they had put out were fairly atrocious and Johnny's voice is horrific. Sex Pistols at least gave a wall of sound and it kind of fit (for a song or two). I thought they only got albums made because of his notoriety and didn't give their musicianship much credence. So, with a finger hovering over the Next button, I got this album going. First song, Albatross, was pretty cool. Johnny's not screeching or yelling and the music is quite cool. A little atonal, but interesting. Overall, I like this album. Especially when Johnny is just talking or singing in a "normal" voice. It really sounds a lot like the early Bauhaus albums that came out about the same time; the musical style, tone, and metallic guitar. Of course, Peter Murphy is 10x the singer that Johnny is, but some of these songs sound quite similar. The best songs are the instrumentals like Socialist and Graveyard. Chant is unlistenable. I probably would have loved this if I'd heard it 30 years ago because it does fit into the post-punk, pre-goth, or industrial that came around then or right after. Perhaps some of those others were influenced by this, but I don't recall anyone saying that. It's not easy listening and I'm not sure when would be a good time to spin this up, but I added a few of the songs to my playlist and may even try a little more Pil now. I think it's a solid three, but will give it 4 because of it's historical and influential status

Truth to tell, I was not quite as annoyed as I thought I would be. Having only heard small bits of Bob's songs throughout my life, and a million people mocking his voice, I really thought I'd hate all of it. When I saw this come up as the album of the day, I was prepared to quit each song less than halfway through. But I got through the majority of them to leave a fair review. Perhaps since this is earlier in his career, his nasal twang is not as present as it is in some later recordings. Perhaps he leaned into it more later. I mean, it's not good or pleasant here, it just gets worse later. The big thing everyone says is that Bob is a poet. I mean... I guess. But they're so steamrolled by his weak singing and bad harmonica. He's no Charlie Musselwhite or John Popper. It come out blaring against the steady acoustic guitars. Many songs, like Blowing in the Wind and Masters of War, have some good imagery and turns of phrase. But I prefer the versions by other people. Even right now, I've gone back to play the songs to confirm the poetic nature, but can't listen through and just read the lyrics to say they're pretty good. I'll end with this. I appreciate the man's writing and the influence he's had, but I will never just put it on to have a listen.

Gotta admit my bias here. This type of music was one of my favorites at the time it came out, with me in my late teens and early 20s. And I liked Bon Jovi well enough, but nowhere near my favorite. I actually like the first Bon Jovi album more than this overall. The singles are probably better here, though. You Give Love A Bad Name & Livin' On A Prayer were always on the radio and played at parties and events everywhere. I still think Wanted Dead Or Alive is a great song from this time. Social Disease, on the other hand, is the poster child for everything people don't like about this sort of glam rock era. While I know it's not groundbreaking, influential music, my memories of it in the background of many great events make it a winner for me. I won't go seeking it, but when it pops up randomly I vibe with it happily enough.

It's ok. Kind of same-y throughout. Sounds like background music. First song reminded me of a tv theme maybe. I didn't really find anything annoying, but nothing stood out at all. Can't imagine a time anyone would say, "You know what we should listen to right now? Penguin Cafe!"

I liked this. Not dance music as some advertised it, but good chill-out music. Some cool bass lines. Don't love the ones with singing throughout, but they're not annoying. Just sort of take me out of the vibe. So Easy is good and my favorite was Röyksopp's Night Out. (Even though it is a tad bit jarring at the intro) I can imagine listening to this while working on something tedious to get me through OR just relaxing with some vibe-y music.

Never was a giant Pink Floyd fan, but respected that they broke ground and were definitely talented musicians. It was just a very rare thought for me to want to pull up a song or album by them. I wouldn't turn it off if it came and and I could vibe along with it but I rarely sought it out. Having said that, I have heard this full album a few times and think it's quite spectacular. I just wish I hadn't heard the "singles" so many times, so I could appreciate them all over again. While some folks deride Roger Waters' singing, it is just so fitting for this tale of a man sinking into madness. And David Gilmour is a damned treasure. He makes guitars cry and sing. It's amazing! Of course, some of the in-between songs are a bit weak because they're pushing the concept, but I'm only really bothered by The Trial. For those that dislike it because they're a bit confused by the structure/concept OR dislike the interstitial parts, you really should see the movie. It makes the whole story quite visible, understandable, and memorable. After that, in my mind anyway, this becomes the soundtrack to the movie (as opposed to the other way around, which it is) and it's far more enjoyable on the whole. I haven't seen it in some time and I'm not sure the animations will hold up to modern eyes, but it was amazingly well done for it's time. I don't imagine I'll listen to this whole album again... well, maybe once or twice. But some of the highlights will stick with me forever. It really is a piece of art.

It's really just OK with some forays into plain annoying. Cannot quite understand how this is groundbreaking, "seminal", and influential. Some of the songs sound a bit like 60's hippy-ish folk-laden tunes - Sunday Morning, All Tomorrow's Parties, I'll Be Your Mirror for example. "Heroin" is grating. The jangly guitars are good, but the drone in the background throughout annoys and whoever told Lou Reed he should be a singer was obviously riding the horse themselves. The end is a screechy mess. European Son is horrendous. I love a good instrumental jam... and even when folks go out on musical tangents and come back, kind of jazz-like. But this sounds like some children that picked up instruments with no training and just banged some shit out. Femme Fatal is well written and poorly sung. I've heard a few (apparent) covers of it, and it's a fine enough song. I actually had to doublecheck to see if these guys wrote it. I thought it was an older song. So, points for this one! Here's how I think this could be called influential - If I was 20 and I heard this, I might think, "If they can put this out there and make it big, then I sure as hell sure can!" Not influential as in, "One day I aspire to be that," but more like "Shit, I can do better than that, right now!"

Of course there's Zeppelin here. Widely recognized as groundbreakers and influencers, they're rock legends. Now, they've never really been one of my favorites even though I love rock, hard rock, metal, all of it. It's just that I wasn't there in their heyday when they were breaking ground. I was more excited by the 1st and 2nd generation bands that were influenced by them. These guys were older, radio staples and I thought they were OK. As I go older, I realized that they really were ground breaking and I can appreciate them more. Let's talk about this album in particular though. (It's so hard to listen to this with fresh ears because I've heard some of these songs like 1000 times on the radio.) Mostly, it's good. I wish the mix was better because everyone loves John Paul Jones' bass playing, but it's often lost in the mix. The rhythm section of him and Bonham is exceptional. Pocket Kings. Thank you and Ramble on, the least rocking of the songs, are the best of them somehow. While some folks blast Whole Lotta Love as noisy or indulgent, I think it's quite cool. They're doing things here that you weren't hearing anywhere else. And it's not noise for the sake of noise like that crap on the Velvet Underground album It's a classic and I won't turn the off if they come on the radio, but I also don't see myself firing it up to listen to the whole thing. Still giving it a 5 because of it's significance and even though it's not My favorite, I can sure understand why it is for a lot of people.

This was better than expected. I'd listened to some album by firehose before and thought it was just screechy, maybe punk-folk. This was much better. Production is better and the singer has rounded off some of the shriekier bits. Mike Watt is a great bass player, no doubt. This seems like what an REM and Meat Puppets collab might sound like in their early days. No album really Needs a drum solo, definitely not two!

I always found it to be the least interesting of the modern/middle-era Bowie albums. Still better than his first 2-3 though before he shook off the folksy thing. (Laughing Gnome, anyone?) Truth is I might have only listened to the whole thing 2 times then forgot about it. Listening to it twice in the previous 24 hours has made me rethink that! It's got a lot of fairly intricate musicianship going on, especially the pianos and synths. The regular band (Spiders!) are here and they added a jazzy/groovy keyboardist that really changed things up here. None of it really jumps out and hooks me in, but listening intently to almost all it, there are great bits to be heard. There really was no need to cover Let's spend the night together. I will definitely come back to listen to this again. I think it's a grower.

Chugga Chugga Chugga is what's written on a note in the Metallica exhibit at the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame. I do love some palm-muted chugga chugga, but not for an hour. As everyone says, the mix is really bad. Low bass with up front, mostly tinny drums. But that's not why you're really here, right? It's those chunky, thrashy guitars. Good on them for all of those insane quick changes, starts and stops. Those guitars rip it up. Just needs a little more change-up throughout. One is one of my favorite rock songs ever. It's got dynamics. ("Johnny got his Gun" is a great and horrible little movie.) Listening to this all at once, I give it a 2.5. Listening to a song or two at a time would let me give it a 3.5. Sot's getting a 3, but "One" gets a 5!

As a youth, I bucked against the Beatles. They were so popular but their music seemed so thin to me. (Because I never really listened to it deeply). Albums with songs like this were my main defense. Simple, peppy pop born from the early 60's leading to screaming throngs of young girls. Boo! As I grew older and more musically sophisticated, I was able to get to know them through later albums like Abbey Road, the white album, and Revolver. There is some wonderful music there! I could understand why people loved the Beatles. They were revolutionary and they did create new pathways for music to grow into. But I still never got into these first few albums. Listening today I can hear the kernel of genius filtered through the pop sensibilities and what was generally accepted at the time. While I can't really imagine popping this on for a listen, I'll at least give it the respect it's due. Without this, there never would have been those deeper, evolved albums.

I often lament the death of music, rock n roll in particular. Part of the complaint is that most popular music doesn't have a lot "real" instruments. Just a keyboard and a drum machine with some young diva yowling or some rapping. No bridges, no time changes. Blech! Oh, and a conversation from just a day or two ago about what concept albums are. Tricky to pull off, but when good, they can be great! (Operation Mindcrime, The Wall, Pink World and more.) Then along comes this pop diva that I had written off as the same old (new) thing because I'd only ever heard Tightrope and it falls into that blech territory. But this is actually quite interesting. All kids of musical instruments, all sort of genre hopping, and it's a concept album! Serious credit to this young lady for taking these chances. I don't know that she got as much credit for all of that. I certainly never heard anything about it. (I read a lot of music news and am always seeking new, good music.) While I do give her all that credit, it's still a bit out of my wheelhouse. I don't imagine I'd listen to it more than once or twice again. But for folks that are younger that have been raised on simple beats and cicada drums, this might get them to explore a bit. I want to give it 4 stars to attract attention to it and show respect for the gumption it took to do this in the modern music environment, I have to score it based on how much I liked it and would I listen again.

Chris Cornell is an amazing rock singer, absolutely one of the best! And while I like most grunge era bands, Soundgarden wasn't always on my playlists. I like the singles and they were probably singles because they had the best production. Even as they progressed, some of this stuff sounds muddy. This is a good album with some great songs, but as many have said, it's a few songs too long. "Half" would be the first to go. I'll listen when some of these pop up in a retro or grunge playlist, but I won't be seeking it out.

Mostly bad. Childish lyrics with simple rhymes trying to be dirty and shocking. Poorly done. I will give credit to the musicians because this is mostly pretty good music. But Ian cannot sing a tune. He's horrible. I'd only ever heard Sex and Drugs and Rock n Roll and thought it was a fun song, but listening to it and it's worse siblings for an hour is a chore.

I've always liked Yes, even though Jon Anderson's voice grates on me sometimes. The musicians on this album are fantastic! Drummer Bill Bruford, guitarist Steve Howe, and keyboardist Rick Wakeman are all masters of their craft. But Chris Squire is an absolute legend! He's one of the greatest bassists in all of rock history. Not just his solid backbone, awesome fills and "lead bass" moments... but the tones he wrung out of the instrument are sterling. I really only love half of this album though. Something about the lead 18 minute track sets me off and I almost never finished it. There are great bits, but overall, I don't know. But "And You and I" and "Siberian Khatru" are great. This is a truly representative prog album! Amazing musicianship with long meander-y songs that sometimes get a little lost in translation, I guess. Wish I could have seen this lineup live!

Good old classic rock. The highs here are excellent, but some of the songs are treacle, pop songs with no distinguishing merit aside from the fact that they're not particularly annoying. (Wasted Time) The song "Hotel California" is a classic rock staple that I must have heard literally 1000 times. And I still don't hate it. "Life in the Fast Lane" is simply a really good rock song. Great musicians doing solid work here. I don't ever go out of my way to listen to this band, but I would rarely turn it off if it plays.

I get that it was fairly groundbreaking for dance music, EDM, and the like. But it's a little too same-y throughout. I couldn't see myself listening to more than one song at a time. There isn't anything that makes me want to turn a song off here, but two or more... I'm out! I like some others of this genre, and they may well have been inspired by this, but I thought it was a genre that evolved a bit later. (And of course there were a lot of shit imitators, too!)

Second Stones album on my list here. And just like for "Exile on Main Street" I like it more than I thought I would. I have tried some Stones albums in the past, but found that while the singles were good, most of the rest was just mediocre blues riffing. Perhaps my tastes have changed and/or mere exposure has me liking it more now. Half of the songs here are worth repeated listening - Brown Sugar, Can't you hear me knocking, Wild Horses, Bitch. I just love the extended "Can't you hear..." because the radio edit always cuts that off. I love Improv jamming. I'll listen to this again.

While I had heard the name Youngbloods, I didn't know who they were. Upon research I found they did "Get Together" which is a pretty good classic rock song. Overall I really like this album. While there's not much that makes me go "WOW! That's different", I could definitely see myself playing this while relaxing, working or driving. It's a smooth feel with some interesting instrumentation. This is one of the best reasons to take on this 1001 challenge... finding interesting new (or old) music to listen to. I especially love the instrumental jams. This is sort of like if the Grateful Dead were both a little more commercial and jazzy.

I like Primal Scream, but somehow never heard this album. I do like it It is a weird merge of their neo-hippy groove and more modern electronica. It doesn't always work, but overall it's a good mix. Not too many standouts but it's a really good background album. You don't need to be actively listening and deciphering lyrics. It's a vibe. Trainspotting is a great highlight. Nice instrumental. I'll play this again.

Gotta love the funk... and I do, but in small doses. This album is definitely a vibe, a great party background mix. They really are great musicians, and they're having a lot of fun. It's just that it can be a bit... much. It's hard to say what songs are best or worst because the album isn't on any streaming service except YouTube. I found the album but no track listing. Finding the listing elsewhere didn't help much because it's often hard to tell when one song starts and another begins. And I didn't have the energy to listen That intently. It's funky, it's cool. I like it. But when am I going to listen to it? Probably never in its entirety. It's exhausting.

I've always known Chicago was a rock band before the 80's-90's pop music phase. And while I knew a few of the classic rock singles from the before times, I did not know they were This much of a rock band. Ripping guitars, great rock band, with added horns. Super cool. Like most folks, I scratch my head at adding Free Form Guitar to the middle of this. I could see it at a live show or on a live album, maybe. But here it's just pretentious, show-offy nonsense. Kath is a great guitarist, but this is self-indulgent. I'm likely to listen to this album again. Not on repeat, mind you. But I do think it's worth listening to.

So many Rolling Stones albums! That might sound like a complaint, but as someone who was just OK with the Stones, but wouldn't go out of my way to buy or listen to them, it's been eye-opening. As for this album, the first half is far superior to the second half. Much of the second half just sounds like a bar band doing straight-ahead old-school blues. I find it to be weak and uninteresting. The exception is the extended play out of Going Home. That jam at the end is pretty good. Listening to the full Stones albums over the last month or two has made me appreciate their experiments and modernization of old blues. Their earlier albums were young British dudes trying to be like old US blues guys and I'd say not too well. But I guess it got them in the door enough that they had time, money, and resources to experiment and make some great music. I'll listen to the singles from this album, but I don't think I'd listen to the whole thing again. Overall, the album's a three, but Paint it Black is a 4 and Under My Thumb is a fine five!

It's ok. More solid songs than a lot in this genre. But, I find that like most electronica, it gets to feeling a bit same-y. They do throw in some glitchy, cool sounds, but it's quite repetitive. Some of the bass bits are interesting too. (Esp. in Phantom Pt. II) I guess if I was in a club or party (and tripping) this would be great vibe-y music. I cannot think of another time I'd want to take this album for a spin. Bonus note: The video for "Stress" is stressful. Showing the ugliness of humanity. It's horrible and hate-filled.

It's not for me. I don't like almost any punk. While I love the energy of a lot of punks, I respond better to quality musicianship. Bands should sound like they work at it, that they want to get better. This is better than a lot of 'em I've heard though. When they lean more reggae, it's better. The production seems minimal and if it was a little better, I think I'd appreciate the musicians more. There some interesting musical bits, but the singing takes it all down a peg. Ari Up has had quite a life and I'm sure she's super interesting, but I can't give her high marks for singing. Giving it a 2 instead of a 1 because while it's not for me, I can understand why someone would like it and there are some interesting twists along the way. Don't imagine I'd ever listen to this again.

It's Ok. Not something I would listen to normally. I do find it to be better than most folk I've listened to, but the woman singer leans into some classic folk tones and it sounds performative more than authentic. The guitars are decent and that's what raises it above common folk boredom. Not much that's bad or annoying, but nothing to grab me either. Did really like the guitar bit at the beginning of Calvary Cross, though. The least folk-y, best song is probably the title track. Prolly wouldn't listen to it again.

I wasn't much of a Depeche Mode fan when they were making albums. While I very much enjoy the music of the time, including most goth and electronica, they just didn't grab me. Seemed a little arty but without real soul. My wife loves them so I hear it more than I would have on my own and have learned to like some of what they do. Truth is they do make some interesting music and both singers have good voices. This is overall quite a good album. I was only annoyed by one or two songs, Sacred and Little 15. While I might not choose this album for myself, I'm sure I'll be hearing it again soon when driving with my wife. I will give this album a 4 because it is all pretty good. Even if some is not made for me, I appreciate why folks love it.

I very much like this album. Completely loved their first album and I still think it's better than this one. Somehow it sounds a little more mature to me. But this one is quite good too. I also like Urban Hymns and wish I hadn't heard Bittersweet Symphony so many times that I skip it now. This one though, I love the wall of sound vibe. It feels warm and encompassing. I don't even have to know all the lyrics. I just play it and let it flow over me. (I could skip the title track though. It's the one that's too noisy and repetitive. Not the worst. Just not as good.) I've always loved Richard Ashcroft and his vocal stylings. In truth I find his first 2 solo albums to be equal to these Verve albums. They're just a bit different, but equally awesome. While I love songs like Brainwave Interlude for the jamming, I can sure understand why someone wouldn't like it. Everything is not for everybody. I do think this album belongs on the Listen before you die list. Will surely be listening to it a few more times before I go.

It's ok. A little too soft and over-produced. I don't get a vibe or feeling of authenticity from any of it. While none if it is annoying, it's almost elevator music for me. I hear the second part rocks a little more. I might try that later. Won't be listening to this one again, though

I generally love music for this time, specially the post-punks, emos, and goths, but I never really listened to much Joy Division, That's probably because their popular songs didn't do much for me. But, now thanks to listening to this I can honestly say. I hate Joy Division! Actually, I hate Ian Curtis. Sorry he died. Yes, it's sad. But he CANNOT sing at all! People say his songwriting is deep and this was a suicide note. Maybe, but I can't stand to listen him do this robo radio announcer voice talk-singing. When he does try to actually sing sing, his voice quavers and he's off pitch. Crap! It's actually unfair to the band that he's so bad. When the album starts, there are some good drums. Good vibe. Then the bass does some cool, fiddly bits. I think, Hey! Maybe I've missed out. Maybe JD is good. And then that wanker comes in and flushes the whole thing. I keep listening because that's the game here. There are some cool guitar noises. Sometimes sounding like a chainsaw. Interesting choices. While it's sometimes noise-y, it's on purpose and it's different. I'm in. And then that wanker comes in and flushes the whole thing. I keep listening. 3rd and 4th song, while I don't appreciate the way they've squashed the drums to be tinny, it sounds like some decent music. And then guess what happens? Wanker! I can't finish this album. It's annoying. I'd listen to the instrumental versions for sure. Or them with a different singer... sure, I'd try it. And I know the rest went on and were New Order, but they didn't play this style of music - less guitars and way more keyboards. It is Ok, but not for me. But that's for a whole different review. I will not be listening to this album ever again and I will break things in order to be sure of that. I'm going to give it a 2, but that's for the band. (I'd love to give them a 3 or event 4, but he's so bad, he ruins even their better qualities.) This album is practically unlistenable. Ian Curtis get's a -5. Wanker!

This is pretty good. Don't feel like I wasted my time listening to it twice. It's straight ahead rock stuff by some Baltic folk that listened to a lot of Ramones and probably a bunch of 80's metal. All around the music is good, driving Rock n Roll. The singing isn't bad. No awards for it, but nothing annoying and it fits what they're doing. I don't imagine I'll listen to this more than... one more time in my life when something reminds me of it. But it's fun. 3.5 stars really, but gotta give whole stars here and it's really not ever going to be a 4-star, let's listen to this again and again album.

Man, this is a hard one for me to be objective because I have spent my whole life just hating the Doors. When I saw it pop up, I audibly groaned. However, perhaps over time, as my music tastes have evolved in many ways, I've become more accepting. Hell, I listen to the Rolling Stones on purpose now! I still don't like most of it. The problem with the Doors for me is Jim Morrison. While he's an interesting songwriter, his voice just grates on my soul. I hate it! I'm not 100% sure why. He's not whiny, nasally, or weird. Objectively, it's a fine, middle-of-the-road voice. It's kind of loung-singer-y at times and arrogant somehow in a very off-putting way. I know a lot of folks love him and that's cool. But it has always bugged me so much that I can hardly listen to the music. So, I listened with an open mind and some of this music is really good. Structurally sound, sometimes experimental, sometimes retro. A little heavy on the up-front keyboards for me, but it's fine. I would probably love "Peace Frog" if someone else sang it. The music is cool. I didn't quite hate Morrison's voice on "Ship of Fools". None of that yelling, swaggery shit he's usually throwing. Those are the high points for me. I can guarantee that I won't be listening to this again. Will give it a 2 because it's not garbage. It's just not for me. Some of the music is quite good. Probably a good album for everyone to hear once. sure.

Thxx is prexxy gxxd! Never heard of the album or the band before. It hits nicely as a mellow, subtle groove thing. Obviously not party music or anything. It sounds like it will get better as I listen more. Only twice through this week, but I'll be coming to listen and maybe check out some of their other stuff. While I definitely liked the opener, the moment I wasn't concentrating 100% on listening, I could hardly tell when one track ended and another began. Going to give it a 4 because nothing here stuck out as bad and it is quite listenable. But there's nothng here to warrant a 5 either.

It's ok for me. I don't really like folk, except for the occasional crossover that breaks some traditional folk rules. I've heard the singles from this hundreds of times and I probably like them just because of mere exposure. Don't like the folksier tunes here and there's just something about his voice that I like and dislike. I like that it's distinctive and has an odd lilt to it. But then I can't stand it after just 2 or 3 songs. Like a good appetizer, but not good for a whole meal. I'll give it a 3 recognizing that in the world of pop rock it usually gets and deserves a 4 or more. But on here, this is what I like and would I listen again. It's a 3 Probably will never listen to this whole album again. It's fine, but it's just not for me.

It's not my favorite Clash album but it does have it's moments. While they later dove more deeply into alternative styles, here it's mostly a little too same-y for repeated listening. Some stuff is great. I like Strummer's voice and attitude. Guitars are decent with some fun bits thrown in. (Which is crazy for punks who seemed to pride themselves on being untaught and unskilled.) I'll definitely listen to some of these songs again, but not usually all together. Want to give it 3.5 because of it's historical nature, but when pressed to round up or down, I have to round down here just because I don't really feel it's something I'll have on repeat.

Gotta appreciate their commitment to the bit. Young guys in 2000 channeling their favorite 80's metal dudes. It's fun in very small doses, but does wear thin. I love the genre and the originals theses guys are emulating, but I'd rather hear those originals. I can even get behind high, sometimes screechy vocals a la Geddy Lee, but Geddy brought more to the show. In an interview these guys were saying how anomalous the single "I believe in a thing..." was because they just think of themselves as a rock band and that was just an inch from parody. It almost didn't get onto the album. But I don't find it believable. Most of the songs lean that way - a blender full of glam metal tropes pushed to 11. (Although yes, in the video, they knew they were overdoing it on purpose.) I do kind of like "Friday Night" because there's less of the screechiness and he even sounds a little like... can I say this? Robert Smith. It's almost "Friday I'm in Love"! Gotta give this a two because truthfully the music is not bad. They're decent 80s-90s metal rockers. But it's gotta have more heart for me to want to listen again. There's no There there.

I'd heard some of Bob Mould's stuff in the past and always thought it was just Ok. Nothing that blew me away and sometimes it veered a little annoying. His Sugar project rounded off some the spikier parts and is quite listenable. Having seen some reviews talking about their favorite songs, I'm a little confused because mostly I can't tell when one stops and the next begins. Like each song itself, the whole of it melts into a wall of sound. It's a fine wall of sound, but it's not super memorable. An example would be the Verve's Storm in Heaven, which is a wall of sound, soundscape-y album, but it practically begs me to listen to it actively. So, I like this and will likely put it into rotation on random playlists, but don't imagine I'd queue it up to listen to all the way through. Let's call it a 3+

Pretty good stuff, but clearly not for everybody. I'm usually in for some good Irish (or Scottish, or any of the Brits) traditional-ish music. I love a good reel or jig, especially when reworked/updated with modern sensibilities. Have heard of the Pogues for years, but never really dove in. Happy for this reminder. I'm not a great fan of Shane's voice, sometimes its better than others, and only rarely does it reach an annoying level. (I find a large bit of "Medley" to be kind of annoying - forced) It's just not pretty and sometimes that works fine. The music is very well done! Again, I like the traditional structures, sounds, and instruments being used in a modern way. Great blending. "Metropolis" is a great instrumental. "Fiesta" reminds me of The Mighty Mighty Bosstones, or is that the other way around. Seems to be from the same years. "Fairytale of New York" has some "interesting" lyrics for an Xmas song. :) I'm not sure when I'll listen to this again. It's a rare mood where I think about digging into semi-traditional Irish music) but I definitely know I will. Giving this a 4 because the music is solid and the playing is fairly exceptional. Good energy.

I'd heard the singles way back in the 80's and sometimes since and I thought this was just another slick, overly-polished 80's band. I mean, I like the 2 songs well enough, but it's not something Great. I am going to revise my thoughts now. because I never really did listen to this whole album before and now I must say, I quite like it. First, yes it is wildly over-produced. It's so slick it hurts sometimes. But the music is actually good. I honestly hadn't even heard the bass bits before, but this guy is smoking! The synths are a bit much sometimes and the fake drums are not my favorite, BUT overall it's still really good music. I've always liked his voice and he comes up with some great turns of phrase. When I think of Albums You Have to Hear Before You Die, I don't automatically think this would be here. But if you want to capture a moment from the early 80's in one album, this is definitely a good choice. (This and what, Spandau Ballet maybe?) Giving it a 4 because it's solid and does represent a moment in time pretty well. But that overly slick production and fake drums drops it just a bit. I imagine I'll listen to this once or twice again in my life.

For no actually, good reason, I always thought of Deep purple as a second tier band. They're no Zeppelin or Queen. They're just a middling rock band with a couple of hits. I thought this even though hundred of people and reviews I've read place them squarely at the upper echelons of rock. My bad for not digging in a bit more. This is such a quality album. The music is really good throughout. Ian Gillan has serious pipes and I actually quite like Jon Lord's keyboards. (Have to admit I rarely heap praise on keyboardists. Seems like the least rocking of the available rock instruments.) Richie Blackmore is all over the place, especially wildly at the beginning of Speed King. When I first saw it, I was wondering why they picked this fairly early number with no real hits. But I'm glad it's here. I'll listen to this again.

I tried. I really tried. Over the years of hearing how great Joni is, I had tried a few times to listen with an open and objective mind. And then I was given this one more chance. This will be the last time. How do people like this? Her voice is So Damned Annoying!! She twists words in weird ways and warbles and shrieks. It's so hard to listen to. Usually, when I listen to something I don't like, I can at least kind of understand why people might like it. But this woman is cacophonous. Singing differently than other people do is Not enough to make you a genius. Some people with unique voices or a different sort of training are geniuses. But it's not just that it's different that makes it amazing. Right? I will not be listening to this ever again. I don't recommend that you do either, but Hey! Maybe you're one of the ones with that gene in them that somehow makes this sound good to their ears. (Or maybe it's me that has the Hate Joni gene, like the folks that can't eat cilantro because it tastes like soap to them.) I usually give an extra star for historical significance or influence, even if I don't like the album. In this case, though, I'm so annoyed by the whole thing that she doesn't even get that. 1 star for Joni!

I had already listened to some Cramps music in the past and liked it enough to listen a few times. I don't love this album, though. It's just a bit too noisy and punk-y for me. I think they made this before they had any real mastery over their instruments. They got better as the years went by and more albums came out. I'm not generally a big fan of punk or rockabilly, although there have been some bands that made it work. The cramps Can make it work, but at this point in their young careers, it was... not good. I'll give it a 2 because it's not terrible. It's just something that would call me back to listen again. And if I did have an urge to hear this style of music, I'd grab a later album by them.

This is one of my favorite albums ever. Impossible for me to listen to with new ears because I know every word and every riff and lick. Yes, this is an album everyone should hear at least once, 5 times, a hundred. Perry does have a bit of a nasal voice, unique. And I get why some people might not like it. But he is a very good singer. He can milk the notes, change the words to fit the music, and brings good emotion. As a songwriter, he's fantastic! Amazing imagery and insights as to what it is being human. Dave Navarro is a singular guitar player. He can shred, can vibe, can make you have all the feels. Stephen Perkins is a wild drummer with great timing, and a hypnotic tribal aspect. (Check out Banyan, too.) Eric A. is often noted as a bass player's bass player. He finds a groove, in the pocket, and just draws you down into it. This is smart music, driven by a frenzied youth determined to make you feel something. I want to write a thousand words to get you to listen to this, but nobody reads that much (and it's late and I'm tired.) This is a 5 of 5 album, a 98 of 100 album, and an album you should listen to a few times to make sure you're hearing it all. Because there's always a lot going on here.

World Beat before it was cool. This is Ok. Kind of fun with many unusual instruments and choices. And not speaking the language, I can't understand the lyrics, and it's important for me to know and enjoy what they're signing about. I wouldn't have this in any rotation. It's ok. Just not for me.

Much like Deep Purple which I reviewed a few days back, I always considered The Who to be a second tier band. I know it's not fair and there are millions of Who fans that would hit me for saying it. But that's just how they show up in my life. There are some great songs that were (are?) always on classic rock stations, but I didn't go buy these albums or listen to them in their entirety. Obviously, I've heard of Tommy as it's often noted as one of the greatest rock albums and concept albums, and musicals. Outside of the singles, I hadn't heard most of these songs and, as it turns out, that was Ok. Most of them are kind of Roger sing-talking the storylines. There are no classic Daltrey grunts, growls and yells until about halfway through the whole thing. I mostly like Overture and Underture :) but they are both 25% too long and a bit repetitive. It's Ok. The singles were solid, but I think most of their best music is found elsewhere.

This really is a great album. It was a rocket in the mid-90's. The songs were all played on repeat everywhere you went. And, given all that, I still like it! "You Oughta Know" has guitar by Dave Navarro and bass by Flea of Red Hot Chili Peppers! And the other songs have Chris Chaney on bass. That guy is on about 100 albums in different genres and is always good. She has an interesting voice and she adds a lot of little inflections and embellishments. In most singers I'm annoyed by too much of them (Looking at you Mariah Carey and the ilk!) but I very much like most of Alanis's choices. I sure do wish that "All I Really Want" was a little deeper in the album because I don't think it's the best presentation of her various vocal quirks/choices. I like the song, but I think most folks would be better served to hear some of the other songs first, then when you get to this one, you'd be be better prepared for those bits. I very much like "Perfect" because I don't know any other song that delves into that particular emotional scarring. And it's well done. I know "Ironic" doesn't contain many ironies, but let it go! It's a good song anyway. Definitely will listening to this one at least 10 more times in my life.

It's a great album! My Dad really loved a couple of the singles, so I heard this since I was a kid. When I got a little older I listened through the whole thing and it's mostly great. Must agree with most people here saying the Variations and "Blues, pt 2" really stick out badly and prompt a "Why the hell would you put this here?" vibe. David Clayton-Thomas' voice is great - strident and emotional. I love the mix of jazzy, progressive. rock instrumentation throughout this album. I've listened to it maybe a dozen times in m life and I'm sure to listen to it again for a few. Want to give it a 4.5 because of those three left-field songs. But since there are no half-measures allowed, I'm going to give it a 5 becuase the ones I like, I really like!

I quite love the White Stripes, but I prefer the next 3 albums more than this one because they have just enough more polish to make them re-listenable. Now, I get why some people like/prefer this. It's raw and almost punk-y in places. But without a little production, Jack comes off as a howler, a bit of a screecher sometimes. I cannot abide. I have come to like "Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground" quite a bit, as I think it's the most "mature" sounding song on the album. "Hotel Yorba" is pretty good, but I wish he wasn't quite so whiny. "Fell in Love with a Girl" could be great, but he seems to be channeling Johnny Lydon here and it's off-putting. "We're Going to Be Friends" is listed as a Kid's song on many lists. Ok. But this shows that Jack can sing without being annoying. And the last song I'll point at here is "Little Room" Who would let Jack do this abomination?? While it's not my favorite White Stripes album, I have come back to it a couple of times and it's grown on me. Congratulations to all of the A&R folks that saw greatness in unpolished bands. I would have passed on the Stripes if all I heard was this or, god-forbid, the previous albums first. But then the world would not know the joys of their later albums and Jack's solo stuff. 4 out 5

Not bad. I generally don't like punk too much. I love the energy and the grit, but I dislike the "proud I don't know how to play this" ethos. These guys know how to play though! Overall it's pretty good. (Especially the horns!) I don't love the guys voice. Mostly it's just Ok, but occasionally he leans into the punk vibe and it's a bit screechy/whiny. I miiight come back to listen to this again sometime. It's a solid 3 for me.

I liked it well enough. Like Trip Hop, but mellow(er). It would be good background, chilling music. Doesn't require actively listening. It does tend to all run together though. I'd say I'll listen to this again, but it's doesn't really call out to me. So, if I don't put it on a playlist now, I may never run across it again. After listening, I got some random songs and a few others by Goldfrapp and they were a little more energetic and good. May have to dig into the catalog. I'm going to give it a 4 even though it's between a 3 and a 4. There's really nothing wrong with any of it. It's just not super-grabby. But you know, a time and place for everything!

Not my typical thing, but I don't hate it (with some exceptions below). I'd heard the name before, but never thought to listen to any of their stuff. I thought they were 60's pop, and that's not really wrong. They do have a little bit more edge on most of the songs than I'd expected. I do like this version of "Stepping Stone" as it's a little grittier. "There's Always Tomorrow" and "Little Girl in the 4th Row" are annoying to me. "SS 396" is a flat-out Beach Boys song. "Corvair Baby" pretty much is, too. While I know some folks like that stuff, I find it boring. The other 9 or so songs were not bad. If it was playing at a place where I was eating, I'd think it was fine. But I don't imagine I'll be seeking it out anytime. Let's call it a 3

It's ok. Better than a lot of pop because there's a bit of musicality behind, but even that is all keyboards. Her voice is pretty good, but it's always in the exact same register/timbre, so it's all too same-y. I do like the one song the guy sings on more. Nothing here calls me back to listen again. Giving a 2 because it's not overtly bad. It's just boring and kind of generic

Lenny is pretty cool. He definitely leans heavily into his inspirations, which is a plus and a minus. It gives his music a solid background of musical history, but then it doesn't usually feel too original. I guess the list guy chose this album because its the debut that brought Lenny to the world, but Mama Said and Are You Gonna Go My Way seem to be better all-around albums to me. I think it's because there are more musicians bringing their parts to life. (And you have to give him some credit for playing everything here.) Did you notice how for each and every song Lenny pretty much sings the title over and over? Some have many more lyrics, but they all do share this one thing. Not that it's a wrong thing to do, just weird. (To an annoying extent on "I bult this garden for us.") I'm sure I've listened to this album more than a couple of times in the past, but usually prefer the next two and have listened to those more. But I'd say this is a worthwhile listen. I want to give 3.75 stars. Guess it's getting a 4

I never got much into Jimi even though I am guitar freak. I appreciated that people loved and respected him AND I'd read enough about him to think he was a great person. It's just that none of the music grabbed me. Over time I grew to like some of the songs, but I don't think I ever really just thought "Let me throw some Hendrix on!" Listening to this was an eye-opener because I think most of the songs sound a bit different from the three songs you usually hear on the radio or wherever. Mitch Mitchell is a great drummer, but it's usually a little muddy in the production. Must have been great live! He brought a lot of the jazziness that showed up here, for sure. "Up From The Skies" is really good and I can hear where Stevie Ray Vaughan got his inspiration from. "Little Wing" is a fantastic song and I've liked pretty much every cover I've heard of it, too. I bet I'll listen to this album again.

I don't know, man. Is it a Must Listen? Nah. It's ok, especially if you love the 80's and keyboards. But, it's a little too same-y throughout. Not much that bugs me, except the 2 in the middle that are super repetitive. (Not going to go back and listen yet again, but the one about killing a guy in a minute. and the next one.) Their voices are fine, even adding some drama through inflection now and again. Could give it a 2.5 because it's not really bad and it does point musically at a point in time as a good representative. But if I'm asked to round on this one, I have to round down.

For no good reason, I've always had a sort of bad feeling about CSN&Y. I never particularly disliked any of the guys. I think Neil Young is a genius and I very much like Graham Nash's work. Crosby and Stills I thought of as middle-of-the-road, 70's, light rockers with nothing too interesting about them. That's not fair and I don't know where I got that from. This album plays like a Greatest Hits album. I was surprised that I know like 6 out of these 10 songs. I guess it's because they trade off on the vocals and play in slightly different styles. While none of it gets me Super Jazzed and jumping around the room, I do like most of it and would definitely listen again. "Carry On" is a great song. I had heard, but didn't know was from here. I'd heard "Teach your children well" but thought that was as solo effort. I generally hate steel guitars, but it's not as Western as it usually presents. People seem to know and like "Almost cut my hair" but I don't think I ever heard it and I'd be Ok not to hear it again. The music is pretty good, fire-y, but I think it's a bad vocal performance. "Woodstock" is a great song. Happy to see someone take the horror-show of Joni Mitchell and make good music out of it. When I first saw this pop up, I was thinking this was probably going to be a 2 album, but after having listened a couple of times, I have to give it a 4. Not my favorite type of music really, but so well done, I gotta do it.

I like going through the Roxy Music evolution. Hadn't listened as much to the first couple of albums because none of it really grabbed me the first time or two. But they started here, with this punk-y attitude and art-school confidence. Then they had a period where they were more of a rock band, while still adding a bunch of interesting "art rock" sorts of experimentation. I was happy they lost the punk vibe. Ultimately landing on a smooth, elegant rock vibe (Avalon!) which is fantastic. So, going back and listening to this album for the first time in years was an interesting ride. I forgot how punk-y it was and how much Brian Ferry sounded like David Byrne at times. Why oh why, on "If there is something" are they trying so hard to be the Grateful Dead. (First half of it anyway) So weird! Very much like how experimental most of this is without being annoying. Although the last three songs do almost cross the line. They're ok, but lumped together they make me want to skip a bit. I think it deserves a very high 3, say 3.7. I'll give it a 4, but with a tiny bit of reservation.

Not sure how I never heard this before. I know the name Mott the Hoople, but never heard anything except for that one single. But, I quite like it! Yes, Ian Hunter sounds like he soooo wants to be David Bowie, but I don't find it annoying as a lot of wannabes are. The music is all-around solid. This is a great record and I'll definitely listen again. Probably a 3.5, but it made me smile a couple of times, so I'll give it a 4.

When I first saw this, I was thinking "Yuck. Folk!" But I'm always willing to try stuff, so... I was about halfway through I got to thinking I'm going to start my review with "I like this well enough." But then, right about "Once I was," it becomes the most typical folky-folk crap that annoys me. Yikes! Why do so many folk singers make that weirdly affected "folk singer" tone/inflection? "Knight Errant" is almost a parody of folk to me. Horrible! The first half is pretty good. I bet if I listened a few more times, some of these would stick. Let's see. People make a lot of comments about Tim being Jeff Buckley's father, and yes, there is something to be said about genes. But, it's not like they lived together or he had any influence on Jeff's life. Probably a good thing that he got his musical education from his mom and stepdad otherwise he might have turned into this instead of the amazing rock-leaning guitarist and singer that he became. Enough about Jeff as I'm positive that Grace will be on this list. And if it's not, the original author must be destroyed! For Tim though, I gotta give this a 2. The decent songs at the top cannot counterweight the horror show that is the second half.

It's fine, solid throughout, but nothing that would grab me and pull me in. Listening to it a couple of times, I'd think oh, this is like 3 songs later. It's all too same-y. Very good for background music, studying or chilling, I guess. The drummer is doing some good work. I've read repeatedly that "Vapour Trail" was a big single, but I am sure I've never heard it. (And I was a pretty big fan of Shoegaze and Madchester and the other Brits at the time.) It's not bad, just not memorable. This deserves a 3 because it's consistent with decent musicianship. Nothing bad here, but does it call to me for repeat listenings? I doubt it.

Actually better than I expected. While I have always liked metal, I never quite got Iron Maiden. Never seemed to have any emotion in it and while I have heard a lot of folks worship their technical prowess, I couldn't really hear it. When "Prowler" started I thought 2 things: 1. I was right. This sucks. 2. This singer is worse than Bruce Dickenson. Then we get to "Remember Tomorrow" and he actually sings good. Are there multiple singers? Nope. It's just that when he leans in to be a rock star, his voice fails. The good one shows up again in "Strange World". "Phantom of the Opera" and "Transylvania" have what will come to be known as the Iron Maiden signature sound. Good songs. Would love to hear them redone with better production. (The Ghost version of "Phantom of the Opera" is really good.) While I like it more than I expected, I don't think it will make the rotation. Will put "Phantom of the Opera" and "Transylvania" on a playlist or two though. Let's call it a 3.

Blech Boys! This has never been my cup of tea. People go on and on about how the Beach Boys changed music and they're amazing. Lord knows I've tried too many times to dig in and hear the gems buried in their music, to no avail! If you've heard 1 minute of their music, you've heard it all! Over and over, high pitched harmonies, singing about the beach life and girls. Sorry, dude. I tried. I really did. But there is no there there. This is a 1!

Super interesting music. Horrible singer. I'd love this album in a karaoke version OR re-recorded with another singer. (Which makes "Blow Daddy-O" a winner here. Almost every song has cool bass lines, interesting guitar flairs, and/or interesting keyboard choices. Sometimes his voice is tolerable, but mostly he's yelling, kind of screechy, or leaning into sounding weird on purpose. Weird is good, trying hard to seem weirder plays badly. I'd really like to hear this again, but I don't know if I can abide his yowling. Want to give this a 4 for the music and a 1 for the vocal stylings. I'm going to be generous and give it a 3. I can see why some people would love it.

Yeah, I like it well enough. At first I thought it was some second-rate version of Human League or ABC or something. Turns out it kind of is, as 2 of the guys were in Human League. I think this might be better. It is a bit same-y throughout, but it's fairy high quality for this type of music. They've got some horns in there for variety. Pretty good. The bass player is doing some fine work throughout. Most notably on "Penthouse and Pavement" and "Soul Warfare". (In the latter, it starts out with a few minutes of fairly repetitive sound, but then they just say "Hey, bass guy... go for it!") While I am one of the rare(r) listeners that quite enjoys longer songs, this has some that are too long for no good reason. Extra time is good if you're going to take some twists and turns. Here, it's just doing the same things for a few too many minutes. I'll end this review in an analogous way, ending on a down. "We're Going To Live For A Very Long Time" is Far too repetitive. Sad that the album ends on this sour note. 3

First things first, I have always loved rock and metal, both have many unique styles contained within. One of the worst to me is the death/doom/black metal crap with a singer that can't sing, just yells and screams. They are usually processed far too much to sound like demons or whatever. So much that you can't understand 1 word in 10. And then somehow... this has become the frigging default mode for all metal ?? I tried listening to early Sepultura way back and was not impressed. I tried again today and can confidently say I am still not. Now, if they had a singer that sang? I would be pretty cool with this. It's got some cool music behind it. A little same-y throughout with the chugga chugga, but not annoying. But with this fella yowling and yelling throughout, it's just broken. I'll give it a 2 because the music pretty good. But i can guarantee I won't ever listen to this one again.

It's better than most of the Nick Cave I've heard. He usually sounds like he's trying to hard to have this weird, deep voice Here though, it's sounds like he's just singing, or reading, in his natural voice, which is deep enough. Now, the problem is that much of it just sounds like poetry read over soft music. It's Ok. But the actual songs are nice, often revelatory, and well done. If this was split up better, I'd like to listen to half this album sometime. But the way it is, I'm not sure I'd come back. I'll probably put this on once more in my life. (Probably on a day I'm feeling sad.) I'd say it's a 3.7 album, but since nothing relly annoyed me, let's give it a 4.